- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Hillary, and you, Joan, and some of your media colleagues seem to be only people who are interested in perpetuating this absurd "Bittergate."
Do you not get what he was saying, or understand it? Seriously? If not, then you shouldn't be at the helm of a liberal newsmagazine covering the political primary.
Clinton -- and YOU, clearly -- have made a cynical, partisan, and frankly, quite ugly choice to exploit his words -- words whose underlying sentiment was NOT elitist, and in fact, showed an astute UNDERSTANDING of the situation. Meanwhile, your golden girl goes around drinking boilermakers, yapping about lovin' herself some guns, and trying to pretend that when she wasn't earning $100 million the last few years, she was off hanging at the VFW post doing shots.
WHO is out of touch? WHO is elitist.
Hillarious.
Obama's phrasing wasn't optimal, but his sentiment was clear. Obama is not out of touch. You know it. Hillary knows it. And American knows it.
You are gleefully playing politics, UGLY politics. And YOU, in picking up this ridiculous Clinton campaign tactic, are helping do your part to try to doom Democrats. You might as well be running full page ads with Dukakis in the helmet -- or Kerry on the windsurfer.
You, Joan Walsh, YOU are taking a verbal flub, assigning meaning to it that wasn't intended, and running with it, for your own aims.
You may not like the bias of his defenders, but you know, we don't like the bias of Hillary's defenders, especially you.
Your inability to face reality, your constant need to explain away Hillary's most egregious transgressions, while jumping on every minor Obama fumble, is becoming a case study of why Hillary is failing, and will likely faily to win the nomination.
Hillary Clinton may be exploiting "Bittergate" -- but make no mistake...SO ARE YOU...and SO IS SALON.
And as for your hope that the campaign moves to higher ground...you are kidding, right? Given the daily tone of the articles you commission and the blog posts you write? You expect ANYONE to believe that you aspire to higher ground, much less even have any idea what that is, or where it's located?
I can tell you, with you in the lead, it's sure as hell not at Salon.com.
Exactly how would you go to higher ground, anyway? Commission more anti-Obama articles? Figure out new concern troll posts to trash Obama? Write more specious blog posts pillorying Obama, based on the latest conference call you sat in on from the Clinton campaign?
Is it higher ground to turn Salon.com into HillaryClinton.com?
Apparently you think so.
