Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

502
Letters
Friday, August 8, 2008 12:00 AM

Whew!

Bill Clinton will reportedly have a speaking role at the Denver convention. Can someone explain why that was ever in question?

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Friday, August 8, 2008 02:26 AM

AKA Smith's great 'J'Accuse!!!' moment

Nice work Encyclopedia Brown. The low level "Axelrod Memo." How nefarious. Thank you for exposing Le Grande Conspiracy!

But there's no time to rest on your laurels. I hope you can put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and Magnifying Glass and go after a secret set of documents I heard about. They're called "The Protocals Of The Elders Of Obamanation." You must expose them; we must stop this fiend!

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:38 AM

Who brought race into the campaign?

There shouldn't be any debate about it. It was the Obama campaign that did it. Long before New Hampshire, while still campaigning in Iowa....with the Sen Clinton (D-Punjab) nonsense.

...or is it racist only if blacks and whites are involved?

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:41 AM

@macdaffy

Thanks for an injection of reality to counter the wishy washies of Walsh and company's single minded mentality.

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:41 AM

and about your other note aka

if you are a libertarian you believe in freedom.

I don't have proof of Bill's motivations one way or another. We have these discussions to discuss and offer what evidence we have. To speculate. Should we not speculate because race is too dangerous to mention? Too hurtful?

Again, one memo cannot prove your whole case to me. But the point is what we will do about it now that we have this difference of opinion. Do you see me as evil for voting for Obama?

What would you do if Clinton's campaign released a memo describing Mark Penn's strategy to label all of her policies, out of the blue "American" in order to imply that Obama and his plans were not American (this is an actual strategy Mark Penn designed (he admitted this very strategy and that it's purpose was to make Obama into a non-American like foreign creature in his interview with GQ). Does this seem right to you? Does it seem moral? Fortunately clinton did not use this strategy but she was under constant pressure from her campaign manager to play against Obama for his race, just as McCain has done.

And how is a leaked memo more clever than a non-leaked one. I think Penn's strategy worked better because he had greater deniability whereas as much as Obama has apologized and tried to distance himself from that memo repeatedly, I haven't seen a day go by on salon where it isn't mentioned at least once...so clearly the effort was a failure and an outrage to those who feel that leaking it was deliberate.

Maybe both of these candidates can be appreciated for trying to fend off the worst inclinations of their managers and trying to be civil and to be fair. Considering that this was a "first" that was so close I think both did hold back a lot of the negativity. Not all. But a lot.

But as for moral outrage....I'm not sure if I don't understand your insistence that axelrod and his campaign were worse or less moral than penn and his..or that I do understand your arguments, but I just disagree.

Also, from those times I read about astroturfing I thought it was about a corporation owning something ie Walmart starts a lobbying firm for Walmart, but calls it "american labor unity party..." Thus there is not a grasswork association of individuals but owned by a corporate entity, pretending to be not owned by walmart for legal and strategic reasons. Are you saying that Obama is the manchurian candidate? Owned by which company? All the candidates have heavy corporate ties these days, but I don't think Obama is a product. He is a person.

I just wish that people could see him as a person. A candidate.

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:43 AM

@ dolores

Read the defintion.

It is about using astroturfing to create grassroots movements. It is the astroturfing that is deliberate and not the grassroots.

Does that mean that some people here might be employed by the Obama people to post? It's possible. After all, it is the astroturf that keeps the grassroots growing.

That doesn't have to mean that everyone posting pretty much the same thing are in collusion. Not at all. First, Obama supporters were probably quite naturally ruthless to see him win. Moreover, it is easy to tap into passionate emotion. It is the entire nature of internet communication to argue and oppose.

I do not deny the devotion of Obama's followers. No one would have to pay them to be cooperative with the racist meme against the Clintons. Many of them hated HRC's AUMF vote. There was also old racial resentments to tap into.

Early on combative voices calling the Clintons racists and drowning out the voice of reason would have been quite useful.

That is where the memo could have acted as a sort of roadmap for Obama supporters.

But now ... Now Dolores, much has changed hasn't it? People hollering racist aren't quite so useful anymore to silence and marginalize Clinton supporters. And fast typists with ready refutations full of strawmen and obvious redherrings would no longer be quite as effective.

No Dolores, as the campaign drew to a close what was needed was the sweet voice of unity. Someone who argues quite nicely that yes indeedy both sides have a point but we should all join together now and forget old hurts and put a Democrat in office.

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:53 AM

@... sigh... AKASmith

"However, just because I support the Green Party does not mean that I don't have my right to make personal observations about the election as a whole."

Yes, actually it does. Voting for a 3rd party is akin to not voting. Therefore you cede your right to comment or complain. In the modern election cycle not voting or wasting your vote on a 3rd party is the same as supporting the Reich Wing.

You're such a crybaby. If the air was stinky would you cease to breathe? Don't be a part of the problem. I hate Obama too, but I do what I must for my daughter's sake in the hopes that when she grows up she might have health care, personal freedoms, and not have to go to war.

Friday, August 8, 2008 02:53 AM

aka

you believe I'm a paid strategist? the most evil astroturfer of them all?

I see.

Except that Obama cannot be an astroturf entity because he's not an entitity--he is not an organization--he is a person. Astroturfing only works when it fronts a larger organization. what is that organization?

There is a This American Life Program with Ira Glass where a woman goes on and blogs for a while with 9-11 conspiracy theorists and at some point they decide that she is a paid British intelligence created entity. Even though she has witnessed a terrible violent event and is trying to discuss it...thinking that she can reach people. They decide she doesn't exist and they call her "Rachel Smaechel".

I feel like rachel smaechel.

Most Active Letters Threads

417

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
188

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
110

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
55

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon