You said:

"I'm trying to think of positive stereotypes that would work in Obama's favor as black. Sadly, not many spring to mind!"

"well, Barack has had to suffer so much as a slave that I just know he is wiser than she is..."

"Barack has a sort of street smarts that no president has ever had"

"Barack has an instinctual understanding of politics."

And, as Weeping put it, "Barack has a great jump-shot"

Liquid; great points. I agree that it would be much more useful to look at those Hillary issues than speculate about the possible effect of Barack's preacher. I was beings silly in my posts because I find the standards used to judge the "important" issues to be really weak. Asking rational questions about the issue doesn't really do much around here, but it's fun to push the logic to its extremes.

I think they wish Joan would identify her advocacy like those examples you give. I don't think Joan is pushing for Hillary, but I think that's what frustrates some of these folks.

Go here:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/4262

This is an example of something that could be easily dismissed, especially by those of you who keep picking on Joan for looking deeply into the implications of Barack's having respected that preacher. You guys trash her for simply forcing us to really wonder about Barack's morality (or is it electibility...or is it both....either way it really matters).

But read that article with an open mind. Don't get all pretentious about "real issues" and policy questions. Just notice what the writer is pointing out and you'll see why it is important that we let these types of issues be a big deal. The writer discovered something about Obama that nobody else has noticed. Nobody. Not even Joan. But at least Joan will appreciate it. I'm not saying that Joan will decide to write about it for a few weeks (she's probably waiting for the next significant issue to pop up); I am only saying that she will realize that this type of analysis can't simply be put up on the "meaningless" shelf. As much as Glenn Greenwald might like to use this article to prove his point about the downward spiral of political journalism, I think an intelligent reader will read this article and conclude that it is actually just the opposite. Political jounalism is slowly but surly becoming more and more fine tuned to the types of stories that matter to real Americans. The article I am linking you to is just one example of what can happen when a smart American gets concerned about electibility and perception and, of course, who Barack Obama really is and what we can learn from his snobish, standoffish, adolecent behavior. Enjoy the analysis!!!

After you read the article, imagine what it would have been like if that journalist had used his time to really try to figure out what affect Hillary/Barack will have on international issues or domestic economic issues. Imagine if he had analyized Hillary's comments about obliterating Iran or Barack's rediculous and naive comments about sitting down and having tea with terrorists. Just imagine what we would not have learned...

just a thought:

If my job was to sustain and increase the amount of people who come daily to read at Salon.com, I can imagine doing something similiar to what Joan is doing. As most of you know, I strongly disagree with the way she is approaching the mainstream stories that we are facing regarding Barack's snobbishness and his radical friendships. I don't see the logic to how Joan is reaching her conclusions are even obtaining her premises. However, that said, I also see no evidence that she attacks Barack or is secretly wanting Hillary to win. But that is beside the point:

I have to admit that there is good reason for her to be making her blog about the big stories, even if they are founded in crap. It makes some good sense that a person checking out salon would find a kind of analysis (via Joan) that doesn't immediately force them to hit a brick wall of cognitive dissonance. I kind of like the idea of people slipping into Salon for the first time (people who are more inclined to not question mainstream media tendencies) and feeling fairly comfortable reading Joan's posts. But then they read a few more articles and bump into Joe or Glenn or ......(I'm bad with names) and they start to cozy up to some new ways of looking at things.

This is not justifying Joan's logic of comparing a weakness-based Obama to a steangth-only Clinton; I think that is an awful approach. It only serves a very specific kind of mindset. But I'm fine if she chooses to make most of her blogs have a subject matter that mirrors whatever idiotic story (even Barack's stupid way of bowling) the media is concerned with...In fact, if she just applied a little bit more commentary on how those stories are generated and whos interests they, ultimately, serve...I'd be all warm and giggly...

sorry for the spelliing. it's early, my hand are killing me and...so many other good excuses...

I think Joan’s approach probably functions very similarly to bias, but I don’t think it is motivated by bias or shares the same structure as bias. But, hey, I know what you are talking about.

And as for the article on Barack’s decision to drink Orange Juice; that was straight up journalism. And I’m really not kidding when I say that Orange Juice political journalism can be easily justified using the same type of Wrightian/Lewinskian logic.

I think I agree with those points, except that assertion that Joan is a Hillary supporter. Thanks for the link.