Letters to the Editor
-
anon
"What I"m arguing with is the hard left's presentation that Saddam was somehow benign and the left's too often stance of being antiwar for the sake of being antiwar"
this is a very old argument ... and my answer is, and has always been that yes Saddam was a corrupt evil dictator, but there are plenty of those throughout the globe ... gosh, in fact we prop up many of those. So why Saddam? Why a trillion dollars to get this guy? This was not anti-war for the purpose of being anti-war. This was anti-war because this was the stupidest, most ignorantly transparent invasion that this country has ever taken (and believe me, this is not "after the fact" - I argued with my father over this when GW first started raising the spector of WMD). An uplifting end to the story, Dad, a former raving repub is now for Obama.
-
Wrong.
re: but Clinton looks like the bring-out-the-vote candidate for Republicans.
Wrong. Americans remember them as the Administration of a great economy and peace and prosperity. What the Republicans got some people to hate them about was painting them as social liberals.
But now Obama has taken those titles and that actually helps Mrs. Clinton to either get the votes of red-staters or at least prevents the GOP from painting her as the Lenisit babykilling socialist that Obama will surely now be painted as if he gets the nomination.
-
Another Anonymous
My name isn't "Xanadu," by the way...
Anon: "What I"m arguing with is the hard left's presentation that Saddam was somehow benign and the left's too often stance of being antiwar for the sake of being antiwar."
Where are you getting this? Nobody on the left has EVER said Saddam was benign. If you're going to claim that, then please, name some names, quote some quotes. Nobody in the anti-war movement, or on the anti-war wing of government, has suggested Saddam didn't pose a huge foreign-policy problem. They only said the war should be a last resort. "Antiwar for the sake of being antiwar" has little to do with it. Maybe you're talking about some random college-student peace protesters, but not anybody of any stature.
Anon: "And we had no "containment policy". I think you're confusing things with the cold war with the USSR."
Uh, no. You might want to have a talk with Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright.
-
I am so tired of "gender politics"....
....but not nearly so tired as my wife, who has utter contempt for anyone supporting Clinton on the mere basis of gender.
Fine. Vote for her "because she's a woman". If there are enough shallow ninnies like you out there to give Clinton the nomination, expect one of two results:
(a) say hello to President McCain
(b) get used to feeling used and betrayed. The people you're empowering have no real concern for "women's issues" or any other issue beyond their own access to power. Look at the campaign they've waged. What on earth is there to be "undecided" about?
-
Dear Editors,
I think it’s a bit sad that the real dialog about policy and issues is being hashed out in the letter’s section and not in the editorials themselves. It’s been fun to watch folks throw in their two bits about why they think their pick is better, but having self-indulgent fluff—like this article—as a catalyst to this kind of discussion is annoying.
I don’t think that I am alone in wanting to see Salon spend less time exploring gender,identity, race, polls and the roll of the press and pundits, and instead see some real substantial reporting on the issues at hand. Let’s see some in-depth analysis of the candidate’s health care plans; their chance of getting covered and who will benefit from them. Let’s look at what Clinton and Obama mean for Iraq. Let’s talk about who would have a better chance of wooing a divisive congress.
For goodness sakes let’s treat them like leaders and policy makers; not like contestants on American Idol!
-
well
at least ann coulter is willing to get out the vote for Clinton
-
It's your fault John Edwards is out--feel guilty about that!
You blame John Edwards? Are you fucking kidding me?
Salon has so gone downhill. The Salon of yore (pre-Joan Walsh) would have bucked the blackout of Edwards and kept him and his truly progressive message out in front. And that could well have forced other media idiots to take and maintain notice.
But you didn't.
You have much to feel guilty about, Rebecca AND Joan.
-
@SocandTwig
this is a very old argument ... and my answer is, and has always been that yes Saddam was a corrupt evil dictator, but there are plenty of those throughout the globe ... gosh, in fact we prop up many of those.
True, the way of the world is nations often have to choose among two bloody dictators in many parts of the world. As to why Iraq it's because whatever we were sold on television the war was about it was really about 1) Saudi's were funding most of the worlds terrorism and we needed to try to reduce our reliance on them and 2) the Saudi's are running out of oil anyway and 3) Iraq has avast reservers of cheap light crude which is much cheaper to refine.
It all would have been pretty good if the Bush admin were competent. (which is kinda like saying it would be good if night was day or something along those lines).
Like I said, reality is our economy runs on cheap oil. At 100 dollars a barrel it stops. We see that. Next question , who do you trust to innovate green and newer technologies that are high-tech based and will reduce our reliance on foreign oil AND create good paying jobs.
Hillary, or John McCain?
-
Trump
Human being trumps gender.
The planet's a mess full of hate and we need to be more human, now. More human than male or female, Democrat or Republican.
'Race' is disproven.
Listen to the young.
If I can't feel perfectly confident about the outcome, it's time for some courage. My courage is for the young. I will vote for the candidate whom I can see thinking, not just calculating. I will vote because we owe it to them. I owe it to them to stand with them.
My generation has bollixed it up but good. They deserve a torch passed with a steady hand. They deserve our display of confidence in them and excitement for their future.
At their age, I took one look at Nixon's face and knew he could not be trusted. I take one look at Clinton, and I don't trust her. I take one look at Obama, and I see someone I trust enough to take this risk.