When presented with Clinton's Bosnia gaffe and the Wright stuff by NPR's Susan Stamberg, Daniel Schorr responded, "Well, it would appear from the polls that Obama has indeed weathered the Wright stuff." Puns aside, this is instructive. I often believe that Schorr, while intelligent, is a bit incapable of thinking creatively, and it leads his brilliant mind to often frustratingly complacent and facile analyses.

Yet in this case, even he was able to brush off the reintroduction of Wright as so much distraction.

Fwiw.

I also wanted to echo XH in saying I believe Joan is simply a flawed human being, as we all are, and that, to her credit, her response to criticism (tepid though it appears) is admirable.

Thank you, Joan.

I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud XH for what appears to me his fundamental decency and fairmindedness. While his/her opinions are strong, h/she makes an effort to see the other person's point of view and to respond with respect. I appreciate that, XH, and believe this approach is what we need more of.

No surprise we're both attracted to Obama.

That said, I want to be clear to Joan that, for all my criticism, I never mean to be nasty or disrespectful, so if I cross a line, I hope you or someone else will let me know.

It must indeed be hard to absorb so many pit-bull-like voices calling for you to do this, that and the other thing.

Any reasonable human being would find that extremely taxing and you handle the criticism with grace. Thank you for that.

I don't waste my breath criticising the RWM or the MSM because I find them beyond hope. I criticize you because I believe you actually do listen to what your readers say and that you do want to do the right thing in the end.

Please have a beautiful day and I hope you can find some respite from the storm.

:)

Good one!

Another hollow man heard from.

Thank you for another of your customarily thorough, insightful and well-argued contributions.

"As far as the Bosnia situation, Joan says "I don't think she lied." Her argument: there were so many journalists on the trip, "How could she think she could get away with it?"

And with that, she has pinpointed the problem, exactly. Because Hillary DID think she could get away with it."

I just want to amplify this point. The explanation Joan ignores is that Clinton is given to hubris.

I see quite a few similarities of character between Bush and Clinton, hubris being perhaps one of them.

(Others include the relative incapacity to admit a mistake, responding to criticism with pugnaciousness, condescension to those they consider beneath them, etc. It's siege-mentality thinking and I don't believe it's a desirable trait in a president or leader.)

Pistols at dawn, then?

"But where she veers into delusion is in her continued insistence that her blog postings -- as well as her editorial oversight and decision-making for Salon -- are impartial. Joan insists, even in her blog commentary, that she is being fair to both candidates, and that she doesn't favor Hillary Clinton."

As you wrote elsewhere, I think the greater "delusion" is that her posts are substantive and "academically rigorous," as we say in the biz.

My main issue pertains to the recklessness with which she handles the issues of the day. Rather than offering thoughtful, probing analysis, she offers superficial observations that don't seem to advance the conversation.

In my view, it is the ethical responsibility of anyone with a platform such as Joan's to offer fair-minded and rigorous analysis, and never to create the illusion that any given issue is simplifiable when it's not.

Joan's response to Obama's speech, a truly generational analysis (for a politician of Obama's prominence) chock-full of material worthy of serious discussion, was so woefully inadequate as to be reckless. Especially for someone who claims to be concerned about the issue of racism.

Her treatment of this issue amounted to gross neglience, in my view, and was intellectually shallow, at best, dishonest, at worst.

I believe the readership of any publication deserves a staff whose grasp of the issues is greater than that of the readership, or at least equal to it.