Letters to the Editor
-
I'm not sorry, I'm only sorry you men and women in the media waste all your time covering this crap
Joan,
What do you think of Glenn's column? Do you really not think this time would be better spent covering healthcare the fact our nation has a failing economy, the fact average people can't afford gas or food or, you know, the fact we have a major war that keeps killing thousands of Americans and dragging on endlessly?
And before someone else gives me this crap about judgement, McCain mister anti-lobbyist was part of the biggest lobbying scandals in D.C. history the Keating Five Scandal and Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, was too stubborn and didn't have the judgement to pass healthcare the first time.
When are you going to cover real news Joan? This is not real news. If you don't know the difference I'll gladly explain it to you.
Iraq is real news. Rising gas prices, that's real news. This is a media-drive (please not I said driven not created) so-called firestorm that wastes all of our time, does not tell the American people anything they don't already know, provides no real new information, and does a disservice to journalism.
So when, again if ever Joan Walsh, do you intend to return to being a real editor and journalist?
-
@hongdb (interesting point)
Maybe you are right: perhaps this issue will finally shatter the narrative that Barack is a media superstar who has never been challenged. I thought that was proven false long ago, but this could be the end of that.
My bitter post was simply coming from my defeated hunch that as much as Republians might admire how Barack is now strongly denouncing Rev. Wright, they really are simply enjoying watching somebody on the ground. I have no doubt that Ms. Walsh really does feel sad about this issue. And I guess I just wish she hadn't cared so much about it in the first place, but hey, it is a big deal in the media and Joan has certain percieved responsibilities.
-
@Braco65
braco65: "Seems to me that this whole Rev. Wright episode is a huge example of "Bad Judgment" on Obama's part. I don't believe Obama ever subscribed to any of Wright's ideas. But the fact that he wouldn't disassociate himself sooner really makes me question his lack of judgment. I don't think he handled this whole episode very well at all."
Regarding the bolded part of your statement above, did you miss Obama's whole big speech on race, or his many statements about Wright back when the controversy first emerged?
I suspect we're going to be hearing more of this: "Oh sure Obama distanced himself, but it was too little too late!" Or "Sure Obama has criticized Wright, but why was he at that church for 20 years? Huh, why?" Or: "Sure Obama criticized Wright, but it's just political expedience! He's throwing Wright under a bus due to cynical political maneuvering!"
Yep, here it comes. You'll see all of the above response approaches and more in the 400+ letters sure to crop up here in just the next few hours.
-
thank goodness
he did this.
If it had been me, I would have left FAR deeper tire tracks in the body of this hateful and stupid racist Wright. Wright has been trying to destroy Obama, because he needed Obama to fail. But Obama has risen above that.
I hope that Wright now has the sense to sit down and STFU.
-
Thanksgiving is gonna be very UNcomfortable at the Wright-Obama home this year.
I predict a Tyler Perry movie fight.
-
everybody relax -
we just found out that all the letters on this "issue" have been written by just 3 (in words - "three" writers)
1.Joan Walsh
2.Glenn Greenwald (all of the reasonable ones)-
and for the "creation" of the really crazy ones - like
cy or wes Joan uses her inner "Groucho Marx" (you know "the one" who wouldn't want to join the club which would accept him) - but anywhoo - AJCalhoun we know that you are the only writer who posts under his real name and if you are out there
we would like to get in touch with you - if you are interested - schwarzfilmdo@aol.com.
-
@weeping, re: Joan
I refer to your pitchfork because, as I see it, you and all the others who have fed on this "controversy" seem to have succeeded in making Obama jump through the hoop and flap his fins for you.
Again, I understand how American politics works, I'm just dismayed that you, as someone who seems to believe in the values of liberalism, would be leading the charge to dumb down the conversation through these race-baiting, guilt-by-association, divide and conquer tactics.
When I say "congratulations on your moral victory," I mean to say that I don't understand why you seem so invested in this outcome where Obama does the pandering he's expected to do.
Yes, exactly.
Joan, it's like I asked you before: Did you want an Oprah/James Frey moment? This is how it feels to some of us. You're on his side, remember? This demand for an accounting by Obama regarding a complicated, tangential relationship was positively sadistic and involved so much more than the partisanship of the Democratic primaries. It was an attack on the very principles of liberalism. It boggles the mind that you weren't outraged on behalf of both Obama and Reverend Wright and saddened by the larger lack of understanding going on.
I get the feeling that you are pleased with the recent events and outcome. Think about what I just said. I get the feeling that you are experiencing some kind of pleasure.
I could certainly be wrong, but doesn't it bother you that I (and others) think that about you? Your concern for Obama (and by extension, for racial relations in this country and in the Democratic Party) has not felt genuine on this issue. I'm not asking you to respond publicly. I'm asking you to examine privately.
-
ncawley
Yes, you're right--we can't have a man who lies as president. I know that even though HRC signed a pledge not to count the FLA and MI primaries and then did a 180 and demanded that their votes for her be counted even though the other candidates abided by the pledges THEY signed, it's not really the same thing as lying. And when she says she was against NAFTA, I, like, totally believe her.