“I also agree with “jfor” that we can’t fix Iraq until we hold the Bushies accountable.
A public airing of the Bush administration’s crimes is also essential to more broadly debunk the fallacious thinking and wholesale dishonesty that have become imbedded in many Americans’ thinking. Take a look at the comment boards that follow any political article on “mass” venues like AOL -- you will be appalled at the vitriol and shocking ignorance displayed there. So much of it sounds like it was taken from Karl Rove’s talking points (because, directly or indirectly, it was).
The problems with the Bushies go far beyond differences of opinion between liberal and conservative ideology. We must publicly acknowledge the unambiguous, demonstrably criminal acts these people have committed, so that Bush/Cheney can take their rightful place as the gargantuan progeny of Nixon in our country’s history. This whole presidency belongs in our children’s (and grandchildren’s) history books as a cautionary tale of what can go wrong with the electoral process and our Democracy as a whole.
This is why the Democratic leadership’s failure to pursue impeachment is so wrong. They’ve made a short-sighted calculation about the political costs of doing what’s right. But the real cost is that, if we fail to scrub away the patina of legitimacy that still clings to everything the Bush administration has done, their lies will stay alive, capable of poising the electorate for many, many years to come.”
“Sorry, there, Dude. Obama saw you coming. Did you catch the part about how opponents will try to twist the idea that government can do some things well, into an accusation that he wants to create a big government of big handouts? People see through your shallow argument. Have you noticed that the size and spending of government has grown exponentially under Republicans? And for what? The only thing they're capable of doing with all that money is making their cronies rich. The only thing Republicans succeeded in shrinking is our standard of living, our infrastructure and our credibility in the world. Oh, and New Orleans. They sat with their thumbs where the sun doesn't shine while Katrina swept it away, so they might as well take credit for shrinking that. They shrunk a budget surplus -- actually made it disappear altogether and turned it into a huge deficit. Like being up to your ass in debt to the Chinese? Oh, wait, they also shrunk your privacy and your civil rights. Come to think of it, they shrunk our national morality in almost every way possible -- thanks to the GOP, we're now a nation that tortures people, just like all those countries we used to criticize for the same thing. And all you have is the same old talking points. Time to wake up and think for yourself, Dude. Because you're being duped into voting against your own best interests.”
“Great post! I couldn't agree more. You know, after she finally made her concession speech (which was very well done) there were a lot of people -- myself included -- who made a point of calling for everyone to put the primary race behind us.
I saw reply after reply-- and made some myself -- suggesting that bitter anti-Hillary comments should stop and that it was in everyone's best interests to cool the rhetoric. "UNITY," we all said. I still feel that way.
Back then, we said "give the Hillary people a while to calm down. Don't take the bait every time one of them repeats foolish lies about Obama or makes wildly inflated claims about Hillary's dominance of the primary popular vote." I still feel that way.
But, watching her speek, I found myself getting really angry. Here she was, speaking at the Convention to nominate Obama, and she was STILL giving her stump speech. How many times did we all hear those same anecdotes during the primaries? The first half of her speech was "me, me, me." She pulled it out somewhat by the end, but still left the feeling that her defining characteristics are ego and hubris. God knows, we've had enough of that!
All this time later, there are still plenty of Hillary people who have NOT calmed down, and in her own version of "dog whistle politics," Hillary still seems to be encouraging them. She does not seem likely to change.”
iLogos on Aug 29, 2008 at 16:54:45
“Yes Sen. Clintons first part of the speech was a lot about her, what she had accomplished and thanking her supporters... but it was done not to further puff herself up so much as to let them down gently.
Her speech was fantastic, quite possibly the best of her career... the one sticking point is she did not recant what she knew to be false statements about Sen. Obama not being ready to lead. No matter how much you dislike a family member they are still your family, you never give someone else ammo to hurt your family, because they'll turn it soon you the first chance they get.
If by some twist of Fate Sen. McCain does win and Sen. Clinton runs again, she will face an entire slate of Democrats all who will happily point out they lost the election because of her. They will use it as a hammer to drive home every bad quality she has real and imagined, and if she manages to make it through that Sen. McCain will do the same.”
cyndeewi on Aug 29, 2008 at 16:45:46
“Hillary did an excellent job.. Who cares if she was using her stump speech or not. Can you please give her a break. Heck, my profile shows that I am a supporter of Obama but these slurs on Hillary has got to stop.”
dreffein on Aug 29, 2008 at 13:15:34
“Your HRC hatred is doing nothing to calm the waters and Senator Obama needs HRC even more today after naming a woman to be his VP (according to MSNBC).”
“Well said, and I'll take my lumps for name calling. There are many people on these comment threads who do not “argue” in good faith. It’s gotten so bad that sometimes I’m spoilin’ for a fight, where none is warranted. Such would seem to be my mistake in this case.
That said, I'm glad to see that other commenters have added a variety of good points as to why your very narrow view of the 4th Amendment does not make a great deal of practical sense, nor does it hold water in view of a large body of jurisprudence on the subject. Such a narrow view of the Constitution is akin to a literalist reading of biblical text. I'm not saying one is equated with the other, so don't get in an uproar. I'm just saying that there's a similar logical error made in both cases.
Finally, your preference for Constitutional amendment has a nice ring to it in an idealized way, but practically speaking it’s never going to happen. Congress is out to lunch, bought off, or operating on the calculus of political timidity, so the comparatively far more difficult task of amending the Constitution is clearly DOA.
Thus, we’re left to do the best we can with the Constitution we have. Common sense says we must therefore apply some reasoned judgment to Constitutional interpretation, lest we ultimately find ourselves suffering the very consequences of bad government that the Constitution was written to help us avoid.”
“Thank you, Antonin Scalia. His -- and your -- strict constructionist view of the Constitution is foolish and, thankfully, still in the minority. Confining one’s understanding of the Constitution to “the letter” of the text makes the fallacious assumption that contemporary readers can be certain about the intentions of the Founders, who were writing in totally different time and with a totally different understanding of the world than we have today.
Worse, it is preposterous to assert that Justice in any true sense can be served, by applying some phantom “original intent” standard to the present day. At the time the “original intent” was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death.
In fact, all the high minded rhetoric in favor of “strict constructionism” and against “activist judges” is nothing more than a conservative tactic, aimed at preventing the advancing morality of society as a whole from chipping away at the entrenched power of an established few.
It also makes for some preposterous contradictions, as when Scalia recently waxed melodramatic about how granting habeas corpus to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would somehow lead to American deaths, but shortly thereafter lauded the Court’s decision to strike down the DC ban on hand guns -- a ruling that will without question lead to many American deaths.”
Quitcherbichin on Jul 9, 2008 at 21:43:23
“"At the time the "original intent" was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death."
Ah yes, the good ole days; gone forever. And we did not have to fool with the constitution to get it done.”
FACINGREALIT on Jul 8, 2008 at 23:58:01
“I grant you your position, however as you state: when the "original intent" was formed, it was legal to buy and sell human beings as slaves, women could not vote or hold political office, and homosexuality was punishable by prison or even death." - And yet we as a society found a way to CHANGE those injustices with WRITTEN LAWS that are more reflective of the time in which we live.
As such, with the word 'terrorism' being tossed around to justify the hinderance of ones privacy at every corner, is it asking to much to UPDATE those parts of the Constitution that are left for interpretation. Just because you want something to be true does not make it that way. One cannot presume that a CONVERSATION is private as it is SPOKEN - much different than ones WRITINGS.
As such, I respectfully allow you your opinion but I will agree to disagree. The 4th Amendment covers persons - not conversations or as I stated at the very least it is interpretational.
Your name calling or attempting to belittle my opinion by comparing to another is childish and is not necessary for a reasonable and ADULT type debate. However, you will not deter my opinion because it differs from your own. You have been given the right to your individual thought . Makes you neither right or wrong - just your opinion - which differs from my own. God Bless”
“This is right on the mark. First of all, Bush isn't the top guy in the government. He's a figurehead. I'm guessing that he's actually 3rd or 4th banana. Second, the Cheney administration has accomplished what it set out to do.
They’re not just being short sighted about destroying the middle class. It’s been a goal since Reagan. If you’re looking to bring back the gilded age of the robber barons, you definitely don’t want a strong, educated middle class with a bunch of pesky demands who will ask a lot of nettlesome questions about what you’re up to.
