Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Wow, a non-response and poor use of video.
[Read the article: The mommy wars rage on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel ripped off. This appears to be an ad for the original article and current.com rather than making any actual new points. It certainly isn't a response to the controversey.
I may be critical of Traister's movie criticism, but she's a good writer and interviewer. The initial interview was interesting and balanced, the furor in the letters worth skimming. This just mentioned these two things and said, "we're interested in what you think." Yes, and? I was interested in seeing how Traister might encapsulate and continue the discusion, but no.
Plus the doesn't amplify what little point she has. Nothing is gained by this format, except a certain discomfort for the author. The flat production values and awkward framing (here's a tip, having someone's boobs appear to rest on the bottom of the shot looks weird) are distracting.
As the rest of the discussion is in text and involves quoting and analyzing points, it's frustrating when there's a video instead of actual words.
Anyway, I'm annoyed - both by the bait and switch (she didn't actually respond to the angry letters, just quoted one and said other letters disagreed) and by the unnecessary use of video.
-
What the hell? What a dishonest, racist and obvious campaign ad.
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan wrote an entire post claiming this video was her final word on the matter and then claims she didn't see or agree with the whole thing. Almost an entire day after she's used Salon to promote this campaign ad to the world.
Isn't Salon supposed to be the alternative to FoxNews style journalism? Instead Joan is even more craven and sloppy than the mainstream.
And instead of making a substantial case for media sexism - which could be done - it's makes a number of bad faith and racist arguments.
First it excerpts a Countdown quote from one night about Clinton "tearing up" which is sexist - then cuts to Keith on a different night talking about about how Samantha Power quit and apologized then it cuts off his point about how Geraldine Ferraro didn't do the same for her racist remarks. They also omit his comment about her praising John McCain and using Republican tactics.
One may not agree with Keith's point, but it wasn't sexist.
They cover up his words with a non-sequitir clip from Goodnight and Good Luck.
This dishonest attempt to conflate two separate moments to imply everything he says is sexist is furthered by falsely equating him with Glenn Beck and Christ Mathews.
When in reality Keith is the first one to denounce Mathews and other for their comments.
Almost all the examples are a narrow range of right leaning talking heads from cable chat shows, ignoring the ample examples elsewhere. Because that's not the point, the point is to demonize by association.
Then it juxtaposes Rev. Wright's "Hillary has never been called nigger" with right wing images like the C.U.N.T. t-shirt. Which falsely connects Wright to these images and implies Clinton has it as bad as those called nigger. It also insinuates Wright is just as bad as Glenn Beck.
Then it pastes Keith's head on the naked chainsaw scene from American psycho. Then it's a big old music video.
Joan serves up what she admits is pure political propoganda with the claim it's some persuasive montage on media sexism, then tries to pretend it was a mistake.
She also says the valid segment is halfm but it's actually less than a third of the campaign ad.
Either she's very dense or lying through her teeth. I hope it is her final word, as it is a completely dishonest one.
Also, if Joan is so upset by sexist crap, why is she still posting Camille Paglia's rote reactionary anti-woman stuff?
-
More shallow speculation is not the answer- Attack McCain Instead!
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So Salon tries to fix ridiculous speculation...with more of the same.
Brad DeLong misses the main problem with Sean Wilentz's argument: Wilentz had no way of proving how the candidates would have done in a better managed primary system.
All of the candidates, not just Clinton and Obama, would have have been a factor and everyone would have altered their strategy to fit the circumstances. There's no proof from the current results that one candidate would have won in an entirely different system - only speculation, dubious polls and hard to prove patterns.
Maybe Edwards would have won Florida if it had been in play. We don't know.
Instead of merely attacking this central flaw - that there's no way to prove Clinton would win under different rules - DeLong has to trot out a bunch of OTHER dubious polls, speculation and hard to prove patterns.
It is near impossible to predict the circumstances of a general election at this point. There are so many factors which cannot be measured by polls. The polls themselves have problems with methodology and accuracy due to cell phones and other factors. Any current poll result is skewed by current media memes and the wording of the questions.
So the "electability" argument is mainly one of highly biased and emotional perception. Tossing in a bunch of lingo and numbers doesn't make it more true.
Instead, howabout we calm down, let the rest of the voters decide and move on from there? If the economy, the war, the airlines and other things continue as they are people are going to turn against the GOP. If there's some unexpected victory, disaster, Democratic scandal or Republican cheating, McCain could win.
The fact is we don't know. An equally fatuous rant by an Obama supporter doesn't balance things out or make Salon seem less sleazy. It just seems like ass-covering and a concession.
How about devoting the same amount of space given to this crap on tearing apart McCain's flimsy campaign and lies?