Letters to the Editor
-
@ madamfountleroy
Exactly!
So shouldn't our attention be focussed on dismissing that preposterous narrative out of hand, or at least challenging Clinton to explain to us how, precisely, she connects such heroism to judicious foreign policy decisions?
Why, in other words, do we (or more importantly, the professional media) for one second concede such a non-sequitur of a premise?
In this case, we don't need to waste our time uncovering this lie because the premise the lie is designed to support is dubious at best.
Same thing with the Carville business. The real story there isn't about "nastiness" or whether Bill Richardson is a "traitor," but rather about the very premise that Richardson's loyalty is owed to Clinton.
In both these cases, the legitimate issues are ignored for yet another round of "I know you are, but what am I!" and "Clinton's an asshole!"
"Obama's a liar!"
"Oh yeah, well Clinton did this!"
"Yeah, well Obama did that!"
I mean Christ Jesus, if we can't have a serious and substantive discussion about these things at Salon, then just where is such a discussion supposed to occur?
What's the point in abstaining from Fox News and Talk Radio only to bring Fox News and Talk Radio here?
Really, I just don't get it.