These guys believe the Federal government should be very, very weak. Grover Norquist said their goal was to shrink the government “…down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” So, they dismantle as much as they can, and put incompetent sycophants in charge of whatever they can’t dismantle. Then, they can point to the inevitable failures and say “see – we told you – private enterprise is the better answer.”
In any other period of American history during wartime, even the slightest hint of war profiteering was cause for huge outcry of TREASON. Somehow, these crooks have been able to change the nomenclature from “profiteering” to “private contracting.” And once again, the apathetic, ill-informed, easily misled American electorate was fooled.”
“Basically you just said, "Democracy is too messy for Liberals, and this is why they use Due Process (a core principle of Democracy) to have their way." There are three branches of government in our Democracy: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Get it?
You seem to be one of those people who are confused about the components of our Democracy which form the Separation of Powers -- a fundamental principle that you can’t allow the power of a monarch (or Executive) to decide who is an "enemy" and then, on the basis of that determination, to lock them away in a dark hole, never to be heard from again.
The current crop of neo-conservatives don't seem to understand the basics about our Democracy. They -- and you, apparently -- want to do away with all this messy Democracy stuff, because they see it as standing in the way of their ability to govern how they want, using whatever methods they want, with as much secrecy as they want.
Funny, that's the kind of stuff American Democracy was supposed to cure!”
Please respond to the following question. I articulated it in greater detail in a two-part response to your comment posted at 7:27 PM on 6/13/08.
I believe the key issue is not whether Mayhill had any right to report what she heard, nor even necessarily her methods (though I agree with the criticism of that).
The key is that Fowler didn’t seek comment from the Obama campaign. Why not? It’s standard practice, and shouldn’t be considered prohibitively time consuming or difficult.
I think Fowler knew she had an explosive item on her hands, but that clarification from Obama would have rendered her piece pretty mundane.
Why? Obama had addressed this exact subject publicly before, offering a much more nuanced, truer articulation that bespoke his empathy with small town and rural Americans, not the “elitist” disdain that Fowler’s piece inaccurately portrayed. Inaccurate, not about what Obama said at that fundraiser, but about Obama’s real views on the subject which both of you knew, or should have known.
Thus, Fowler’s piece added nothing to her readers’ understanding of the candidate. Quite the opposite, Fowler knowingly fomented “sensational” misinformation which got her lots of attention, but harmed Obama.
How is this justifiable, when the facts reveal irresponsible sensationalism, done for Fowler‘s personal gain? I just don’t buy your assertion that Fowler’s tactics are worthy of an academic “on the one hand, on the other hand” discussion. To me, this seems like post hoc justification for a scurrilous tactic.”
“Good luck. I've tried to post comments criticizing that individual, but they all get censored. This Obamalover "person" is free to post all the lies and offensive garbage it desires. But don't dare ridicule the ridiculous, or condemn the hateful. THAT will be censored.
But then, I'm guessing you'll zap even this, eh censor?”
dvdpt on Jun 15, 2008 at 02:34:08
“EGNY ! you should know what you are talking about
HuffPost has mostly McCain posting and all his lies
go to McCain blog. and complain and criticize MacCain LIES, HATEFULL COMMENT
“Wow! That puts you in a tough spot. How do you maintain civility? I mean, they're your family so of course, you love them. And you don't get to trade them in.
My paternal grandfather (now deceased) held a great many racist views. And, he drank. So, as the scotch bottle got lower, the racial slurs (pun intended) came out.
In my house growing up, that stuff was not tolerated. My father always instilled strong values against racism, despite his own father’s views.
I guess we can't judge our grandparents and parents without context of how each generation has contributed to improving for the next. My racist grandfather had an emotionally abusive father. The stories I've heard would curl your hair. So, based on where he started, my grandfather did his best and produced a son (my father) who went to law school and later became a minister.
So, I ask myself -- what will I do for my kids? Giving them an advanced education is part of it. But, what values will I leave them? What kind of people am I parenting them to be? What example am I setting with my own actions?
I can only say that I’m conscious of this every day, and try to do my part to advance the next generation. To teach my kids to put love above fear, service above avarice. That’s one of the biggest things any of us can do to make the world a better place.”
“I think "eden4barack08" has a point about the integrity of journalists (like Russert) who were schooled in ethics as well as tactics. We seem to be hitting new depths of moral bankruptcy, whether it's our elected officials or our so-called "journalists." Funny, but seen from that view, George W. Bush and Mayhill Fowler seem oddly cut from the same cloth.
