- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Ms Walsh stated: "Plus it was overly angry and defensive, when his early remarks were feisty but apologetic and graceful."
I disagree. I found his initial response disingenuous and (again) condescending rather than "apologetic and graceful". He said that he had stated those bitter small town folks "VOTED on gun issues ... " etc.
That is NOT what he said in the original address in San Francisco. He said "they cling to guns, religion, ...” not that they vote on those issues. There is a real difference in those two statements, and, as he has so eloquently told us, they are not "just words". The words this well educated, "words-trained" legal mind chooses mean what they mean, not what he might WISH they mean when disclaiming them later on.
