Letters to the Editor
-
@ mountain girl (and David Blixt, who co-signs) ...
... who whines, "Obama is being picked on and no matter what she says or does, Clinton is evil," you do a charming, if ultimately flat, impersonation of a thoughtful and mature reader. Kudos!
I wish, though, that you had managed to read some of the letters (and to follow a link or two) before launching into your Kabuki-theater-like reply to Mr. Canason's post. Because, in fact, and despite your claim that Senator Obama "needs to clarify just what went on," the Rezko "scandal" has been thoroughly investigated ad nauseum, and has been thoroughly debunked on the pages of this very site by one of the most thoughful public commentators that I have had the pleasure of reading.
Salon readers have every right to demand that campaign propoganda not be presented to them hiding under the cloak of journalism, and especially not when posted by the author of a book titled, Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth. Mr. Conason believes that there are "questions"? Well, his obligation to his readers, his editors, and his profession are to go out and find the answers to said questions and to report them. Simply repeating the ominous "questions" line in hushed tones does his readers a grave disservices.
But, what is even more unfortunate than his shilling is your insistence that we give him a pass on his professional incompetence because, well, "everyone's been just so mean to poor Hillary," and besides that we all need to "grow up" and be as reasonable, apparently, as you are. That's nothing more than a passive-aggressive schoolyard tactic, the whispering campaign and misdirection that a bullying schoolgirl employs to deflect and confuse.
It was played in the tenth grade, precious. It's even less attractive today.
Mr. Conason, and by extention Salon, are engaging in tactics hardly worthy of Pravda. Readers are right to be outraged, and the surest way for the editors to demonstrate their commitment to their fourth estate role in providing the necessary and relevant information that makes for the informed citizenry that a democracry demands is to simply fire Mr. Conason.
And to give Glenn Greenwald a hefty raise.
-
@methough - charges answered in Chicago?
You are very wrong that Obama has been forthcoming about Rezko on his home turf. This is an excerpt from an editorial in yesterday's Chicago Tribune:
"Obama's greatest discomfort is self-inflicted. He's never submitted to a full vetting of his ties to
indicted Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. This page repeatedly has urged him to do so, to no
avail. That failure to fully engage the Rezko connection left Obama telling reporters Monday in
Texas that he'd happily answer questions about Rezko -- even as he scooted off without
answering many of those questions.
Rezko's trial now is the background music to Obama's campaign. And the volume surely will
increase before it fades. About that vetting, Senator: Better late than never."
-
So, Joe. . .
You've not been formally indicted for wifebeating, and no one suspects you of any criminal activity, but dont you think there are some . . . . questions that you need to answer about your wifebeating?
[/sarcasm]
-
@ melthough
It is pointless anymore to be anything but an Obama supporter. Hillary Clinton is both more honest and better qualified, but what can one do? After I read one of Hutman's pieces, I glanced away from my computer monitor and suddenly an image of Obama appeared complete with an areolar light emanating from his head. I feel I have finally experienced the Big O!
Many Obama supporters say that Hillary should just bow out with grace (I imagine a diminutive Shirley Temple here at the end or The Good Ship Lollipop!) and accept the inevitable but rather green shoot birth of the new politics. Why should I lag behind?
-
Ah, Jabari...
If you read my first post, you might find less to object to. My point in saying Senator Obama should sit down with reporters is not because there is even a whiff of bad dealings on his part, but rather to end Senator Clinton's game. Why not let her call the tune? She's about to lose.
My agreement with Mountain Girl was very much along the lines of action. Because as Senator Clinton has learned all too well, just because there is no story doesn't mean you can't jump up and down and repeat it until it's true.
In the court of public opinion, and journalists like Mr. Conason who make charges credible by repeating them while at the same moment making a caveat to balance, appearance is everything. Senator Clinton played on the appearance of impropriety with the NAFTA-Canada non-story. She's playing on it here. Senator Obama, whom I support, should do what the Clintons were never quite able to do - step up and answer any questions, on the record, and be done.
What is ultimately disappointing is that both Mr. Conason and Senator Clinton are engaging in behavior they have decried.
-
I really messed up the html on that one. Here's a correction:
It is pointless anymore to be anything but an Obama supporter. Hillary Clinton is both more honest and better qualified, but what can one do? After I read one of Hutman's pieces, I glanced away from my computer monitor and suddenly an image of Obama appeared complete with an areolar light emanating from his head. I feel I have finally experienced the Big O!
Many Obama supporters say that Hillary should just bow out with grace (I imagine a diminutive Shirley Temple here at the end of The Good Ship Lollipop!) and accept the inevitable but rather green shoot birth of the new politics. Why should I lag behind?
-
@David Blixt
Believe me, you don't have to be rich to get tangled up in tax extensions, just economically diverse or involved in non-401k type investments. I've been hearing that we were talking about 2007 tax returns, but that may be wrong. I really don't know. Regardless, I can understand why Clinton might have some issues with releasing them. Not ethical issus, just practical ones.
-
@AKA Smith
I ask, and without a mote of sarcasm, please tell me - what are Senator Clinton's qualifications that raise her in your opinion above Senator Obama?
What in her resume, which until 2001 did not include any kind of elected office or official accountability to an electorate, makes her more qualified? Because every time she repeats "35 years of experience" I cringe. Not because I think it injures Senator Obama. I'm imagining it in the Fall, against Senator McCain.
So please, in all seriousness, lay out the salient points of her resume, as you see it. I'd really like to know.