Letters to the Editor
-
@mountain girl
Mountain Girl,
I think your wrong.
Though we all might agree that we should "save our hatred for the Republicans" and that Clinton is not "evil" and Obama is "not being picked on" that's not the issue with the letters for this article.
The issue is Joe Conason is being completely one sided (bordering on hypocrisy), and being shown up by a previous article by Glenn Greenwald (which numerous other have pointed out). I wont remake points already made in letters but people aren't screaming that Clinton is evil ... they're screaming Joe Conason might be.
-
@jebldmm
Not being nearly that wealthy, I happily concede the point.
However, aren't the tax returns in question the ones filed last year? Meaning 2006? Thanks to the mutal-noise-machine I might have misheard. But I thought that was the point - Senator Obama released his at the start of his campaign, and Senator Clinton has not yet released hers for the same time period.
I may be utterly wrong. But if he released his last year, I can't imagine that he'd be demanding her release of this year's in reciprocity. The tax year wasn't even over, so he couldn't have released the 2007 returns.
-
AKA???
Did you just become an Obama supporter today? Or was that tongue-in-cheek?
-
Tom Hayden vs Conason for Clinton
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/07/7539/
Doesn't it seem odd that all the sharp knives have come together in a critical mass just this week to discredit Obama and give hillary a free ride to boost her sagging campaign? Started with the "shame on you Obama" for NAFTA and plaigerism to the negative attack ads, to her blatant fawning over McCain. That alone should turn most Democrats off.
-
Now chhabili, don't be disingenuous. We all know that in many ways McCain is better qualified to be president.
The real and important question is has he released his tax returns. Do you know?
McCain is more qualified to be president by virtue of his lengthy political experience. He is more qualified than both Clinton and Obama, both on paper and by virtue of the very favorable press he receives. Well, actually it is true that Obama has almost enjoyed a press carnival held just for him, but they will get to him later. McCain enjoys many years of favorable press coverage.
Go to someplace like TPM and look at the polls there. McCain is beating both Clinton and Obama in matchups in most polls and in most states -- especially swing states.
I may have become an Obama supporter but I still have some respect for the truth.
-
sigh
I feel the need to weigh in here just to balance out all the hysteria toward Conason's article. These are all valid points that have been made elsewhere in the media and he did a good and fair job of pulling them all together.
I have read in the past that Obama has not been demanding Clinton's tax returns because 1)she is not legally obligated to reveal them at this time and 2)he knows it could open him up to similar demands about his financial dealings. His campaign advisors, in an effort to "go negative", are forcing him on this issue, but I don't think he really wants to go there.
From what I've seen, the so-called "attacks" by the Clinton campaign are basically dramatized arguments implying that she is more qualifed than Obama. They provoke questions that many voters think are valid. Obama needs to focus on these issues and respond to them effectively. I think he can continue to make a sound case for himself and I'm sorry all his foaming at the mouth supporters are demanding he go into attack mode. It weakens his stance and leaves him vulnerable to people thinking "aha, he can't convince us that he's better qualified so he's distracting us with this finger pointing stuff".
-
@David Blixt
I believe his point IS about 2006. The extension for filing for 2006 was October 16th, 2007. That wasn't too long ago. And, that doesn't take into account the fact that anyone who filed then has three years to file amended returns. It isn't unusual for people to do it. There's nothing criminal about it, but it sounds criminal to many people.
I got my K-1 from the accountant that morning and it STILL wasn't right, I just barely caught him to get him to get it fixed, and you know what the IRS told me when I thought I wasn't going to have the right numbers? File anyway, and then send us an amended return. You are filing in good faith.
I work for a very small company. They barely got their books done in time for me to file my taxes in time for the extension. Guess what. Last year, GM basically re-did their accounting for the last 5 years. I have no idea what that did to their investors and their tax returns. Ugh. It is really not that unusual for people who have investment income to file amended returns. So, even if they file, they may, indeed, not be 'done' yet, they could be amending them. What's worse, release once, with the amended, correct returns, or releasing twice?
-
A note from Hillary: Stop with the hinting, Joe!
Joe,
Quick note: Saw your slime piece on Obama in Salon, great stuff. :) You learned a lot studying the vast right wing conspiracy, lol.
No need to hint on the Africa junket. I'm sure Esquire or some other pos will be sending you on another little reporting trip with Bill when this is all over. Ever since he got his copy of SI he's been talking Virgin Islands, whatya think?
Love,
Hil
PS SNL keeps bugging me on the scripts for the new sketches, you don't always have to wait until the last minute, okey dokely?
-
melthough
AKA is now trying out to be an Obama satirist and very badly at that. Here is a post that says it all:
@AKA SMith
You're really, really terrible at being sarcastic. I'm not saying this because you're a Hillary supporter. Notorious W.E.S - he's good at it, and actually funny. You - are just not. I was literally cringing in embarrassment for you, reading your posts.
-- a_ignatius
-
Why are so many of you disappointed in Joe C?
For those of you who express disappointment in Joe, you might want to go back through his last 4 months (or so) of "political" writing.
The innuendo is not new. The "I'm just trying to help" cover for innuendo is not new. The "he's going to have to answer to smears I don't agree with" and then repeating the falsehood in full is not new. The scouting for problems with Obama (did he really travel as much as he said as he did?) is not new.
I, like many of you, share a disappointment in Joe C., but my dismay began some months ago. He's clearly a Clinton supporter (as is Joan Walsh), which is fine. But I have never found Walsh to be...slimy (ah! there's the word) as this Joe C that so many people don't see to recognize.
For those of you who think he is "better than this," maybe he isn't.
Too bad.