Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 679 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Joe, Joe, Joe
[Read the article: Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary has herself and through surrogates been subjecting Obama to those same "Hillary rules" with increasing verve over the last 6-8 weeks. Certainly, when Obama is the nominee the Republican party can and will do worse, but I think that if Democrats begin to think as a unit again there are steps that can be taken to counter-act this "business as usual" Republican tactic (see also: Glenn Greenwald).
-
Irritated
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I watched parts of the debate (and read transcripts). Those questions weren't tough, they were stupid.
And I'm not just saying this as an Obama supporter. The questions for Senator Clinton were stupid too. I felt embarrassed by the whole charade.
Tough? Please.
This does bring up the issue of how the respective candidates deal with these "Great American Hypocrite" style interrogations, however.
Clinton follows the script from the 1990s -- all spin. Remember, O'Reilly and Limbaugh came to power during this era based partially on the premise that they were the antidote to the constant spit-shining and twisting of political crises big and small during the Clinton era.
Obama is dismissive. This might be one of the core reasons that core Clinton supporters distrust or outright despise Obama.
But dismissive is, I think, the correct response to a moronic question like, "I see that you part your hair on the left not the right, why do you hate America?"
Although probably not politically expedient, I wished that both Clinton and Obama would have simply walked off the set with a "this is stupid, screw you guys."
Finally, as much as I am loathe to do, I have to say that I really get a sense that the pro-Clinton, anti-Obama camp tend to project all the negative emotions that relate to dismissive, domineering and yes abusive men onto Obama, and thus emotionally scapegoat him as more smug, more overbearing and more silver-tongued than he is. I'm loathe to assert the theory because it drips pop-psychology. But it is clear to me that those who are most vehemently anti-Obama in the Democratic party view him in an entirely different way than I do, and I need a theory to explain it.
Ironically, despite all the claims of misogyny and sexism, my own emotional response to Clinton is in fact similar to my own distaste for various authority figures condescension toward me: my father, my older sister, various teachers, bosses, etc. For me to say that my opinion of Clinton isn't emotionally shaded would be untrue, but to say that it is driven by sheer sexism is at best scarcely legitimate and at worst entirely unfair to me.
Someone in one of these 100+ page back-and-forth frothing Democratic Primary Salon.com letters clusterfscks pointed out that McCain communicates paternally, Clinton maternally (emphasis on "matron") and Obama fraternally. The term "first amongst equals" springs to mind -- and the imagery is that Obama is a prince of the people, not an overbearing and condescending mother or father.
-
ETA --
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This letter from a Clinton supporter gives some weight to my pet theory:
letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/16/bittergate/permalink/b88fba6364cf08e402a91e6c3637d8f2.html
-
Substance, or lack thereof
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Others have enumerated this phenomenon but it bears repeating:
The usual Obama or Clinton criticisms here and elsewhere almost always lack any real substance. I expect that Fox, ABC, CNN and NBC will continue to harp on gossipy fluff, but I am saddened when Salon plays along.
There was a time when Salon could be counted on for more thoughtful, in depth coverage.
Could any voter, based solely on the coverage Salon has provided be expected to know anything at all about the specific policy proposals of any of the candidates? Perhaps, but only after wading through nonsense articles like this, or trite like the Walter Shapiro piece on Clinton.
Where is the analysis about the differences in the Clinton and Obama health care plans? Economic policy? Foreign policy?
We aren't stupid, you know.
Salon, and Joan Walsh have the ability to change the conversation. I doubt that constantly fomenting controversy about one gaffe or another is really helping to drive those subscriptions any more than the mere fact that it is an election season. Don't confuse the extra click-through traffic or sign-ups as a validation of the current insipid editorial direction of this online news magazine.
And, moreover, if Salon starts treating its readership like adults, perhaps, and I know this is wishful thinking, perhaps some of the rhetoric in letters will cool down.
I'd like to hear why Obama thinks his proposed policy initiatives would be better than Clinton's and vice-versa, and its clear to me that George Stephanopolis doesn't care.
Here's a suggestion, Joan: contact both campaigns and let them post their best, latest position papers here, let them hash it out between now and Tuesday. Give both campaigns this forum.
The readership will thank you.
-
Better headline
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The mainstream media utterly fails in Philly".