Letters to the Editor
-
@ weeping for brunnhilde
Oh I'm to blame for some of the acrimony myself. I tried to be a little more high-minded, but all I got was dirt kicked in my face and no answers to my questions. I guess I'm just weak, and I started to show my outrage.
But hats off to you for your great posts. Very thoughtful -- and appreciate your efforts to raise the bar. I wish you luck in that endeavor; you may need it.
-
Every Blogger needs to repeat this point over and over
Something nasty is brewing, and that is the idea that if your gal/guy doesn't win you will vote for McCain. I don't believe those polls either, and mark them as results of a heated battle that will cool by november, but I still think it might be important to hammer home the point that no matter how much you dislike Hillary or Obama, its important not to be a petulant child about it. The election is too important and another Republican Pres would be a disaster. Please Bloggers, save people from themselves and call them on thier immaturity for responding that way to polls.
-
Brunhilde
I see WES as playing an aging James Dean or Brando outsider role with his iconic drive by postings (which I find quite funny and astute at times). If you start agreeing with him, he will think he is doing something wrong.
-
@ Mike Pace (my gnilleps)
First I'd need to know if you are serious in asking:
"Why should we trust your opinions if you can't spell the frontrunner's name correctly?"
Because you could have just as easily asked about me. But you might be joking and when somebody comes out of the gate as you did, I like to think they have my type of humor.
It's no big deal but I have a lot of problems with my brain and fingers. I'm dyslexic and I have swollen hands; it's not a good combination when you are trying to rattle off posts online (at work). I'm well awaer of the credibility I lose by making simple spelling errors. But you might not be really all that mad at me. And you probably know uneducated people who have very intelligent opinions concerning politics. But just in case you really are asking:
I think you should only agree with me to the dergee that you find aspects of what I mihgt have to say credible (the ideas not the spelling!)...
-
Wrecking Paris
Hitler proposed a scorched-earth policy as the Nazis were retreating from France so that the opposition would be deprived of any useful materiels. He didn't care about the French and whether they might starve to death in the face of such a strategy. He didn't care, either, about the beauty and history of France and the wonders of Paris. He only wanted to make the point that either the Nazis ruled or the world could bloody well end as far as he was concerned. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed and the generals didn't torch the city.
I hesitate to compare Hillary with him but every scorched earth policy has something in common -- it wrecks the place and neutralizes any value that might come of the victory. Whatever benefit that the country could gather from not having McCain as President is lost if Hillary destroys the Democratic Party in her quest for the nomination. When the country gets more and more enmeshed in Iraq, when the battle spreads to Iran, when the economy goes down the tubes, when more people lose their jobs and their insurance, when the morale of the nation deteriorates, she can be blamed for it and, God forbid it happens, she should be.
She needs to step aside. She needs to be part of a team as Senate Majority leader working with Obama, contributing her ideas and energy to his Presidency and making sure that the country thrives -- or at least gets its balance back and stops being the werewolf on speed that we are now.
-
@ R-bL
Cheers. And here, take a handkerchief from me and brush off the dirt.
The last thing we (or at least I) want is to become like Clinton, so victimized by outlandish and vicious attacks that over the years, she's become expert at same.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Say no to siege mentality!
(Ok, stop me before I turn into a slogan machine.)
-
I Accept
The funny, astute, asshole nomination.....I'd like to thank my parents and my.....
-
@ midnight
Well said.
There's a film about that, isn't there?: "Is Paris Burning?"
-
@ midnight
Well said.
There's a film about that, isn't there?: "Is Paris Burning?"
-
I Hate It When I Agree With Joan
Although I'm sure her motives are despicable and pathetic - still praying Her Clintoness can steal the nomination.
Nevertheless, the more people debunking the false alarms of the fainting virgins who have never seen a real primary, the better.
-
WES: That's why we love you, baby!
And it takes an artiste to maintain your concise posting style.
-
Ms. Walsh, here's one Obama supporter who doesn't believe you're running a pro-Clinton propaganda mill
However, I understand those who are dismayed by your echoing of Karl Rove's talking points on the long, rancorous Democratic primary being "good for Democrats" despite every indication that it is killing us.
To separate yourself from this perception, I wonder if you'd consider it worthy of Salon to explore some of the rather dismaying connections that keep cropping up between the Clinton campaign and the right-wing echo chamber (the very outlets that Hillary herself dubbed the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy")?
This notion arose in certain circles when Bill Clinton found himself a welcome guest on Rush Limbaugh's show, encouraging his dittoheads to corrupt our nominating process. While many of us found this rather distasteful, I think we understood how Bill could find himself among certain strange bedfellows, and still assert that it was for a progressive cause. Like many of his statements that some considered to be racially-tinged, it approached the line, but didn't quite cross it. At least as I saw it.
Similarly, Hillary's comments that suggested to many that she'd prefer a McCain presidency to an Obama one. Again, one must read between the lines a bit, but these became a bit more concerning given how easily they could be employed against the likely nominee by the GOP attack machine.
But things have taken a much more dismaying turn of late. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Hillary chose the forum of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - the right-wing rag owned by Richard Mellon Scaife - to attempt to drum more life into the Rev. Wright controversy. Why would Hillary even sit down with this man, much less for purposes that many of us see as beneath a progressive candidate?
This is an intelligent crowd, and it's probably unnecessary to remind any of you that Scaife is the very face of the "vast right-wing conspiracy", he of the Arkansas Project and The American Spectator, the very publication that so smeared Anita Hill and brought us "Troopergate" and Whitewater and endless theorizing on the "murder" of Vince Foster, and which seemed to exist for no other purpose than to destroy a Democratic presidency.
And, today, the Clinton Campaign is circulating an article from that very same publication, The American Spectator, this time alleging that former Air Force Chief Merrill McPeak, an Obama advisor, is a drunk and an anti-semite. She appears to be employing the same right-wing culprits and utilizing the same techniques that nearly succeeded in bringing down her husband's presidency. Why?
Suddenly, that long ago story in another right-wing rag, the Washington Times, that brought the "madrassa smear" email into the mainstream media and attributed it to the Clinton campaign seems to gain a small bit of currency. And, as well, Drudge's claim that it was the Clinton campaign that circulated the "Obama in Somali garb" photo gains some legitimacy.
Why is the Clinton Campaign using the right-wing echo chamber - indeed the very same conspiracy-minded paranoiacs that were once the bêtes noires of the Democratic party - to inflict damage on her Democratic counterpart?
What exactly is going on here?