Letters to the Editor
-
A Lot of Dems Agree
Ummm ... Clintonites' rebuttal?
-
Maybe it's you who's out of step
Maybe you've all been huffing at the font of Obama too long and you really believe that anything and everything else is heretical and dangerous.
-
Kristol wants to throw gas on the fire
I'm ashamed for you, Salon, that you're giving him an extra outlet in wehich to do it. Thgey love the infighting, and Salon cares more about web hits than doing the right thing and staying above the fray.
Enter the blog haters. Time for hillary and obama supporters to obliterate each other once again.
-
couldn't even beat them to the punch
Dance, puppets.
-
Um...
In a word... Ignorant.
-
She [Hillary Clinton] is hated on all the right fronts
Best of all, Chris Matthews can barely speak her name without frothing at the mouth.
When the world's most vapid pundit is driven to incoherent rage, that is a sure sign of substance on Senator Clinton's part.
-
Not only is it not a "truism"...
It is a truism that liberals think people are formed by exterior forces around them and are helpless before them, while conservatives think individuals make their own destiny. Liberals love victims and want them to stay helpless, so they can help them, with government programs; while conservatives love those who refuse to be victims, and get up off the canvas and fight.
...it's not even "true."
I stopped reading at that point. If the Weekly Standard is that ignorant about "what liberals think" they can't possibly have anything illuminating to say about Clinton's campaign, or Obama's.
-
And exactly who
On this planet takes anything that odiferous pile of shit says seriously. That you would even waste space on that turd is beyond comprehesion
-
@electrodork
Come on say it with me, I know it hurts.
President Barack Hussein Obama, Leader of the free world.
There I knew you could!
-
@electrodork
Come on say it with me, I know it hurts.
President Barack Hussein Obama, Leader of the free world.
There I knew you could!
-
Aefred if you stopped reading at that point,
how did you know that the Weekly Standard was mentioned? Oops
-
Rush's "Operation Drag-Out-the-Dem-Primary" is in full swing with this article.
Yeah. Conservatives like Hillary. Right.
Their strategy is so transparent. What's shocking is that so many Hillary supporters (ahem...Alex Koppelman) seem to be buying it hook, line, and sinker.
Well done, guys. You are now pawns in Rush Limbaugh's sick game. How does it feel?
-
The kernel of truth...
is that Clinton really HAS put on Rocky's robe, she really HAS learned from the Bush lesson: voters admire people when "you know where they stand." She's working on the stiff neck, the pugnacious attitude. She's ready to step into George Bush's cockpit and start working those levers of power. Got a template for her signing statements and everything.
I don't like it, and that's what Obama means by Washington politics. But her strategy has arguments behind it. Of course Kristol approves of it.
-
on Liberalism
"Liberals love victims and want them to stay helpless, so they can help them, with government programs; while conservatives love those who refuse to be victims, and get up off the canvas and fight."
The insight this sentance gives to the mindset of the writer is fascinating. It is a mindset that believes that victimhood is an eternal condition, that life is not fair, and that because life isn't fair, it's not worth trying to make it fair. It disdains the mindset that hopes to even the scales; believes instead that people who claim such hope are are self-important fakes. It is, in other words, anti-hope, because it vainly believes liberals think like it does.
Liberals, I hope I speak for all of us, don't believe that victimhood is a spectator sport, and don't justify our inaction by glorifying the occasional success stories.
This is the mindset we're up against. It doesn't actively want victims to stay helpless; it's just that it would ever lift a finger to help them.
-
Conservatives...
...like Bill Kristol, love straw men...
-
Factual error
I hate to pick the nits, but George W. Bush did not run against John Kerry in 2000. That was 2004. He ran against Al Gore in 2000. But, of course, Republicans can't be bothered with facts when they're busy spewing the bile.
-
@adelito
The Weekly Standard was mentioned in the subheading on the home page... which was effective, because it allowed me to skip the article altogether.
I don't like that a whole post on Salon is simply a quote from a Weekly Standard column. I understand that it's important to keep tabs on what the opposition is thinking, but how about a response or a little analysis, Salon?
-
the point being
When everyone starts telling you you're delusional, at least some of them might be right. I know it's comforting for Saloniks to think that EVERYONE on the WHOLE PLANET is in error except them, but in truth it's you folks who are misguided. You are after all the same people who promised us that Ned Lamont was the second coming 1.0 and that the US and its zionist masters are secretly planning to nuke Iran, tomorrow, every day for the last 5 years. At some point you have to admit that not only are you wrong, but you are insanely, willfully wrong.
-
Highly demonstrative
This is a highly informative article that demonstrates some extremely salient principles that anyone interested in seeing a resurgence of liberalism (in the broadest, truest sense) would do well to take to heart.
The thing is, the principles aren't what Alex Koppelman thinks they are — and in that respect the article also serves as a highly demonstrative example of what's wrong with the way he analyzes news — as well as the classic failure mode of the blogosphere at large.
The important takeaway has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with anything in particular that these people are saying. It has to do with the reflex — the need, the compulsion — to think carefully about what the writer is saying and try to understand it on its own terms.
It's apparently extremely difficult for well-behaved, sober-minded liberal readers to tell when they're being bamboozled by a fear-uncertainty-doubt campaign.
The Democrats, perhaps accidentally (though they couldn't do a better job if it had been deliberate), have managed to completely dominate the early election narrative despite all of the structural forces arranged against them, and the conservative establishment is working overtime to try and get out in front of the parade and claim that they're leading it.
It's the only thing they can do to stay relevant, try to re-establish control of the narrative, and tarnish the popular perception of the leading liberal candidates.
And every time anyone reading their spew tries to figure out why (say) the Weekly Standard would support Clinton by discussing it — which is the pathological weakness of most blogs — the right wing is succeeding.
It's not about supporting Clinton. Seriously. They could care less. It's about confusing liberals enough to get them to swallow the poison which is hidden in the talking-point candy coating.
There's plenty of real news to be out there covering before we start reposting articles from crypto-fascist agents provocateur as important things to consider, because they're "what's news."
What's news is what we make it! Not what they stick under our noses.