Letters to the Editor
-
The Cynical Side of Salon
MVP: You might be onto something. Why else merely parrot campaign press releases (and those mostly from the Clinton camp) without any substantial analysis whatsoever but to throw red meat to the wolves, knowing full well the letters section will zoom past 200?
-
@ MVPOnline
Awwww. Did you never notice letter writers -- Hutman in particular -- doing everything they can to damage Clinton? Why is this not equally evil? A while back I accused Hutman of actually being in the employ of the Obama campaign, so much time does he (Hutman, are you a he or she?) spend here.
Did you miss it when Tim Grieve was an obvious Obama supporter. He never said so but ... Shapiro too, I think. Greenwald, on the other hand, is probably a Paulite.
However, I am sure you must think I am a Joan Walsh operative whose only function is to drive up click points. Jeeze, maybe I am actually Joan Walsh?
Nope. Looked in the mirror. My hair is the wrong color.
-
aka
my boyfriend thinks I "should" get paid for "defending Obama." He thinks I should write in to Obama's campaign & ask for dough.
I have to say though that I'm relieved sometimes to see Uncle Fester and Hutman defending Obama along with me. I don't suppose there are retrospective campaign salaries out there waiting for any of us. (?)
But one can always dream.
-
MVP: Wouldn't downplay the commercial aspects AND the Readers
While we can continue to keep sniffing for bias (my ears have perked up on occasion), I wouldn't downplay the commercial side of this. I've thought quite a few recent articles were red meat thrown into the raptor cage to rack up page hits. Salon does seem to be getting a little more tabloid, with the "dude vote" piece the a prime example.
Part of that is the readers fault, in my (not) humble opinion. If you look at the WarRoom recently, the stories with the most letters are about Obama v. Hillary and not McCain or VP Cheney.
To mangle some Shakespeare (Julius Caesar)
So the fault, my dear readers,
is not in the editors, but in ourselves,
that we are the morons.
-
@ David Blixt & DoloresFlower: Then Let's Keep It Real
David Blixt:
Referring to me as "your ilk" shows an immediate disdain for Clinton supporters. I have never called Obama's followers "delusional" or any of the so-called negative names you infer in your "ilk" comment.
If you're going to be real, then acknowledge that there is a huge difference between bills that Obama has sponsored and/or cosponsored and bills that have actually survived beyond their introduction. I have never said Clinton introduced 8xxx or 5xxx bills. I have noted elsewhere that she has 22 U.S. Senate bills to her credit in the eight years of her tenure there and that she is ranked 9th out of 100 by Congress.org for her legislative accomplishments, for her leadership, and for her ability to get things done.
RE: Obama's State Senate history. My comments regarding his "taking a powder" come from his own State Senate colleagues. And the "dilettante" comments come from his own U.S. Senate colleagues.
_______________________
DoloresFlower:
You can't have it both ways: you can't smear Sen. Clinton in one breath and in the next talk about her record of accomplishments, etc.. That is just another lowball way of "sticking it to her."
If you want to laud Sen. Obama's record, fine. I have no problem with that. But as long as you and others in Obama's camp continue to drag Clinton down, don't expect Clinton supporters to sit back and take it. It gets tiresome coming to this site and elsewhere to read the same vitriol and drivel about her.
And if you will recall (since we have been through this before), I do not engage in smears about Sen. Obama. What I put forward is written information about him, from written records about his campaign, his associates, his political record(s)/history.
-
Speak for yourself, Uncle Fester! ;)
You don't think there really is a dude vote?
-
@dolores
my boyfriend thinks I "should" get paid for "defending Obama." He thinks I should write in to Obama's campaign & ask for dough.
I have to say though that I'm relieved sometimes to see Uncle Fester and Hutman defending Obama along with me. I don't suppose there are retrospective campaign salaries out there waiting for any of us. (?)
But one can always dream.
They might if anyone actually took people on these forums seriously, but alas they don't. No minds are changed here. It's just a bunch of dogs in a kennel barking back and forth at each other from across their cage aisles. One big dog barks out the talking points, and all the little dogs start yapping along ad naseum.
big dog: WOOF! BARK BARK YAP!
little dogs: woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap! woof! bark bark yap!
-
gezellingtexas
you're correct.
-- ljwalker53
when did I "smear" Clinton? Or should I even ask? Probably not. But go ahead and let me know if you like.
-
Jake Tapper writes:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html
Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option'
March 25, 2008 3:44 PM
l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.