Quote:

"Here's what's most interesting about this movement: 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- from Jayhan to the provocateurs who produced the popular film "Loose Change" -- all rely on photos to make their case, the same images that the rest of us use to support our version of the story."

Isn't this something of a strawman argument? Is the whole criticism reduced to merely subjective photo interpretations? The photos offer some evidence which is accessible to everyone - that is why discussions often begin there. The public is not allowed to sit in on the private deliberations of those in power who pen the official story.

Why must I swallow whole the explanation of either the establishment or the paranoid? Aren't you presenting a false dichotomy? Am I not allowed to have a critical mind?

Can you honestly say that you have no reservations regarding the conventional explanation for why Building Seven collapsed in the manner it did? Did the government really do it's job in representing all voices when it authored the truth of 9/11 so presumptiously? Who, then, is so talented as to "know" the truth. Someone recognizing our existential dilemna should be frightened of how little we know and wonder at those who offer us certainty.

Ms. Walsh,

For the past several years I have clung to Salon as a sort of refuge for what I had perceived to be progressive thinking and opinion. I am concerned with the trend in recent months with a distancing of this magazine from principled discussion in favor of something pragmatic, old and institutional.

Your comments remind me of IBM -- of course famous for introducing FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) into the emerging personal computer market, designed to undermine their competitors.

IMHO Salon's comfort with the Clintons is becoming a bit much. Peter Daou's departure to support the Clintons, Sidney Blumenthal's history, your ongoing criticsm.

Further, I was disappointed that Salon took a knee-jerk approach to dealing with Ralph Nader's recent candidacy announcement. Is there nothing of value in hearing from a "transformational" leader in such troubling times? Are corporate, pragmatic, institutional intersts more important than the voices of hope and ideals? Can they not help shift the discussions of our candidates personality and style to the more meaningful issues in a presidential election? Is he of no use to you other than a "strawman" to be dismantled?

I am seriously beginning to doubt my relationship with Salon. It saddens me. Such good writing here.

Is there a generational thing happening here? I am a 30 something. I am too young to have seen King or the Kennedy's. I am old enough to have know William Jefferson Clinton. I liked him in the first term. Was angry and saddened by him in the second term. Our best, albeit deeply flawed, leader of my generation. Does Hillary stand on her own? Can she have it both ways - cashing in on the sentimentalty of Bill's successes while still distancing herself from all of the turmoil and intrigue of that administration? Was she really that outstanding of a senator? Really?

How could you not have been moved by that speech? Do you have writting which could compare? What lecture have you given that could inspire us equally? Do you have no personal experience with race, racism and the generational attitudes which make attempts at love, compassion and consistency of thought and behavior nearly impossible in our families and broader communities?

When was the last time you were inspired by what the Clinton's had to say? When was the last time you cringed or were embarassed? Are they the only choices we have left?

Are your aruguments really based on the merits of this incident? In the end, does it really matter what his minister thinks if he publically denounces them? Really?

Regards,

Your Fading Supporter

I believe most readers are offended by the sort of language used by Ms. Rhodes, especially while used in the context of honest debate. I think most readers would stipulate that an ad hominem attack is a tool of the weak minded. I do find it interesting that Ms. Walsh chooses to focus on this (obvious) aspect of the debate, rather than so many other aspects in the recent reader feedbacks. With respect, Ms. Walsh, this feels like a bit of either a strawman or red herring.

IMHO, the root cause of the recent debate has stemmed from an editorial bias at Salon in favor of one particular candidate. I believe many of the readers' reactions range from sadness to anger at the imperfections of such a beloved online resource. I should clarify, that bias is not the "sin". Rather, a lack of full disclosure is the source of offense. I like to think that offering up our personal biases lends to a more interesting discussion - it reflects principles of honesty and transparency in dealing with ourselves and others.

Lastly, is this the type of cohesion and party goodness Ms. Walsh predicted would result from HRC’s remaining in the race? Even amongst the rather insular community of Salon readers I am seeing fractures along the lines of age, race, gender and identity in politics. I believe that her hypothesis is soundly refuted.

Is the progressive voice strong enough to withstand several more months of this internal struggle? Shouldn't we move along and consider the policy based issues which unite us?

Well put.