Letters to the Editor
-
Defending Joan--correct on Obama
The reaction to Joan's correct assessment of Obama's elitist remarks is like killing the messenger. She has it right when she says, in effect, Obama has shown his true stripes as a Harvard elitist. Obama has gotten the big head because he has been praised as a messiah by a well meaning over zealous press corps. He now believes all his press clippings.
As we have seen happen before, talk is cheap. What will a Barack Obama USA look like ? For myself, I am very uneasy at the thought of an Obama Presidency. Does he really love America enough to defend it militarily if need be ? Does he think we have something special in a free market economy and not a state owned economy which does not reward effort ? Just thought I'd ask. Remember, we are not voting for a class president or the captain of the cheer leading squad. This is about the PRESIDENT OF THE USA, not a popularity contest.
-
Joan, please go away.
We know you're a Clinton supporter. You've made that very clear.
You have turned Salon into a Clinton campaign organ. I do not wish to be associated with or support such a thing. I will not be renewing my subscription and you are the primary cause.
This used to be a nice progressive forum. Since you wiped your ass with it, it has become a troll breeding ground. Pity.
-
But that's the problem - Obama supporters don't believe in democracy.
I have no doubt that Obama would be a better president for working-class Americans than John McCain. But they're the ones who will have to decide that for themselves.
I'm glad you understand that, Joan. But far too many "progressives" don't really believe in democracy, or that the "low information" working-class voters should be permitted to play a significant role in the election process. Hence their preference for caucuses over primaries, and hip urban centers over rural towns - and their insistence that any group that doesn't prefer Obama is somehow illegitimate. (Not to mention how gleefully they want to throw Michigan and Florida under the bus so their guy will win the nomination.)
Boy. And they say Clinton will do anything to win, including destroy the party.
-
Oh jeez, not this sh*t again...
Walsh is being ever more careful in her parsing. I give her credit -- she's learning to be more clever and covert.
But I think Walsh got burned one too many times by Obama supporters in the comments threads. Now she takes every opportunity to mock the worst among them. Obama supporters "shriek," she says. (Sigh: imagine the fun feminist fallout from anybody saying Clinton supporters "shriek.") Again and again, Walsh seems blind to the behavior of Clinton supporters...
Earth to Joan Walsh: You okay there?
My secret for telling when Walsh is about to put one over on me, rhetorically, is whenever she uses the word "fair." For example, Walsh says that Clinton's pouncing on Obama's "bitter" remarks is unfair. But just a paragraph or so later, Walsh finds a way to suggest it is, ultimately, fair, because it's an electability issue. (That's Clinton's talking point, too. Funny, though....Obama's electability does not seem to have been hurt by this.)
Walsh also repeats an argument that she's used time and time again, whenever Clinton's tactics are questionable: Instead of just saying "Clinton's tactics are questionable," Walsh offers a backward support of them in the form of, "Whatever Clinton might dish out, the GOP will dish out something 1,000 times worse."
Look: Wrong is wrong is wrong. Clinton's tactics are either valid or they're not. Likewise, the GOP's upcoming tactics are either valid or they're not. Will you be arguing against them when the time comes, or will you be calling them fair play? Will everything be fair play?
If Clinton were to call Obama a tax-and-spend communist who wants to turn America into a giant hippie commune, would you defend Clinton because "the GOP will do the same thing 1,000 times worse"?
I'm tired of the mental backflips. I'm tired of the roundabout rationalizations. You've learned to be more clever and careful, Walsh, but you haven't learned much beyond that. You're stung by accusations of shilling, you're poised to defend people's projection, but you don't seem to actually be listening to the rest of us -- the ones who bring up the same points in response again and again, only to have you ignore us again and again.
To repeat: What is it with you pointing out the bad behavior of Obama supporters but never acknowledging the constant crap being pulled by the Clinton supporters around here? Come on, you can't tell me you don't see it.
And I've got to laugh when you bring up Obama's "six-shooter" mistake in the same breath that you admit what a non-gaffe that is. Or when you claim that Obama answered criticisms well in the same breath that you complain he didn't do enough to address the tone of the word "cling." It's like you're in a state of self-satisfied self-contradction.
Come on, Joan Walsh, work with us here. Stop being defensive and TALK TO US. Do you really think Obama supporters don't see what's going on? Do you really think that Obama supporters don't understand how the political games work? Sure, Obama needs to keep sharpening his game, and learning to keep his foot well away from his mouth. But if Clinton's only positive effect nowadays is helping Obama learn to fight better, doesn't that say it all?
You can be sure that Obama supporters are ready to extend the olive branch to Clinton supporters. Don't make it harder for us! Step back, look around.
It's like you're so busy following the horse race up close with your binoculars, that you aren't even aware of the people sitting next to you.
-
Et tu, Brute?
I have never in my life witnessed anything more cynical and subversive than the Clinton campaign's attemp to brand Obama an elitist, "foreign" and unelectable.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Working class voters will see through it. Obama is an intellectual, not an elitist. There is a world of difference between these two things.
Furthermore, he has more sensitivity and compassin in his right pinky than Clinton has in her whole calculating and opportunistic body. People also see that pretty damn clearly.
These same liberals are fearful of the Republican attack machine, probably because they have been traumatized by it. They believe Obama to be unelectable for a whole host of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with reality. The reality being that he has won election after election with huge voter turnouts after so many have said all along he couldn't do it. But, he did do it and he is DOING IT!
And why is it that a majority of Republicans would prefer to run against Hillary Clinton? How do these same liberals explain this? Is it some kind of reverse psychology scheme? Give me a freakin' break.
Your explanations and reasons for Clinton and against Obama all amount to hogwash. I call bullshit on all of you.
Obama is the most charismatic, dynamic Democratic leader we've had in decades and Republicans know it. They know that once working class voters see him standing next to McCain and compare their messages, there will only be a snow ball's chance in hell that they can win in November.
So Clinton supporters: GET OVER YOURSELVES! Your candidate is losing and will lose. Take a deep breath and join us or get the hell out of the way.
Is that smug enough for you! My smugness comes from your eagerness to twist the truth in your candidate's favor. I expect as much from Repubicans but not you. As for the Republicans: I ain't afraid of no Repubican. Bring it on!