Letters to the Editor
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
The more I read Joan's editorials and War Room articles I get the sense that, besides their obvious but unstated preference towards Senator Clinton ...
... the more I get the impression that besides doing what they can to injure the leading candidate through smear, a 2nd more short-term goal is to just drive up activity on Salon.com. More web activity increases the odds of ad sales, and what better way to do so then to drive as much traffic to the site, even if it's negative.
And while I'm certain the majority of 'letters' are realistic and its writers are attempting to engage in a frank debate and commentary - and some masquerading as other candidate supporters, making lewd, incorrect or foul comments for the simple purpose of making said candidate look bad - I also suspect that some specific letter-writers are neither, but rather operatives working with Salon.com directly or indirectly for the same purpose as above. That is, they make deliberately corrosive statements that people like you (and to some extent, me as I've only recently starting posting) find themselves responding to.
Perhaps I'm just being overtly cynical . But I find it's not just Joan Walsh or War Room, there have been other members of the Salon staff who've posted articles that while pretending to be somewhat objective, in fact really have deliberately partisan in effort to prop up one Presidential candidate, and bring down another. To date, most haven't been really clever.
I find it all very sad to see.
I've been coming to Salon since 1999. It's usually the first site I browse when I get online. I've seen a lot of changes, and lots come and go here. And all in all, I've been a fan of Ms. Walsh and many of the initiatives introduced here.
And while there are many sections and staff I would rather see go because things they post which I consider stupid (just my opinion), over the years I've chosen to ignore those elements and focus on the parts I like (Tom Tomorrow, Book reviews, Greenwald, Movies, Zacharek, Conason, HTWW, writers like Kamiya I'm starting to like more). Even when I don't agree with what's said - even from these sources - I've always let it slide, and move on with the day.
But the recent slate of articles slanted towards Senator Clinton under the guise of neutral objectivity has left a really sour taste in my mouth. I don't object to someone having a certain point of view, but I take issue with someone who pretends to be objective, only to get caught repeating one candidate's failed talking points. This particular article referencing the NYT piece by Nagourney is I guess my tipping point. This becomes a waste of my time. That they owners of Salon.com would stoop so low in a sad attempt to help one flawed candidate (who's run a poor campaign and should much of the blame for failing), while cynically using published letters as an attempt to drive up traffic in the short terms makes me now strong think about not coming back here at all.
I continue to enjoy the sources of info from the parts of Salon.com, but wonder if it's worth it.
You post here a lot Mr. Hutman - you think I'm seeing something more that isn't really there? I'd like a 2nd opinion. Or you think Joan Walsh and here Clinton advocates are only doing what they do to damage Obama's chances of winning and nothing more?
-
@ lj
You cherry-pick and spin so well, you should write for Salon.
I don't believe I said she should drop out, though I did use WES's rhetorical device to imagine a what-if scenario.
Now have I ever claimed that Senator Obama is anything but a politician. It is you, and those of your ilk, who keep comparing him to a god or a messiah.
For the record, I support a politcal candidate, one who I admire and respect. Why? Because he has done good things for my home state of Illinois, even in those present votes which Planned Parenthood asked him to make (watch out - misstatements similar to yours by the Clinton campaign cost Senator Clinton the support of that organization). He did a good ethics-reform package here in the state, in the seat that he was ASKED BY Alice Palmer to run for.
As for his accomplishments as a senator? Well, let's see. During the first eight months of his elected service in Illinois he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform
125 on poverty and public assistance
112 crime fighting bills
97 economic bills
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills
21 ethics reform bills
15 gun control
6 veterans affairs
During his first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included the following:
- The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)
- The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)
- The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed the Senate, did not become law)
- The 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law)
- The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill (In committee)
In all, since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
Yeah, he's been too busy running for president to do much. Oh, and there was that FISA thing that he showed up to vote against.
I forget what else you kitchen-sinked, other than Kwame (and are you telling me that Senator Clinton wants to drape her arm around an admitted adulterer who lied under oath?), but keep it coming! This is fun!
-
ljwalker53
We're fighting the same old arguments, over and over, but since you mention the Senate...
In the website you've listed several times Clinton was listed as the 9th most powerful Senator, McCain as the 10th and Obama as the 11th. This doesn't seem to suggest the vast difference in standing that you seem to see yourself.
Still, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about issues like Obama lacks political skills and or experience. I wish that you and other Clinton supporters could admit that he has a long history of public service, as does Clinton, and trying to diminish him using the same old tactics, that are shaded to favor your candidate, aren't convincing anyone who isn't already convinced right now.
Voters in Pennsylvania will likely choose Hillary by a margin of ten percent or so. Like Ohio. And in the rest of the contests with a possible exception in West Virginia...but in at least nine other states Obama is likely to win. In many of these with percentages over fifteen or twenty percent.
So Clinton supporters who don't want to do the math...I just want to give you a heads up. And personally, I like the idea of a combined ticket, despite my frustration with Clinton. I think she will make a very fine and historic vice president. Obama doesn't seem like the type to be threatened by a strong woman (hence his marriage to the admirable Michelle) so I think that Democrats should just settle for having our cake and eating it too.
Obama/Clinton 08.
Now let's move our ammunition stockpiles over to where we can bombard McCain.