Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
why don't you and Salon just come out and endorse Hillary Clinton and be done with it.
So much for the "bittergate" gambit pundits like Joan Walsh are peddling...
Wow, great post!
to make it easy for you. I'm sure she would like to hear from, and respond, to her fans and critics. Journalism isn't the professional anymore. Now it's gossip heresay and sociology. I'm sure she would love to here "Thank you for writeing this piece" over and over, as well as any independant thinkers.
Jwlash@salon.com
Liek I said yesterday. Joan is creating her own dittoheads, like her gop freinds. They get the forum (joan's propoganda gives them the credibility they would not have otherwise), the topic de gour, obama is sexist, the bitter remarks, gun owers against him now (new attack and topic daily. And you republcains, I mean clintn supporters also get a target to vent all yoru ahte and frustrations (obama and his supporters).
Joan spoon feeds you republcains, I mean clinton supporters. No wonder you love her so much. She gives you a topic and someone to take all the worlds frustrations on. Remember, while you are dividing and destroying america, nothing improves. Divide and conquer, gop. you have 6 months left of relevance. Use it wisely.
I take some exception with your Clinton statement made in SF to support Bob Casey in Pa and then Casey supported Obama. Perhaps you aren't aware that Obama endorsed and campaigned with Casey in Pa the year he was running against Santorium. I am a liberal Democrat in NY but I held my nose and gave a contribution to Casey, albeit a small one due to my circumstances because I knew what a horror Santorium was and he was maybe on a Republican glidepath to the Presidency. Also, you seem to overlook the fact that over one million individuals contributing less than $200 gave money to Obama. I agree with you on one thing, San Francisco shouldn't take the hit when so many other people in states, cities and towns have supported Obama with their money and votes.
@Glennski
Don't waste your time writing to Joan Walsh.
For the most part, she doesn't answer. And she DEFINITELY won't answer if you send a rational, concerned email explaining why you are losing faith in Salon.
Actually unless you write her a fan letter, you're not likely to hear back...
Let's fill it full............How old are you rufus, about 10?
Obama should have stuck with his orginal statment. But he knew he had scared many white males. Like I said many whites are still afraid that if a black man gets into power he is going to seek revenge or repartions.
Obama was trying to tell say to them don't vote your fears and cling to those things that give you security while politicians like Bush,Cheney,McCain rob you blind.
He was saying you voted for guns the last eight years and now the government is conducting illigal wiretaps,torturing,and about bailing out big companies. He said you voted religion the last eight years (scared of homosexuals) and now your schools are in a worst mess, rodes and bridges are collasping,cost of food,gas and utilities are sky rocketting. He said you have voted the fear of immigrants and the last eight years corporations keep sending your jobs overseas, CEO's wages keep going up and the workers pay keeps going down. While you are voting guns,religion and your fear of immigrants the white boys who are minding the store are robbing you of the very house you live in.
You white working class folks keep voting your fears, and guess what, you are going to be down at the bottom of the barrel with us black and brown folks. While the 109 million dollar Billary go their merry little way. It is time for a change you can believe in. Obama told is telling the world the truth it hurts but it will "set you free." No he is not God or Jesus, but one person telling the truth can make a difference but this country has been brained washed into believing that only one group has all the answers. "Be ye transformed by the renewing of the mind."
"First we have the Editor and the writers. A diverse group of writers brought together by an excellent editor to write analytical and critical articles. An editor with a point of view and courage. Why do we come here, to read writers that are not in the MSM."
No, this is what we used to have. Now, we have an editor who hires writers like Koppleman, Lind and Traister to write precisely the same sort of ill-researched, horse-race news with a clearly defined bias in no way at odds with the MSM.
"Second we have the general reader: We come here to find these voices, to challenge ourselves to get different perspectives. Yes we get angry, yes we get our ideas confirmed, yes we laugh and yes we turn the page."
The only thing I find challenging about reading Walsh, Lind, Traister, Koppleman -- even Sloane Crosley -- is to try and keep from banging my head against my desk in frustration and disbelief. Close your eyes and point at random to a paragraph of the most recent Walsh, Lind or Traister piece: you will find a statement in it that challenges reality and will, almost certainly, defy logic. The letter writers in these respective forums have identified many. Point to one different perspective in these articles, not readily available from a dozen other news sources.
"Third we have the letter writers: In the old days, we would post a comment and move on."
Sometimes, as when a writer refuses to acknowledge the validity of the points raised by scores of loyal letter writers, the correct response is not to move on. Or what is the point of writing in your opinion -- to feel good about your participation in a salon, irrespective of the response, or lack of it, you receive?
"What did you sacrifice to stop the war? What did you risk to change this country? You put up a poster, you went to a rally, you wrote on a blog and wrote a nasty letter here. Cowards the lot of you."
This is always the most idiotic critique. The point of criticism is not to immediately have ready a solution. From discussion and debate much good comes. The web site is called "salon.com" not "undergroundresistance.com". In any case, I would say that Glenn Greenwald and his readers have done more for the cause of democracy -- through blogging, and letter writing, and awareness raising -- than any succession of peace or protest marches, although I'm in no way demeaning these or other more forms of traditional, physical protest. What other specific actions do you have in mind that would earn your respect and be effective? When opposing the most powerful military-industrial complex in the history of the world critique, and the communication of critique, are valid and valiant activities. Or should we take turns lighting ourselves on fire in public squares?
Point to something horrid. The letters, in this thread for instance, criticize Ms. Walsh for having submitted an article that fails your first criterion. It's not analytical. It's not critical. It's not courageous. It is, as many writers have commented, cynical in portraying as a "firestorm" what the public, in whose name Ms. Walsh expresses outrage, when it was asked, cared not a whit about. Even by MSM standards, the article was poor in substance and style. As the first letter in this thread stated, it was, in many places, incoherent. I doubt it would it have made it past the editor's desk of any metro daily.
As I've said in other threads there should be a moratorium on metaphors of war and violence, as long as the United States is actively engaged in a real war. Salon letter writers are not kicking anyone in the face. They're merely trying to get ensure that the next person to hold the office of President won't participate in any more wars of aggression, won't send troops around the world to do much worse things to people than kick them in the face. Hillary Clinton does not seem to be this person. Why shouldn't we continue to be opposed to Democratic candidates who supported or, at least, enabled the "Bush administration and its actions"? Salon letter writers are not creating a new standard. They're just reminding Salon writers and editors what the standard is. Based on the evidence, Walsh et al. have forgotten.
When Greenwald goes, anyone who once believed in Salon will go too I expect.
Third we have the letter writers
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
