Letters to the Editor
-
"Senator Clinton actually noted that while African-Americans have a consistent history of voting for Democratic candidates, while white working-class voters do not have that same history"
To me, it sounded like you made the correction to make the further point that while the Democrats already have the black vote, Clinton would bring in the white working class.
I don't know what evidence exists to support this, besides the primary results...and the primary results don't really predict the general election results.
No, I have never used the dreaded C-word here...I'm not sure what other unwritten rules I might have broken. However, I was once told to FOAD (f*ck off and die) by a Clinton supporter. So I guess I should just generalize this to represent ALL Clinton supporters.
-
HealThisNation and Joan Walsh
Hundreds of posts have asked you to explain why you have been unfair to Obama. The candidate. And still your priorities are firmly fixed, twice in less than a day, on the question of whether I have been fair to you in my inclusion of a single person you may or may not have lumped in with your words about Wright.
Like I said, Joan only responds when she can find easy answers. When her integrity is questioned on how unfair she has been to Obama, she writes people off as Creepy Republican Trolls. I have not ever voted for a Republican. But Joan has two sets of standards - one for Hillary Clinton and the other for Obama.
-
@Joan Walsh and @Anonymust
Joan Walsh: "Xrandadu Hutman, seriously: Why would you truncate my comments that way, without ellipses, so it just looks like I'm whomping you? That seems unfair."
You are right, I should have put ellipses. It's sloppy, but I didn't intend to make it look worse.
Joan Walsh: "That's not the way I would clean up a quote, unless I was trying to make someone seem like a jerk."
Do you really think the two parts of your brief post, when put together, made you seem like a jerk whereas alone, or with ellipses, they would not have? Anyway, for the record I don't think you're a jerk. I know I am a pain in the ass, if anything by virtue of the sheer volume of my writing. Still, if this is all you've got to say to me, you might as well go back to avoiding me.
Joan Walsh: "Also, let the record show: I have replied to your personal emails. The aggrieved, ignored poster act is silly. But you know that."
You haven't responded to my emails lately, for the record. I don't demand otherwise; you're a busy person. I also can't recall you responding to me in comments sections for quite a while (except the response in this thread earlier). I don't feel terribly aggrieved -- you can ignore me all you like. But when I write what I consider to be thoughtful, two-page comments responding respectfully to your columns, and you don't reply to me while replying to various other people, then I feel within my right to at least mention that I am being avoided, if not to make a federal case about it.
Admittedly, I have written a few comments to you that were disrespectful. I can specifically remember them, and I remember feeling like a jerk after writing them, and in a few cases trying to apologize. I don't like being a jerk.
Anonymust: "Perhaps you might wish to reconsider the kind and quality of comments you have been making about Joan's contributions to Salon, most of which are not visible to you."
Here are the things I've said about Joan Walsh on Salon. This is every comment I've written with the words "Joan Walsh" in it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:letters.salon.com+%2B%22xrandadu+hutman%22+%2B%22joan+walsh%22
I'll bet you that 80% or more of these comments consist of positive or encouraging words about or toward Walsh. Only since Walsh has started to show what I feel is a double-standard in her approach toward presidential candidates have I been critical about her columns.
Anonymust: "Also, fwiw, the correction you requested existed, more than once, by virtue of your own comments."
I don't think a correction buried in a comments thread is the same as a correction in a transcript. I am not sure what the policy is, but Salon editors have made such corrections in the past. I also didn't realize it was cut-and-pasted from CNN, where the error originated. I thought perhaps a Salon staffer had transcribed it. I don't believe the source was stated in the column.
Anonymust: I'm another grumpy one. Salon's quality has diminished for me, too, but mostly because the quality of comments has devolved so severely over time. I'm still a subscriber, but I completely skip entire comment sections and even some columns/blogs that I used to read. Just because of the comments."
Yet you made it here, 10+ pages deep in a two-days-old comments thread?
-
No, I wasn't making that correction...
As I said before, I was only correcting your paraphrase of Clinton's point.
Mine was that class is indeed an issue (more than race), and that Obama seems to understand it, but he has not yet successfully communicated to voters his understanding.
As for generalizing about either camp's supporters, I haven't done that, but you have just done so. Instead, I have suggested that such generalizations really don't work or mean much. The classifications are not that simple.
* * *
Well, I've had my fun for tonight. Tomorrow, back to lurking...
-
@ yeswecan ...healthisnation
Thanks. Her replies are a lot like her columns. They are all about her feelings (I am profoundly troubled. I am profoundly sad. I feel Wright is against the very idea of America) but rarely about anything more tangible. All those replies to me, and not one word about the original point, which is whether it is fair or smart to keep beating Obama with Wright.
So I guess future editorial direction is clear. Glad to have that cleared up.
-
<sarcasm>So I guess I should just generalize this to represent ALL Clinton supporters.</sarcasm>
-ja
-
Yes, I do read Joan's comment threads
Broadsheet, SYA, and some others are the ones I've given up on.
And this one may be two days old, but I've also been reading it for two days, just like you.
-
Xrandadu Hutman
While Joan certainly doesn’t need me, or anyone else for that matter, to defend her, I believe the key word in her response was “annoying;” as in, “YOU’RE annoying.” I would like to thank Joan for providing the word that was on the tip of my tongue for some time now. I have not responded to anything you write any more, nor do I read what you write any more either. And the reason is because (you guessed it) you’re annoying. Now, what I mean by “annoying” is, you have nothing of value to say, nor do you add anything of value to the discourse. The one thing you do have, and you have it perfected like no one I’ve ever seen, is a cut ’n paste tool……on steroids. You seem to have devoted your life to dissecting comments by people who hold slightly different views than your own, line by line (as the defense lawyers did in the Rodney King trial) and then answer them with comments that are incontrovertible. Example:
Nyshooter….….”Obama has friends who seem to hate America.”
Xrandadu…..@Nyshooter…..….….”Obama has friends”
Xrandadu…………. Well, doesn’t everyone?
@Nyshooter………….“who seem to hate America.”
Xrandadu………….I suppose killing 4000
American soldiers is loving America!
Now that’s annoying.