Letters to the Editor
-
@ xufapemu
Trolling: v.,n. 1. A series of electronic postings designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
Hunting is on topic because Joan mentioned it in her article.
What Obama said is also on topic.
Is your argument that because I am somehow a minority in this thread that I am a troll. What I have seen is an effort to silence me, even though I am on topic, simply because I have not agreed with the general consensus that what Obama said is correct.
That people have a desire to flame me does not make me a troll. May I suggest instead that it makes them thin-skinned -- or has it come to the point that no difference of opinion concerning Obama is tolerated and that Obama must in all instance be issued only praise?
-
For instance xufapemu,
Here is your remark to me: My 8 year old could read that remark and understand that Obama wasn't saying she hunts ducks with a six shooter.
Could that be called an inflamatory remark? Were you therefore trolling?
-
Obama's "Macaca" moment
Obama let his guard down for a single minute and his head is spinning in circles. He made the mistake thinking he was on friendly territory in SF which is exactly why others are saying this is SF's fault. Hillary just received a "Hail Mary" pass and is back in business. Obama has just experienced his first "Macaca" moment. I have no idea what's going to happen. All I know is that McCain is looking better each day.
-
Salon or Faux News? Really no difference!
Joan Walsh and Lind must stay up at night dreaming up bullcrap to make any case they can to go after Obama.
They are delusional!
He speaks the truth. So did Rev. Wright. Walsh and her minions are trying to make an issue of the San Francisco remarks. Lots of Luck!
I predict the truth will win out. Obama is steadily closing the gap in PA and going ahead in Indiana.
There is an insightful article today by Barbara Koeppel of Consortium News describing in detail HRC's experience. On top, of course, is the sniper-fire and her doing nothing in Ireland. But on every issue where Clinton claims to have had a successful participation, it's just not true.
HRC is a big, big liar. Wow! A politician telling lies. How remarkable!
Everything is going to backfire on her. Of course, the woman feminists from Texas will stay with her through think and thin.
I've known people who had lived successfully using their ability to persuasively lie. I just wish the media would stop giving her a "free ride" and would start calling her on her lies.
-
Hey Joan, give it up
Hillary brown nose, aka Joan W, wrties, "Obama can sometimes seem glib and a little bit above it (us?) all." Too cute by half as the Brits say. And then JW writes, "Personally, I hope the campaign moves to higher ground soon." Was it Walsh who said to another dishonest creep, "have you no shame." Joan, how can you wish for higher ground when you keep your nose burried so deeply in the muck? As both H and O both have said, "shame on you," You are soooooooo obvious.
-
re trolling
the castration post from last night comes to mind...also, the sheer quantity of your posts could be considered de facto trolling
-
Not trolling
Just enjoying being willingly obtuse. The image made was that Hillary is trying to be something and someone she is not: Annie Oakley, one of the best sharpshooters of all time. It's a joke, not a history lecture, as you know.
-
From Joan Walsh
I answered Carol Richards in an old thread about to close, so I'm rewriting here: Thanks, Carol, for your comment. To answer your question (which I feel like I've answered before): I am very proud of Salon's coverage of the Democratic primary. We are not pulling for any candidate, or trying to correct for any impression that we're pulling for any candidate. We're reporting the news fairly, and in our opinion columns, we're asking and trying to answer compelling questions other people aren't tackling. When we all look back in 2009, I think Salon will stand out for its fairness, especially when one looks at primary coverage on the Web.
After reading Carol's first question in this thread: I think it's a fair question, to ask why I'm more disturbed by Obama's more vicious supporters than Clinton's. I'll give it some more thought. On first reflection, I think it's that Obama says he stands for a new kind of politics, but his slash-and-burn supporters are the worst of the old politics. I also think even some of his nicer, more well-meaning supporters represent another dead-end kind of old politics: the politics of liberal self-righteousness, where we know we're better than those benighted supporters of those other guys (or gals), and that cheers us, even if we can't convince a majority we're right. And I say "we" because, honestly, they/you are my people: San Francisco by way of Madison, Wisconsin kind of people (but yes, the dad from Ireland/the Bronx sent off to the Christian Brothers does mix everyone up, including me.) I'm just trying harder this election to see the other side. And honestly, some Obama supporters are making it a lot easier to see the other side. I promise to develop these thoughts at greater length soon.
-
@Taritac (Joan can't go there)
Thanks for your words!
Joan is awesome, but unfortunately (for me) she simply does not respond to the kind of comments you made. She will pick a really awful Obama supporter and respond or correct him/her.
-
*
Having given Joan Walsh a fair amount of crap in the past, I have to say that this is a pretty reasonable article by her. Let's all chill out, shall we? If Obama can't survive saying something dumb-ish and impolitic... well, I'm sure that he can.
Relax. Not that my saying this will get anyone to relax, but... Let's all take a deep breath.
-
Joan, THANKS!
I can't believe you responded as I was saying you wouldn't respond to Taritac. But it shows why I really do respect you!
Ok, I need to look at your reasons for highlighting the worst of Obama supporters and suggesting they are meaningful in way that Hillary's are not.
You said you would think further on this topic and so will I. I am going to look at your reasoning, put my feelings in check and respond to you. I want to be open to the idea that there is something different about awful Obama supporters. I see that you made a statement about the Obama supporters that are being respectful (I think you suggested that even they must be distinguished from Hillary suppoters). I swear: I'll think about what you say. But first I must READ it. But, more than anything. I appreciate what you're doing, even if I disagree, and, yes, even if you had not responded to my question. Thanks.