Letters to the Editor
-
Mrs. Clinton's Pastor, William Procanick Sentenced To Prison For Child Molestation
To the readers of Salon
I appologise in advance for reporting this bit of news to you. However, Joan, Salon and the rest of the Media conveniently forgot.
Mrs Clinton's Pastor, Rev William Procanick was recently sentenced to 3 years in Prison for Child Molestation of a 7 year old girl. He also lied about it in Court. Here's the link:
http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857
Of course, Joan and most of the Media are aware of this important news. However, Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. McCain's pastorial ties do not merit as much significance as that of Mr. Obama.
Yes, Mr. Obama did stumble, only his stumble, was over the overt bigotry of the Media Dogs, gibson & stepho, hannity and the lot.
Common folk should Isolate these instigators from society.
-
Hillary Clinton at any cost
You are getting so tiresome.
-
Will Hillary's Lie About Bosnia Sniper Fire Hurt Her ?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
-
Irritated? Damn straight!
I agree he was irritated, and frustrated--and that was human and real and smart. If he'd pretended not to be bored and fatigued by idiotic questions, if he'd been plastic and fake, I would have lost respect for him. I saw a man trying to steer the discussion back to substance, again and again and again. Was it his strongest debate? Not at all. Will it hurt him? Only according to the pundits, Joan, which includes you. Last night Bill Maher had a sequence where PA bikers--surely the Beltway Insiders' wet dream of blue collar voters--talked about how fed up they were with DC and Bush, and how they were pro-Obama. That's not the kind of information likely to make it to any news outlet, even salon, because it goes against the grain of received wisdom.
-
Substance, or lack thereof
Others have enumerated this phenomenon but it bears repeating:
The usual Obama or Clinton criticisms here and elsewhere almost always lack any real substance. I expect that Fox, ABC, CNN and NBC will continue to harp on gossipy fluff, but I am saddened when Salon plays along.
There was a time when Salon could be counted on for more thoughtful, in depth coverage.
Could any voter, based solely on the coverage Salon has provided be expected to know anything at all about the specific policy proposals of any of the candidates? Perhaps, but only after wading through nonsense articles like this, or trite like the Walter Shapiro piece on Clinton.
Where is the analysis about the differences in the Clinton and Obama health care plans? Economic policy? Foreign policy?
We aren't stupid, you know.
Salon, and Joan Walsh have the ability to change the conversation. I doubt that constantly fomenting controversy about one gaffe or another is really helping to drive those subscriptions any more than the mere fact that it is an election season. Don't confuse the extra click-through traffic or sign-ups as a validation of the current insipid editorial direction of this online news magazine.
And, moreover, if Salon starts treating its readership like adults, perhaps, and I know this is wishful thinking, perhaps some of the rhetoric in letters will cool down.
I'd like to hear why Obama thinks his proposed policy initiatives would be better than Clinton's and vice-versa, and its clear to me that George Stephanopolis doesn't care.
Here's a suggestion, Joan: contact both campaigns and let them post their best, latest position papers here, let them hash it out between now and Tuesday. Give both campaigns this forum.
The readership will thank you.
-
Obamabots?
It intrigues and disappoints me that if you criticize the mind-numbing inanity of the debate questions, or criticize Joan Walsh's very narrow view of the debate, you're an Obamabot in the eyes of many posters here.
I thought the moderators leaned most on Obama, but I also was deeply disappointed by the Bosnia question for Clinton, slipped in via a "voter" so the moderators didn't have to do the dirty work. Enough about Bosnia! And I thought they treated both candidates with discourtesy. Am I still an Obamabot?
Oh, wait, I'm a skin job, one of those Cylons who looks like normal people, that must be it.
-
Now that's funny
I burst out laughing when I saw Joan's article - with a link to GG's article about David Brooks featured to the side. Joan used exactly the trick that GG refutes in his column - the unsupported statement that the citizenry agrees with her view. Hysterical. Here's to hoping GG takes on Joan in a column.
-
Auditioning for ABC with BS
That is, of course, what Joan Walsh may conceivably be doing. Looking forward to that Cokie Roberts dream job on Teevee. That could explain the videos.
While Greenwald is accurately excoriating the likes of David Brooks for making false, biased, statements about what "Americans" or "most people" think, Joan Walsh is doing the exactly what David Brooks does.
"Most people" do not think that Obama "stumbled", as far as I know. Where did Joan Walsh get her data from?
-
This posting is so beneath stupid...
I suspect someone hacked in Salon, and wrote it under Joan's byline without her knowledge.
-
Stumbling Bloc
Was there even a stumble? Or is it just a meme being perpetuated in some quarters, by cynical media people, or by increasingly desperate Clintonites (who are increasingly revealing themselves to be the true cultists in their vitriolic and vituperative support of a flawed candidate and a failed candidacy, and in their petulant refusal to support Obama when he finally wins) -- these people are the "Stumbling Bloc" -- who are eager to make mountains of any media molehills they can, to declare "gotcha" and cry out that Obama's stumbling at every turn.
I think they're continuing to miss the larger point of the Obama candidacy, something which looms far larger than the man, himself -- which is the incredible desire for change in the country by the majority of Americans. HR Clinton simply cannot masquerade as an agent of change. It's not possible for her, it's not what her candidacy has ever been about. Her candidacy is about her becoming president, and nothing more.
And that's why even these media-mulled teapot typhoons are likely only continuing to play into Obama's hands, making the mainstream media and pro-Clinton people look out of touch and part of the status quo, and, paradoxically, make frontrunner Obama appear to be more of an underdog, which'll only feed his candidacy further.
So, keep going, Stumbling Bloc; you're just going to make things better for Obama in time -- or, paradoxically, if you're somehow successful, hand the White House to McCain. Funny position to be in for would-be Democrats.