Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, April 16, 2008 07:37 AM

  Taritac's first point

  I too thought that Walsh was going to write a defense of San Franciscans. But we got a rewrite of her gaffe stuff.

  Too bad. It would make an interesting read if she'd actually written about San Franciscans. I worked in San Francisco from 1974 in a blue-collar job, the post office. Postal employees get paid the same in San Francisco as in Meridian, Mississippi even though the cost of living is so much higher here. I knew a guy who could only afford a house on the other side of Sacramento. His family was up there in a house, he slept on someone else's couch and worked down here for years. Eventually his wife divorced him. He's bitter, losing the wife, the kids, the house. Now he might have been an interesting guy to interview, you know, if you were Joan Walsh and wanted to find out what goes through the minds of the working class in San Francisco. You know, we all don't sip wine. Some of us drink beer.

  +++

  Soooo:

  This is the best interpretation: Joan Walsh is not stupid. She knows what Obama meant, but keeps on the "gaffe" like a dog on a bone because she's desperate for her favorite (who is not going to win).

  This is the worst interpretation: Joan Walsh is in lockstep with the MSM and attacks anyone who exposes the okeydoke that keeps the oligarchy farting through silk. Instead of actually writing about how politicians over the last thirty years have failed the working class she is protecting the rich and refusing to discuss the issues.

  Those are the choices: A Hillary supporter willing to sacrifice any journalist credibility to push her candidate, or another propagandist for the ruling class. Your choice.

  —Bob In Pacifica Read Bob In Pacifica's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel