Letters to the Editor
-
Obama in the Democratic primary.
Obama is the left's new Lamont. While the far left of the party is madly in love with their new Lamont, they should take another look at the Lamont/Lieberman race in CT. The progressive far left could not stand the Democratic (in name only) senator Lieberman, so they decided to back Ned Lamont, and they were actually succesful in the primary. Unfortunately, pro-war Lieberman, ironically with the support of senator Obama, was able to trounce the far-left candidate Lamont in the general election.
Senator Obama looks so good to many people just because he is new and different. Obama's lies and misrepresentations gain traction slowly, if at all. Obama's record is not examined at all. The attack's against him by senator Clinton are Democratic primary attacks, basically toothless compared to attacks that are made in a general election.
Obama has been given too much too fast because he is good-looking, an excellent speaker, and relatively good (if you don't look at his record) on the issues.
Caveat Emptor.
-
@Tigerboy
Strong opinions! If a miracle took place and Obama was our next president, where would you guess he'd fall, as far as democratic presidents go?
Do see him as one of the biggest mistakes in the last 100 years? If he wins, is your hunch that it has been at least 50 years since we've seen a worse person (democrat) in the office?
I ask because you have strong and specific opinions about what kind of a guy he is.
-
At this point
If I wanted to blame San Francisco for anything it would be Salon.com
I don't however want to blame San Francisco for anything. As any great city knows, our faults lie not in our tabloids, but in our crust.
-
About Being an Elitist...
Oh, and if anyone wants to read something smart, insightful, and meaningful about "Bittergate," can I suggest Sherman Yellen's "Confessions of an Elitist."
http://tiny.cc/wDlhl
Says Yellen:
But what I don't have this week is patience with those who have come down hard on Barack Obama by calling him an elitist (read: snob) for making a clumsy but rational and compassionate statement about those people who cannot escape the crushing misfortune of unemployment with its debt and despair; a statement of concern for people who lack health care, and who are forced to live by the first rule of George Bush's America which states, "get rich quick or get out of sight and die quietly."
And, as Yellen concludes:
If elitist means that you were against the Iraq war from the start because you were informed enough to see the horror ahead, then I am an elitist, as were so many in this country, particularly Obama.
-
@ Whispers
Why on earth do you think writing isn't work? Do you think editing is also not work? Do you think writing does not also involve rewriting?
Just wondering.
-
Joan, you are making me bitter- and you're not my mother.
I have been a fan of Salon.com since the beginning- always have turned here first for unbiased and relevant political news. That is, until this presidential campaign. I am increasingly disenchanted by this column's obvious preference for Hillary, masquerading behind an open mind and a woman's perspective. But now I am rethinking my position about this site, exacerbated, Joan, by your frequent appearances on MSNBC, wearing that concerned frown as you make a point that never fails to skew toward Hillary.
It's one thing to have an opinion, Joan, quite another to bludgeon people with your so-called reasoned arguments. Hillary is my demographic... and I don't want her. Not representing my interests or my point of view. Nor do I want her husband. I was forgiving of the Clintons and their troubles after the impeachment. Now they have exposed themselves for the craven politicians they are, regardless of the harm to the party. To utterly betray the party and join with McCain out of self-interest is appalling. And so is your pro-Hillary drumbeat, Joan. Since you have not been trustworthy or objective, what am I to think of Salon?
I am capable of reasoned decision and don't need these subtle lectures to understand politics. Now, I'm bitter.
-
perspective
We've got to remember; Joan says she thinks he would be a populist president. She says that she sort of places him above her in her mind; she gets the feeling that he thinks he is better than her or other people. I understand that it is important to look at how people are percieved. Joan feels that way about how he appears to her, but she THINKS very differently about him. Joan hasn't said as much about how Hillary is perceived. Most of us agree that sexism plays a role, but I'm sure Joan would agree that there are huge aspects of how Hillary can be percieved that aren't a function of sexism. It's fine with me to hear what Joan is worried about in terms of Obama perception. I guess if Hillary was winning we'd be hearing consistently from her about how badly Hillary can come across to Joan. I'm sure it has more to do with the fact that Obama is winning than anything else?
I wonder if Joan would be willing to share what she considers to be the way Hillary comes across. Nobody will accuse Joan of being sexist if she gives us such a list.
-
I am mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!
Bitter? Oh you bet I am. I am tired of seeing everyone appalled at his remarks. The man spoke the truth, plain and simple. He sounds like he has been listening to us working class folks. I see around me wages that can not cover exspenses anymore, jobs with no room for growth despite the longer hours (hey layoffs mean less people to do the same amount of work, by the way) and people with out hope any more. I do not cling to religion or guns but lots of my people do. I hear polititians say they are going to help us out but I have never seen that. Trickle down, my ass. Senator Obama can speak for me any day.
Oh, some letter writers may be surprised to know that some one like me read Salon.com. I do every day. Along with several other websites. Lots of us like to keep ourselves informed. So there. Keep up the good work, Ms Walsh.