Letters to the Editor
-
Damn
We're not going to sit around and sing Kumbaya now are we?
(Actually, I like Kumbaya, but....sshhhh. Don't tell anyone.)
-
Limit posting to 1 per day
I think limiting postings to 1 per day per article would solve a lot of the problems of partisan fan and immature attacks, including anonymous postings. I don't mind people taking sides but at least be thoughtful instead of wanton trashings which cluttera the ability of everyone to read through. I particularly dislike the race card the supporters of Obama uses. I expect Afri-Americans to vote for Obama and feel a sense of pride in his candidacy, by all means extol his programs and visions, but trashing HRC for her comment on LBJ and MLK means she can't possibly win and any criticism whether justified or not on Obama will be intrepreted as racism. Bill Moyer dealt with that particular issue on his weekly commentary and I agree with him completely. Bill Clinton saw though that strategy of Barick Obama floating above as a new Martin Luther King (totally unjustified) while surrogates like his wife beat up on HRC as implied racism. So Bill Clinton decided to drag him down from the pedestal even if he draws criticism for not acting like an ex-president, and I don't blame him. Obama won in Iowa Caucus both white and women vote and everybody congratulated white america being race and gender blind, he lost in New Hampshire and suddenly Bradley effect or female guile and victimhood were blamed, he lost in Nevada and Latinos were blamed. No one in the media bother to note the thinness of Obama's resume and Iowa's caucus being undemocratic. If HRC wins the nomination expect more of those self proclaimed pregressive going to republicans just like they went to Clarence Thomas or OJ Simpson.
-
Oh Well, Another bot
God forbid anyone not be a Clinton staffer who actually likes Clinton. That would be TOO Much, TOO REAL. OOOOOHHH.
-
Dear editor
I dare you to make my last as a counter-point to Conason's self defense a starred, editor's choice. I don't attack Joe personally, I make valid points. I would be more convinced this website wasn't a complete sham if you elected to include that in your filtering device. Or are you too self-serving? Perhaps it's true that your claim is a projected one: perhaps it is you who is "unable to tolerate so much as a skeptical word."
-
cythera45
... you go girl (or boy, as the case may be)! I am (I think) in the same boat (ark?) as yourself, and similarly inclined towards John Boy because he seems to be the only one who realizes that most American workers haven't had a raise since the Divine Ronnie No-Brain's reign.
However, they shut off the TV early in my nursing home because they think it will disturb our sleep (I think they do it to save on electricity), so I may be mistaken about his position.
I do wish that he, or one of the others, could bring themselves to speak to the million or so deaths that our tax dollars have brought about (directly or indirectly) in Iraq - and what they plan to do to rectify the damage we have done there (including giving up any title to the country's only natural resource.
But I suppose it is not to be expected that such things should be discussed publicly in our Shining City On The Hill - might bum folks out.
Anyway, you say just what you like - I always do. Have a good weekend.
-
Tim Howe
I couldn't agree more. I have lost respect for those whose reaction to Hillary is filled with hate; I take strong exception to snide attacks about Obama's "lack"of experience. The things that worries me is that progressive bloggers are as bad as their right wing counterparts.
Committed activists are a curse on our politics. Too many bloggers sit back, throw out an incendiary comment and wait for a reaction: e.g. Andrew Sullivan and Matt Yglesias. One gets the picture that here are two men who sit at their desk, throw out a couple of comments designed to attract rabid responses and they sit above it all thinking that they have made a positive contribution to political discourse. Until these guy get their asses off chairs and go out campaign for Obama and face potential voters I have written them off as bloviators with an attitude. There are, simply put, too many of them around.
Hey: at least Bill Clinton is supporting his wife, and Michelle Obama is helping her husband. Can't say that for the haters and the racists of which there are too many.
And in all this John Edwards has been given short shrift.
-
xeroid47
Excellent post! Clear and concise and substantial.
Although, I think people come and post for the drama and to read other people's drama. While it might be more to the point and perhaps easier reading, it would be less satisfying to be limited and to have others limited to one post.
You know, most of the other "liberal" sites are now so moderated that to be able to post an opposing view (especially about Obama I might add) is near impossible. It says something I think about our blogosphere that free speech isn't all that free when opposing views are quashed either because it messes up the site or, more importantly, denies free speech. I'll wade through the drama, thank you very much. Even drama I can't stand for free speech.
-
Obama Supporters Have An Ugly Edge
They do. In the comments section of progressive blogs, they're like junior Limbaughs for Obama railing against "the devil" "the common scold" "the dyke" "the harpy" "the shrew." It's hurting their candidate way more than anything Bill Clinton has ever said or done.
Obama can do no wrong. They worship him like the wing-nuts worship Bush. And seeing blogs like Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo ruin their reputation over this big phony is sad.
-
Geez, Tortoro!
Talk about whoring for a star! Where's your dignity, man?
-
Serious contenders
I doubt you'll wade this far into the letters section, but I am surprised you wrote this column in the first place, anyway.
Kucinich, Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, those are not serious contenders, whatever their relative merits, platforms, or experiences. I'm not faulting you for snubbing them. But Salon, playing along with the rest of the media, in general wrote off John Edwards very, very early in this game.
Apparently he wasn't "sexy" enough. I'm not sure why--after all he has been noted as sexy in the literal sense; perhaps he lacks that female/minority angle, but he had 1. A lot of money 2. Prior experience as a running mate in 2004, 3. Experience to match either of Clinton/Obama, 4. Strong support in the polls, 5. A presidential temperament and demeanor, (cf. Kucinich, or even Howard Dean, for that matter), 6. A well-developed, early-released, and sophisticated platform that is more progressive than either of Clinton's or Obama's, and 7. Strong support in the polls.
Now, barring a miracle in Florida, you and the rest of the Salon staff can sit back and say he is no longer a "serious" candidate (a nicely self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the media as a whole), but he has gotten the short stick. Nice work, Salon.
Unlike the Clinton/Obama groupies, I don't fault you personally for touting any candidate or much less any unfair criticism. I think you are entitled to the opinions you have voiced, and I admire you for taking the time to back them up.
Rebecca Traister, on the other hand, posted a disgusting smear blog with a photograph of Edwards next to an orc, for an innocuous remark he in response to a question about Clinton, that wasn't even really about her--talk about overreaction! SHE is the one who should be writing a column to explain herself. I don't think she will, because I don't think she can, and it doesn't look like she has any intention of apologizing.