Letters to the Editor
-
Shorter Joan
Every dumb-assed thing Obama says is Obama's fault, even if he didn't say it. And every dumb-assed thing Clinton says is only considered dumb-assed by the anti-Hillary media, and is also Obama's fault.
Stop it Joan, your shilling has been embarrassing for quite some time now.
-
Christ, it really doesn't matter what Hillary says, does it?
In Walsh's alternate universe it always ends up being Obama's problem.
It was an extraordinarily stupid statement for her to have made (in addition to being intellectually dishonest). A mistake? Probably. But you had a field day giving Obama a good roasting for his "bitter" comment.
-
Pul-eeeze
"The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't."
_______
No, the world is populated by two kinds of people, those (like you) who see everything in black and white terms, and those who don't, LOL.
Your HRC slave-itude could not be more transparent.
-
I have to respectfully disagree...
I don't for a moment think that she intended her words to be taken the way they sounded. I haven't seen mnay people make that argument. Olberman certainly didn't. But he was absolutely correct that it was a terrible choice of words, and calls up the worst images possible. I think it's more evidence that Hillary does not work well under pressure.
-
Yes!!
What is unbelievable is your bias for Clinton, who I once counted as a hero. But no more. I am SO sick of the Clinton's win-at-any-price creepiness. Enough of the both of 'em already.
-
Paging Dr. Freud
You know, I tried to support her. I really did.
But imagine if she was saying something dumb not to the press in Fargo but to the premier in Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or ...
After 7+ hears with a president who says stupid things because, well, he's stupid, a person who aspires to be the next president surely should have realized that it's important to think before one speaks.
She could have said, "Bobby Kennedy was still running in June, period" (never mind that the primary schedule *started* far later back then), but we tend to say what's on our minds.
-
Yes many can believe it!
And many have made a good case for discrediting the remarks.
Will you always grant the benefit of the doubt to all things Bill and Hill?
You haven't made the case that the reaction is bashing.
Nor have you successfully linked the reaction to "remarks," originally or predominantly to the Obama campaign.
Nice try though. Your love for the Democratic Party always shines through. Thanks for caring.
-
Jesus Joan, you're f'ing pathetic!
I've managed to avoid jumping on you for your pathetic, obnoxious pandering for Hillary, but this really takes the fricking cake.
It was an aboslutely awful choice of words and images. I understand she had to come up with some event that actually occurred in June since she was lying about her husband not locking up the nomination until June (Gee! What a surprise! A Clinton lying! And what a bigger surprise. Joan doing a column which ignores the Clinton lie altogether, but scolds everyone for their reaction to it.), but the assasination of a Presidential candidate isn't appropriate.
Congratulations on your daughter graduating high school. Hopefuilly someone in that family won't turn out to be a complete and utter moron!
-
yeesh!
Jeez Walsh, are you gonna be getting it tonight!
time to break out the proverbial popcorn!
cheers!
-
Perhaps It's a GOOD Thing
If nothing else, the crafty use of racial references by the Obama campaign to unfairly demonize one's opponent as a racist gives me hope that they can swiftboat as good as they get this fall against the Great Republican Slime Machine. Frankly, I look forward to seeing over the top accusations leveled against John McCain's every careless word and phrase.
And seriously - did ANY of us expect that Senator Clinton would get fair treatment from the media, better known as the "Mighty Wurlitzer" of the Republican Party? After they've spent the last few decades bashing her (and Bill, but they really hated her, for what appear to be Freudian reasons)?
The only real surprise to this observer is how few Americans notice - or care - how "Hillary" has been treated, and how most appear to relish the bashing. Just check out the other responses to this article.
-
Really?
How about the 70% of clintonians that refuse to vote for Obama as opposed to the 30% of Obamaniacs.
Is that considered Clinton bashing. Face it JOAN she LOST, give it up.
-
You Dems Need To Stop This Already
The second I saw this headline I got excited to post a little warning to the commenters on the last 10 Joan Walsh columns. It went something like this:
Democrats of all stripes, come together! Whether you are an Obamaton or a Clintonista, you must acknowledge that either of them are a far better choice for our next pres than Mr. McCain. There are four million reasons that this is the case. However, the Democrats could very well throw the election through infighting. It is time to show a little unity and party discipline, put aside your personal feelings, and get the Republicans out of the White House. I say this not as a Democrat (no party affiliation), but as an informed human being with a moral code. The Republicans will do what it takes to win the election in November. I am starting to worry that Democrats are going to be too busy being self-righteous to actually win this election.
However, having read the column, I feel compelled to direct my little diatribe at Joan herself. Yes, politics is a dirty business, and no, Obama is did not die on the cross for our sins. That is to say, he is not perfect. He may even be "shrewd," or "calculating," or "a politician!" But this is not the time to publicly confess his campaign's sins for him. November draws near. Do what it takes to win.
-
By looking only at the screeching, you may miss a legitimate point
I originally thought her remark was a timeline issue, but after reading Stephen Ducat's thoughtful response on HuffPo, I see it differently. I see it as a calculated talking point that she began using in March related to some polling that came our re Obama's safety. And like her remarks re Bosnia, once committed to memory, they lay there, popping out where appropriate, until the forces aligned (in this case, video of the actual response).
The other point made here on Salon (the other half of the talking point wasn't much more legit) fits into this same kind of frame.
So I agree the remark was not what some imply, but on the other hand, I don't think it was just an unfortunate reference. It was a calculated one that finally (and reasonably IMO) backfired, just as her Bosnia remarks did.