Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
I'm not asking for a debate, especially if by "debate" we mean this thing that happens in these here hills where you set up a straw man and then tear it down and call it names. And, believe me, I see NO difference between Obama and Hillary folks on this.
My point is that there are many people who have asked what I consider to be good questions regarding things like methodology, bias, relavence (not questing the FACT of sexism) and, most importantly to me, the underlying assumption of each side. Don't the sides seem kind of weak to you? I don't just mean the basic stance Joan is taking BUT ALSO the basic stance that those getting mad at her are taking.
I think it would be more consistant with what Joan says she is aiming at if instead of responding to those who will call her a "whore" for having an opinion on this issue, she deepen the conversation (not debate or prove or win or argue) with those who consider this complicated and not all that clear in regards to this election and all the rest. But, so far, it seems that she tends to pick out some of the worst arguments and respond with that kind of,
"Well, you kind of prove my point" or she picks out people who have really distorted her comments and she corrects them. I understand why that might need to happen to some extent, but I'm more suprised at how little she has responded to the hundereds of kind and intelligent posts of those who have had real differences of opinion. That's just mine.
Hey,Camille, I just read your response to reader's questions that they've put up on the front page. Can I post the rest of your responses here?
Sally, look back carefully at the way Glenn responded to you. Really look at what he said about you. Look at the motivations he attributed to you. Look at the research he did and the way he addressed your commments...Do you see it? I do.
Nothing Glenn said proves that he hasn't been telling us huge lies forever!! That is true. We don't know.
Has he treated you well? Up until his last post, has he assumed mal intent on your part? Did he take ANY time AT ALL to go back and address your concerns?
There is too much we don't know about what Glenn might have done!!! You've turned me around on my hero. Darn you!
It seems like many people agree with Joan but don't see her overall point. Didn't some poll say that most democrats find Chelsia more likable than Hillary? Let's pretend that is true. How do we use the awful fact of sexism to help us understand why many people don't like her as much as Barack? I don't think Joan has an opinion on this. At least she hasn't said anything.
I think many of us are trying to figure out the nature of this campaign, so we may have assumed Joan was trying to relate sexism to the contest between Hillary and Barack.
It sounds like Joan is only wanting to state that Hillary faces sexism. And she seems to agree that Barack faces racism. And she seems to agree that he might be intrinsically more likeable. And Joan seems to think he might make a better president than Hillary. If you read her other blogs.
But it's odd how she says it.
Hi,
You ask where she ever says anything nice about Barack. She does quite a bit, but she does it in the same way that she complements Hillary. I don't have time to go back, but you can see the way she holds out her hopes for him. I think she feels she is being objective by always making it clear that there just might not be something right about such and such regarding Obama.
She said that his 2004 speech transformed her thinking about politics. That's much more than simply finding him inspiring, in my opinion.
I think, based on reading all her blogs (a week ago), that he's got her vote over Hillary.
No, It's not that she voted for him. She may have. I think so. But she has NOT said that.
I understand what you are saying about her response to his race speech. I didn't need her to like it or be inspired, but I couldn't make sense of the logic she used about the "grandma" bit. It's a good example of my point:
I think Joan has taken into account that Barack is most likely going to win the primary (we've been able to say that for some time). I think she personally is excited about him. I think she professionally wants to make darn sure that nobody can look back at her coverage of this primary and use her (and Salon) as an example of Obamamania. She never attacks him. She just makes sure highlight any area of doubt she can about all the glowing reviews.
I may be wrong, but I don't think she ever really gushes about Hillary either. It seems to me she wants to push back against unfair coverage on Hillary not because she wants Hillary to win or even because she thinks Hillary has it more unfair than Barack, but because Barack is going to win and she wants to able to clearly point to coverage that wasn't under his trance.
I'm not applauding her for how she is going about this. I think she could achieve the same goal and still provide some really good conversation points. I just think this is how she has decided to go about things.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