I have to say, however, that you don't lend any credibility or honor to your argument by using language like "flaky sneaky wimpy female" and "a no-account female slinging her wiley ways around." What does Fowler's gender have to do with it? I say, not one thing. She didn't use seduction as a tactic, if that's what you're implying.
I think the larger issue, however, is that you seem to be painting Fowler as MORE reprehensible, simply because she's female. That smacks of -- dare I say it -- sexism. Even Misogyny. This adds nothing useful to the discussion and, in fact, cheapens it. That kind of language also gives ammo to those who would abuse the charge of sexism to cover for bad behavior, as I believe happened in the recent primaries. It simply has no place in our politics or our public debate.
Fowler's tactics would have been equally reprehensible if she were a man. So, let's not confuse the issue by dragging a bunch of wrong-headed gender references into it.”
WAstateliberal on Jun 14, 2008 at 03:29:43
“My thoughts exactly. Ebanks84 was offensive. These tactics suck whether they are employed by a man or a woman. Take your misogyny to Politico, Ebanks84, where it belongs.”
“And don't think that the recent success of Huffington Post is "inevitable" going forward if this is the kind of work that you do. "Inevitability" has proven a false assurance in general, as we've all seen.
Between Mayhill Fowler and HuffPo's constant censorship of comments that are absolutely within your comment policy, it's getting to be hard to like you guys. And, if "hours spent" on a single media property and "share of news requirements" fulfilled by that property are any measure, I sure have "liked you guys" a lot over the past few months.
The worst things about the Bush years, of course, are all the damage they've caused to the country, the Constitution, our functioning as a "nation of laws, not of men" and to the world. But, personally, it's been most disheartening to live with a constant stream of "information" you can't trust, and the feeling of being utterly invisible and voiceless.
Funny, but when HuffPo publishes, promotes and defends people like Mayhill Fowler, then unreasonably censors comments by loyal readers, I get a feeling of "deja vu all over again." And it doesn't make me want to keep spending much time here.”
Obama is gracious to a fault. That does not change what Fowler did, nor excuse it.
The issue is not whether Mayhill had any right to report what she heard. The issue is that, had she followed a basic journalistic practice, she would have sought comment from Obama. If you want to dig up the most value for your readers, why wouldn't you do this?
The only plausible answer I can think of is that Fowler didn't WANT a response from Obama. Why? Because she knew she had an explosive item on her hands -- one that would get her a lot of attention. You knew this as well. And both of you knew, or should have known, that Obama’s comments in San Francisco were out of character with his real views on this subject. An article on Huffington Post a few weeks ago demonstrated this clearly, reporting the much more nuanced manner in which Obama addressed the exact same subject, mere hours before he made the comments that Mayhill reported.
If Fowler had sought comment from Obama, she knew perfectly well that he would have offered some context -- some clarification -- that could be clearly proven authentic and not just an attempt at damage control. But then, her piece would not have been nearly as explosive. It would not have gotten so much attention, because it would not have painted Obama in an undeservedly negative light. But it would have been more truthful.”
I think the same unavoidably damning criticism can be leveled at Fowler for her "interview" with Bill Clinton. Again, your assessment misses the point. It doesn’t matter what Fowler thought of the VF article, nor the “press of the moment” on a rope line. What matters is the integrity that’s brought to the process from that point forward.
There's a pattern in Fowler's work. She did the same just-barely-clandestine hit and run job on Clinton that she did on Obama. The result wasn't -- as you try to paint it -- an alternate view of what is good or virtuous in "journalism." It was a tactic designed to get dirt -- forget about whether it added anything real to the "public interest, convenience or necessity" -- just get the dirt and get out. Then publish it and make a splash. Don't worry about who gets unfairly characterized, or hurt. Don't concern yourself with the larger truth. Don't seek further comment or add context. Just publish that which is sensational.
All your lengthy and lofty ponderings about alternate ways to look at Journalism are nothing more than post hoc justification for a scurrilous tactic. One that has benefited your business financially. One that has been repeated, condoned and encouraged by you. One that is, in the end, indistinguishable from tabloid journalism. That’s the truth. If you’re going to do this kind of work, at least admit it. Even the Weekly World News does as much.”
