Letters to the Editor
Hawken
Published Letters: 21
-
Less than Salon deserves.
[Read the article: "10,000 BC"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read Ms. Zacharek's review this morning, but waited until I'd had time to digest both her thoughts and movie itself. Having now seen 10,000 BC, I can see how it's difficult to summarize the monumental badness that is Roland Emmerich's latest picture, but that's still no excuse for what Salon chose to print.
Snark is available in abundance on a wide variety of blogs. Some is laugh-out-loud funny, while most is devoid of real merit. When dealing with Salon, a subscriber-supported online resource, I expect better and usually get it.
As mentioned, boiling 10,000 BC down to basics is a Herculean task, but at least three elements came to mind just while watching the picture: 1) the dodgy geography, 2) the fractured history, and 3) the wildly offensive black/white subtext. Any of one of these or all three would provide fuel for a longer, more substantive review than Ms. Zacharek's.
If reviewing such mass-audience fare is too unpleasant a task for Ms. Zacharek, then it would be better for her to write nothing at all on the subject, or pass such responsibility to another writer.
-
Let it go.
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to agree with the observation of a few other comments here: every time you bring up something about Rev. Wright, it feels like a barely camouflaged Clinton talking point. This particular corner of Salon is a blog, and therefore a bit more personal, but there has to be some journalistic integrity given the site involved and your authorship.
The Rev. Wright issue has been nonstarter from the outset, but it's clear that the Clinton campaign (and the Republicans) want to squeeze every drop of bitter political juice from it. The problem is that constantly returning to those sermons is simply exploiting racism as a weapon, not addressing it in a productive way. As Obama said at the time, let us discuss the issue of bigotry in America, but let's do so honestly. Using Rev. Wright (scary black man!) over and over again is fundamentally dishonest.
-
Rev. Wright again? Really?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Almost immediately following Ms. Walsh's assertion that Obama isn't out of the "woods" yet concerning Rev. Wright -- something contradicted on Salon's front page -- we get another, virtually identical comment on the non-controversy because... why, exactly? Meanwhile, Hillary gets a slap on the wrist (if that) here and elsewhere for an outright lie. Not a misstatement, but a repeated attempt to bamboozle people from thinking that she's somehow more experienced and battle-hardened than Barack Obama.
The facts, and not the spin, bear out a simple truth that Hillary Clinton has fallen short of Obama in votes, in delegates, in approval numbers and every other metric one chooses to apply. She may very well be qualified to be President, but she's lost this race. That's how elections work: someone wins and someone loses. What we have now is a concerted effort by Hillary and, to a lesser extent, her supporters to subvert the fair result of the process and declare her the winner by acclamation. It's not going to happen. The Rev. Wright issue isn't going to reverse the results of this race. Downplaying Hillary's mendacity isn't going to, either.
-
One paragraph isn't balance.
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One hundred and ninety-nine angry comments are too many to slog through, especially when the most salient point was made two comments in: this is another attack on Barack Obama with just a smidge of (mild) criticism for Hillary Clinton at the end to count as balance.
Ms. Walsh is, of course, free to support any candidate she chooses. This is America, after all. At the same time, it's unfortunate that she's using her position at Salon to legitimize what is purely her opinion. Better for her to have a private blog somewhere than to have her electioneering touted on Salon's front page alongside actual news.
-
Less overtly Hillary-ized.
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This post is less an overt advertisement for Hillary Clinton than the last couple have been, but the premise is still dishonest. Anyone being asked a poll question about a black president or a woman president has to know, has to know, that the question refers to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So let's understand that this wasn't some totally blind assessment of the relative progress of women and blacks in the United States.
Sexist attacks on Hillary might have some origin in workaday chauvinism, but quite often those attacks have been prompted by Hillary's biggest minus with voters: who she is. It's wonderful that she's done as well as she has, because women are underrepresented in the top tiers of American politics. However the truth is that the Clintons are not just disliked, but despised by a significant portion of the electorate. Hillary Clinton's sex just allows for relatively unique insults. If she had managed to secure the Democratic nomination, "iron my shirt" would be one of the nicer things she'd hear.
On the other side of the coin, Barack Obama doesn't have the baggage Hillary Clinton carries around simply by virtue of being a part of her husband's administration. And, yes, this does have an impact on how people would answer the polling questions under discussion.