Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Contrary to what many readers think, I am not endorsing Clinton or Obama for president -- and have spared neither candidate my criticism.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • On the ground here in Anderson, South Carolina... This is thrilling..White Media as usual playing the race card here..

    Black Voters are out in full force despite the MSM coverage and bloggers whose racial shorthand mantra today is 2 black votes equal one white vote..

    History will be made today in SC..

    Obama in a landslide...

    After the polls close I will provide details on my impression of white voters here in the south a state which flys the confederate flag on the grounds of it's capitol...

    Making a difference..

  • Democratic idiocy

    What difference does it make if Obama wins SC? He can't carry the state in the general election, and neither could Hillary. Only Edwards would have a chance, but the media has buried him.

  • cynthera 45: Loser's laments already..lol,lol,lol

    Edwards empty suit not deserving of any coverage...

  • Obama's Free Pass

    Obama's past drug abuse should be the subject of an open debate. Let's stop throwing the penalty flag everytime someone wonders how his history of cocaine abuse defines who he is today and start talking about it. It matters. Right now he is just an empty suit who needs to stop shouting "racism" every time he hears some criticism. How about some answers instead. How about his pointing to something that has actually "changed" due to his involvement in it.

    Then, when we finally see through Obama and Hillary and all the windbags on the Republican side we can, hopefully, take a look at Mike Bloomberg - a guy who can talk about change with some authority and some authenticity. Look around. Can we afford to, again, offer the presidency as a trophy to some egomaniac willing to risk the world in order to achieve some kind of grandiose self validation?

  • A Democratic President, a must.

    Mr. Conason, You seem to have bumped into those supporters of Senator Obama who take umbrage at not only criticism of his policies, but also, any reasonable inferences or interpreations of seemingly deliberately ambiguous campaign statements. As I read the NYT editorial page endorsement of Mrs. Clinton, and, particularly, those comments directed at Senator Obama, my first reaction was-- oh, boy, the intemperate letters they are going to get. So, do not feel like the lone ranger, just peruse any of the blogs and threads. As a Democrat who feels it is imperative to elect a Democratic president, I will let the primary process determine the best, and best-tested candidate and I will be ready to vote for that candidate. I wonder, sometimes, if some of these writers who claim to be Obama supporters, but will not vote for any other Democratic nominee, are really Republicans masquerading as Democrats or Independents without any core principles. In any event, democratic values do not run very deep in their veins, especially when they state that if not Obama, then McCain/Huckabee, candidates of diametrically opposite views from Senator Obama and the other Democratic contenders. Moreover, they seem to forget that a Republican president would bring with him the Republican party along with its apparatchiks and assorted misfits.

  • Breaching the Silence

    My apologies to you, Joe.

    I apologize for my silence, for not letting you know you have supporters who have trusted your abilities, read your columns and books with great care, and were blessed with your wit and enlightened with your perspective and factual attentiveness.

    Silence, unfortunately, is received too often as sanction, as approval with the boisterous and obstreperous. Not too many years ago, Nixon leveraged the silence of the majority – though that was a dubious if not ironic assumption. There is a certain safety in the refuge of silence; it is safer to be camouflaged by its obscurity. It is with reluctance that we who remain on the sidelines through most of the game of life arise through rage, outrage, or simple necessity to engage, to voice what burdens our hearts, minds, and oppress our souls. But it is seldom sustained, an aberration from our lives of quiet desperation, a loud cheer that might find kindred. You on the other hand remain engaged.

    Those who have remained silent have a voice through you, Joe. We depend upon you to write what we cannot, and say it so others might also awaken from the dulling monotony of homogenized journalists. We look to your words, your phrasing, and most of all to your accuracy and depth. Why? if only because the choices of wells from which to drink deep are fewer. Your column is akin to satellite television: there are hundreds of choices but few if any worth our time.

    Assessments of your column finding them one-sided are correct: they fall on the side of equity. That is, for me, one of their greatest attractions. Consistently, your writings present a topic with fairness, and not to seek balance but even handedness, making concessions and admissions on both sides of the ledger, positioning an argument in the presence of the contrary, refuting with respect rather than disdain, allowing the facts to separate the chafe. This, in part, sets your writings apart from the many others.

    Beyond the recent din of those who disagree are those who have a more global understanding of your work, of your spot-on insight, of your sense of right. We have read your work faithfully and accepted it not because it reaffirmed our own belief – we are not mere sycophants – but often because your writing challenged it, held our belief up to the light and determined its worthiness. You respected us, trusting us to use our intellect and common sense, reminding us to confront that which appears as factual with reason as well as passion. You have served and continue to serve your readership well and we have unfortunately not held up our end, at least as is evidenced in our silence.

    Writing is a solitary and -- in some respects -- lonely undertaking. Writing as you have forges the bond between us, writer and reader, that the unilateral nature of writing, one to an invisible and obscure audience, is the extension of a friendly handshake, a welcoming home of the prodigal along with the familiar, it is a form of love and trust.

    So trust there are many who remain silent who love what you are writing, Joe.

  • JOE, YOUR OPINION AFFECTS THE REST OF THE WORLD

    I must declare I am a foreigner, an Australian. For me to comment on American politics is really against my principle of non-interference in the affairs of other sovereign nations. However, whatever happens in USA affects the rest of the world. Whatever opinions columnists bring to bear on the very important presidential election, therefore, will affect the rest of the world. So, Joe, your position is important to us.

    Clinton is the ONLY candidate that is worthy of being an American president, which is in fact a president of the world. Yes, like all human beings, CLINTON IS NOT PERFECT. But she is the ONLY president who understands the issues, has the knowledge and experience, and can command respect from the rest of the world to undo the damage in the last 8 years FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY OF a new presidency. She is the ONLY Democratic candidate who can STAND THE HEAT of the Republican attack machine. And that's why the Republicans are favouring Obama. He will be minced meat. And all the great qualities of Obama will count for nought. The rest of the world cannot afford another neo-con Republican president.

    For example, the new manifesto of the NATO commanders, no doubt under American/Cheney/neo-con direction, says that NATO should use nuclear weapons against any state that has the potential to develop/use nuclear weapons. It's the same mad logic that says 'we must destroy the village in order to save it'. So your military-industrial complex never learns from the Vietnam experience. But the NATO manifesto is a recipe for human extinction.

    I have confidence that, if Hilary is elected, she will be much like Bill in her foreign relations - more reasonable, logical, and humane. That is, much better for us, the rest of the world. The world was a much better place when Bill Clinton was president, regardless of his inconsequential personal fault.

    So, Joe, DO NOT APOLOGISE for your views - unless salon.com becomes a free-speech zone for Obama supporters only. Help elect Clinton, and the world will be very grateful to Americans.