Letters to the Editor
-
Rumours
So does this mean Joan that you will stop parroting unsubstantiated rumours? Or are we to expect more of the same?
-
Bravo!
I hope this will calm down the whiners in other threads who keep asking why you don't admit that Edwards denied the New York Magazine report.
Also, I hope people realize that just because Edwards denies it, doesn't mean there isn't a grain of truth to it. Even if it is true, she obviously didn't want it widely known, or it would have been. So a denial means little...except that she's not so mad at Obama that she'd sink her husband's chances of being part of an Obama administration.
-
Maybe they remember it differently
Obama remembers it being acrimonious and she doesn't. Obama is so measured and steady, he might have blown up at her and nobody could tell.
-
Can he cure cancer?
You know, palm to the head, smack, You are HEALED !!!
-
YES (updated prediction: Joan is BACK)
I think this was Joan's way of saying she is done playing the ridiculous game of trying to sound balanced by scooping the mainstream sewage ("doubts") on whoever the front runner may be in the Democratic Primary.
Unfortunately this wonderful new Joan-Direction also signals the retraction of my prediction that tomorrow we would see her first critical examination of the Clinton machine. I guess I'm happy to see that Joan will no longer be doing the
Obama said some really inspirational things, but I don't know, something tells me that something's just not right about him. Maybe when we learn more about his preacher, these doubts will go away
Those days are gone! It didn't fit Joan and I'm glad she's back to her big brain again. She doesn't need to endorse Obama. She just needs to use her noodles to dig around whatever mythologies the mainstream press and McMackites will be brandishing (not sure if that word is real or, if so, being used correctly)in the weeks to come. I was looking forward to Joan's essay on Clinton's shadow (if for no other reason than to earn an incredible amount of street cred in this cyberhood)but it will be a relief to see her back in her true form and providing solid analysis for us to get our brains moving.
Thanks, Joan!!!!
p.s. Joan if you want to send me the essay-that-wasn't, you can reach me at imeanitcommatotally@yahoo.com
-
Amen
Here's hoping other Democratic surrogates follow Edwards' lead and direct their formidable political firepower at McCain instead of at the two remaining Democrats fighting for the nomination.
And a hearty 'Amen' to that.
-
This shows some class, Joan
I didn't like the original article when I read it, but posting such a forthcoming and uncompromising update is very classy.
Nice job.
Shoutout to Phoenix Woman
-
Really?
"Here's hoping other Democratic surrogates follow Edwards' lead and direct their formidable political firepower at McCain instead of at the two remaining Democrats fighting for the nomination."
Why? If the party had a nominee, the candidate and the party could focus on McCain rather than the the contest between the Dems. Is the idea of the race continuing so unambiguously positive as to hope that the actions that might help to end it don't take place?
I am confused, but then again Joan's "logic" has befuddled me for a while so why should this post be any different?
-
go team Edwintonbom!
today a lovely day for Democrats...
Elizabeth Edwards is making the round on shows sending up McCain's health plans (love it!)while claiming both Clinton and Obama were charming when they visited.
Clinton has a new 3 am ad, telling McCain the economy is calling. (love it!)
Obama has shown that while he is a truly terrible bowler(!), he is making inroads in reaching out to working class voters in Pennsylvania....
Each one of these candidates had and has suffered from noticable weaknesses as candidates individually, but in tandem, with each of their strengths put first and a united front, this election season is looking better and better.
P.S. Joan, Maureen Dowd agrees with you about Clinton helping to shape Obama into a better candidate...which, since he seems likely at this point to be the Democratic nominee (Slate has already posted a Clinton campaign Death Watch), looks like it will benefit us all regardless of where we have fallen on the great clinton/obama divide of '08.
Now, for the convention...
-
I don't know where Liz stands on Obama
She may not yet have been struck by the arrow of Cupid
But I'm sure that the wife of John Edwards isn't totally
stupid.
-
That sounded like a non-denial denial
I find the original story more believable.
-
kudos
Kudos for the update, Joan.
I'm sure the few Clinton supporters who gloated over the original report will just as graciously amend their statements ...
-
Very Cool, Joan.
I appreciate your retracting the story, and agree with Ken Erforth that you did it in a classy way.
-
Joan Walsh
Joan Walsh is not getting any points from me on this retraction and here is way.
First, she lifts passages out of a NY Times article to push her case against Obama. Not good journalism or reporting here. Transferring information from source to personal blog.
Then she reads the post by Phoenix Woman, another secondary source for her information, and offers a retraction with a refrain - "Here's hoping other Democratic surrogates follow Edwards' lead and direct their formidable political firepower at McCain instead of at the two remaining Democrats fighting for the nomination."
Joan needs to follow her own advice. She has unquestionably directed her political firepower against Obama time and again over the silliest of pretenses. Would she have even questioned the dirty tactics of the Clinton campaign as well as her monumental lies, Joan would have found a place in the galaxy of "fair and balanced" journalism. Instead, she will forever be damned for sourcing her critiques from FOX, that paragon of fair and balanced news.
-
And from all the Obama supporters who postively SHREDDED the Edwardses the other day....
When Joan cited the other article, I hear...
crickets
-
Thanks, Joan
I know you've been taking a lot of heat lately for signs of obvious Clinton bias; however, I think this post was, I hate to say it because the words have been rendered meaningless, "Fair and Balanced."
To the people still looking to ratchet up a fight, please let me say this: last night, on David Letterman, I watched and listened as John McCain said that he wasn't surprised that the Republicans lost so badly in 2006 because "spending had gotten out of control." He then went on to dementedly cite research on bear DNA or something like that as a prime example.
Yes, John, wasteful spending on research about bear DNA was what 2006 was all about. Iraq? Not even on the list. Bear DNA. Holy Christ, that McCain, at this point, should even be on the same political landscape with Hillary or Obama is bad enough. The idea that he has even a remote chance of winning is depressing enough. We should all be set to steamroll him and all the other neocon dinosaurs into the mud and ooze, upon which we can start building the world we will need if we are to survive the next 50 years. Yet here we sit trading insults, and lowering our discussions into maddening trivia.
PLEASE! Let's stop all this bicker fighting! Eyes on the prize, people! And that prize will not be won by tearing down people who are basically in agreement with us on so many issues.
Thank you.