Mr. Greenwald,

Yours is an invigorating and thought-provoking corpus of work that not only includes analysis but that takes on the often more difficult task of responding in written dialog form with both journalists and readers. I compare it here to the glaring absence of analysis or dialog - particularly with Salon readers - by Joan Walsh.

I cite your analysis of the FISA situation in particular as an ikon to emulate. Your writings - AND your responsiveness within the comments section to readers' thoughts - is what makes Salon readers a community. And never believe that your willingness to take on the comments of others has no resonance to a larger audience through readers. In response to yours/readers' thoughts I wrote and faxed letters to Senators Dodd, Lautenberg, Obama and others on the FISA issue. Surely I am not alone.

I compare your outstanding record -discussing the underlying correlation between a weakened Constitution and lobbying money - to the "cut and paste" methods recently exercised in this community by Joan Walsh. Many among Salon's readership - and a few among the journalist group, notably David Gergen - were astounded that a presidential candidate would cite polls of the differential in voter support by "hard-working" voters, "white" voters - while not disparaging racism. I understood David Gergen suggested proclaiming publicly that [to reduce to its essence] votes on the basis of discomfort with a black president were not wanted. Mr. Gergen's could be lauded as a part of that sorely needed 'conversation' described by another candidate in a speech in Philadelphia. To make such a suggestion requires analysis of the meaning of polls.

BY contrast, Joan Walsh's recent 'cut-and-paste' article - under the insultingly obvious question of whether white racism a problem for its target demonstrated an aversion to analysis and included no response to reasoned inquiry by Salon readers. I reviewed the [then about 600, later another 200 plus] letters to find many noting her absence of analysis' some wrote directly to her. Ms. Walsh has not deigned to respond once. The continued silence by J.W. is deafening. Among many 'trolls' were brilliant posts by Salon readers such as "weeping for brunhilde' and 'unschooled' [please forgive mispellings]. I [with corrective edits] my own small contribution - on silence [from p 76]. I believe Ms. Walsh - as with Mr. Harris - has much to answer for.

Joan Walsh and Hilary's Silence

I want to echo the recent letter writer's comment noting the silence of Joan Walsh, and - sorry Ms Walsh - tie it to the silence of Hilary Clinton in their similarity as enablers of racism.

I understand that David Gergen - for all that he is not someone whose political views I would espouse or recommend, made an ETHICS-based excoriation of Hilary (or to be more gentle, a recommendation) that Hilary has eschewed, that [] may resonate with Ms. Walsh - should she manage to read this one among 600-odd letters.

Mr. Gergen appears to have suggested that it was Clinton's responsibility (as opposed to Obama's) to say publicly in West Virginia to voters that those among them voting for her because Obama was black should stay home; that she did not want their vote. If I understood him to say that, I would expand upon it to have said Hilary's obligation was to say directly to WV and Kentucky voters that if any among them thought to vote for her because they believed that she was a better American, or because Obama was muslim (true or not) or for any non-policy or [non-]'experience'-based reason, that they should go home or perhaps go and take counsel with a spiritual leader for guidance - but no thank you she did not want their vote.

Why does Ms. Walsh's silence as an online civic leader bother me? I would urge her to recall that white civic leaders' silence enabled racism through at least the 1960s; that even among whites, silence among Christians enabled 'Gentlemens' agreements' against jews in clubs and redlining in tony suburbs; that the failure in ethical outcries by other House Members and civic leaders enabled the House Unamerican Activities panel to continue its destruction of our society's fabric while the destruction of [Arts/journalism] careers and even suicides resulted.

It need never have been the lynching victim's responsibility to challenge the ethics of their tormenters, or to speak truth to power from a vantage point inside a burning church. It was and remains the responsibility of those others with more power than the victim - i.e. white christians in the community, whether civic leaders and ministers or "merely" neighbors, relatives, friends, coworkers = and yes, writers within the media - all those who know the truth yet stand silent without comment. These are the bearers of Society's shame.

I urge Ms. Walsh to avail herself of a screening of the Elia Kazan (no[w] there's an irony) Gregory Peck movie Gentlemen's Agreement that has recently been getting lots of play on the Turner cable channel. She may want to view closely the character of the lovely white very sympathetic Christian fiancee who could have s[p]oken the truth - but was silent.

We are all of us 'other' in some way or another. But so many of us are also lucky to be 'insiders' - or to be more crude - we can 'pass' in a way that Barack Obama simply cannot.

I respectfully ask Ms. Walsh as a member of the 'civic/media leadership commentator' community - to consider putting her views about Hilary's silence forward ...

Wanted to let these and other unnamed but excellent posters within this community know that your posts add value to the community; they are nearly always informative and thought-provoking – and they occasionally also provoke a smile. Your near-uniform depth of thought and notable absence of dogma, is appreciated.