“OK, I'm an Ob-*ma supporter -- have been since early in the primaries. I'm certainly inclined to believe stuff like this. Certainly there is ample evidence, even without most of the details you described, to believe that McSame is a hothead with some sort of demons that drive him to sing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann."
But you make some incredible statements. "...cover up...the documents of his film career...", "...keeping our poor American heroes in POW camps and poor American moms with no information on their MIAs because of the need to hide away McCains less than admiral war record..."
Are you actually saying that American soldiers were left sitting in POW camps, just so McSame could make his war record look good? Do you have proof of this? MIA soldiers, whose whereabouts were known, but hidden for the same reason? Do you have proof of this? Please cite it. Because if this could be proved, one would think that it'd be the end of McSame's viability as a presidential candidate.
I don't need accusations of such magnitude to know that I think McSame would be a terrible, tragic choice for president. I know he is. But, somehow, I'm skeptical of these huge claims without some very clear proof.”
“Nicely done Bill Moyers! If you want to see truly excellent, thoughtful journalism at its best, watch Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS. I consider it a "must see" each week.
What's really amazing is the difference between what you learn watching Moyers, versus watching network news. I made that comparison long ago and concluded that network news is utterly useless -- so I stopped watching altogether. On the other hand, I now notice that much of what Moyers covers is at least familiar to me, because I've learned about it online and from watching shows like Countdown. None of these sources can hold a candle to Moyers for pure intelligence, but you CAN become pretty well informed if you don't waste your time watching the nets.
Speaking of Countdown, I kept wondering if Moyers ever saw Olbermann's handy guide to dealing with an O'Lie-ly flunky's ambush. Scroll down about 1/3 of the way at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21101940/.
If you're ever ambushed again, Mr. Moyers, just remember to mention the following three things:
World War II -- Malmady
Billo won't air anything that mentions these topics, because each of them represents a humiliating public problem for this loser.
Fox is beneath contempt. Anyone who watches Fox is, by definition, an idiot.”
Disturbance on Jun 9, 2008 at 18:35:53
“I LOVE Moyers! For those who can't tune in each week, subscribe to his podcast. It's great.”
ErnestineBass on Jun 9, 2008 at 18:24:53
“If you want to hear the best orator in America, Google Moyers' speech from the 2007 NCMR.
“Yes, I bet they are. Also, DO NOT confuse fundamentalist evangelicals with all Christians. I belong to a church that shares space with a synagogue. We believe in the Divinity of Difference. By "difference" I mean that we are a multi-ethnic, multi-racial congregation that welcomes gays and lesbians, has had openly gay pastors and has an active GLAAD group. Most of the congregation is straight. We just don't think God hates people because of how they were born. My wife is Jewish, so we belong to the Temple and the Church. She's a past VP of the Temple, I'm a Deacon. We observe both faith traditions and teach both to our children.
Sound like your stereotypical Christian? Well, we're not, but there are lots of us out here.
Jesus said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment and the second is like unto it -- thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." There’s a story about the great Rabbinical teacher Hillel (I know I’m going to mess this up, but I have the gist). He was asked by a cynic to teach the whole Torah while he stood on one foot. Hillel said something like "love your neighbor as yourself. That is the meaning of the whole Torah. The rest is commentary."
So, we focus on love, not judgment of others.
Oh, and OBAMA 08!!!”
Gunfighter on Jun 9, 2008 at 06:33:18
"Christian" doesn't mean "crackpot", nor does "evangelical" necessarily mean "racist", "bigot", "homophobe", or "intolerant"”
“What purpose does it serve to rant about this stuff? OK, there were aspects of her primary campaign that angered a lot of people, me included. But, Hill-*ry has been a good public servant and a decent person (from what I've seen/heard/read -- I obviously don't have first hand knowledge) for the vast majority of her political career.
I frankly think she got a bit of whiplash going from "inevitable" to "long shot" in the political equivalent of 17.4 seconds. I think she flailed a bit and it caused her to take some bad advice and follow her own worst instincts. Anybody -- you, me & Mother Ther-*sa -- can get knocked off of our normal judgment in an extreme situation. And not one of us knows what it's like to be in the situation she just finished. These primaries looked to me like a tornado sealed in a pressure cooker.
We need to start thinking about this differently than we did during the primaries. Hill-*ry’s not “them.” She’s “us.” Like it or not, as of right now, McSame is the only “them” worth fighting. Trying to take the proverbial “pound of flesh” from Hill-*ry is insane because, at this point, it’s a wound we’d be inflicting on ourselves.
Hill-*ry gave a great speech. We should be reaching out to welcome her supporters, and acknowledging the positive qualities Hill-*ry has, which attracted so many loyal supporters to her.”
The First Amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT using its authority to limit expression -- especially to advance State power or keep particular individuals in power. Perhaps its most important function is to enable the citizens to criticize their government.
A website like HuffPo cannot be said to infringe your First Amendment rights. HuffPo is a media entity, not a part of the government and, as such, it is impossible to say that they infringe on your First Amendment rights. So, to go farther and suggest that people writing on a comment thread are infringing your First Amendment rights is simply ridiculous.
I believe a site like HuffPo is legally required to make a "good faith effort" to monitor comment threads and take down speech which is Obscene, engages in ad hominem attacks, etc. I'm not a legal expert, so perhaps someone who is can fill in on this point.
I happen to think HuffPo censors more than they should. I complain about it all the time. I think they should follow their own policy by censoring only those comments that violate the perfectly reasonable rules that they've articulated. However, that has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. It has only to do with the integrity of HuffPo’s relationship with their “members.”
Bottom line: You have a First Amendment right to free speech. HuffPo does not have an obligation under the First Amendment to give you an unfettered platform to exercise that speech.”
“Have you noticed all the pleas to ignore t*r*o*l*l*s who post stuff just to piss people off? Because that's all that is. You're being manipulated by the Limbaugh Lobotomy patrol. Get it?
I hope you would not base your vote on what some slack-jawed, drooling moron posts to a comment board. If you do, what does that say about you?
Or, maybe you're just enraged and looking for a reason to spout off about how you're not going to vote for Ob-*ma. Any 'ol excuse, eh? Believe whatever you like, but spare us the fairy tale that you speak for anyone but yourself.
True Dems are uniting against the REAL enemy. You know, the guy who'll see Roe overturned, keep a broken healthcare system that lets ordinary Americans die waiting for their insurance company to approve treatment and says it's just fine for the government to spy on its own people. The guy who'll keep us in Ir-*q for 100 years and soon start another "war of choice" with Ir-*n.”
“Well, thanks for weighing in. Would you be one of those "blue dogs" who is against a new GI Bill for our soldiers, that will bring benefits up to date? Because, your tired old derisive manner of referring to Ob-*ma as "B-*rry Hus-*in" and that handy talking point about raising taxes makes you sound like a Repugnician.
You're entitled to your opinion...like they say, everyone has one. Today, there are lots of us who have hope that this country is ready to move in a better direction. We have hope that there are fewer people who will listen to the kind of rhetoric of hate and division that you use. We have hope that legions of people will vote in 2008, who previously believed themselves to be so far outside the franchise of America that they didn't see any point in participating in the political process.
We're sick of crooks and liars running the government. Today, HRC took a big step toward uniting the party, by explaining very clearly -- and logically, without relying on pure sentiment -- why it's in her supporters' best interest to now support Ob-*ma.
And you? I suspect you'll be drowning in your bitterness, your hatred and your anger. It's a lousy place to be -- but you seem to choose it willingly. Best of luck to you.”
IslandGyal on Jun 7, 2008 at 18:46:03
“Well articulated, but I have no confidence your words would be heeded; it's like throwing pearls to swine.”
plafayette on Jun 7, 2008 at 18:44:28
“EGNY ...You make me proud to be an American. You have educated without harm. Leading by example - Obama 08”
“From your lips to HuffPo's ears. I posted something longer than a 1-liner hours ago. Literally hundereds of comments have shown up since the time I posted mine, but mine is nowhere to be found. And, in case you're wondering, it was not particularly controversial, used no profanity, made no ad hominem attacks, was not abusive, nor off-topic. That's HuffPo's comment policy.
I've written several comments meeting the above description, on various threads, that have NEVER shown up. I have sent a few respectfully worded emails to HuffPo, asking for clarification. No reply.
When my comments start to sit in the "pending" queue forever, a person could start to get paranoid that they're just retaliating for having had the temerity to complain!”