Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 950 Editor's Choice: 102
What the hell was this?
The public, much less Salon readers, do not want horserace coverage -- and this was the worst sort. Who cares if Clinton has gotten better at faking being natural? And even if she has become more natural, how does that matter much to this electorate if her policies haven't changed in the least?
People aren't dumb. So what if Hillary talked about healthcare. Candidate Bush talked about uniting the nation and a humble foreign policy -- and every press outlet repeated it just like you have here.
Tell us about that healthcare plan. Have you investigated it here for your readers? Two things are certain with it: 1) it will increase the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare while other nations deliver better, totally public and totally comprehensive care at half of what we spend already; and 2) a vast amount of that GDP expenditure will be at the disposal of those who control private insurance companies.
The root of her program is to deliver tax breaks/rebates on an individual basis, which will have to be spent on private healthcare -- on an individual and largely unregulated basis. Those are new dollars to the healthcare pie, and insurance companies are not going to lose money on the program (or else they wouldn't donate to Clinton's campaign in droves). That's useful information and it took me two sentences to lay out in the simplest terms.
Edwards, who I think I'll vote for, has a plan that is nearly as crappy -- but at least I vote knowingly. Obama's is perhaps the best because it doesn't force the public to buy private insurance, but it doesn't solve the problem either.
Only Kucinich, on whom any vote would now be wasted, actually supports what most Democrats support -- a single payer system shown to be widely popular in nations where it exists. In fact, not only do most Democrats support it, but most of the general population does too. See Post poll:
47. Which would you prefer - (the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance); or (a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?)
Current 33 Universal 62 No opinion 6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data102003.html
Other readers: is this the kind of thing you'd care to hear more about from Salon?
Only if you don't look closely.
Check out today's "Democracy Now" on candidate advisers:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
I agree that had Bush done the same thing in 2000, it would have been a minor, positive media moment and there would have been some exchange.
But while there's a bias, I'm not sure Margaret Carlson's example needs to be representative in order to explain the event.
I could see how much of the press corp are more likely to be Democratic and therefore more emotionally affected when Clinton walks on the bus with an awkward gesture (whether pro or anti Clinton, it's more personal). Bush, on the other hand, is easy. You won't vote for him, but you're a professional and you don't want to be seen as denying him an opportunity to show some generosity.
And if this interpretation of events is the case (which is certainly possible), then it raises another question: is it more advantageous to have openly opinionated press? This would force the public to wonder upon the bias of MSM outlets -- and start giving reporters some latitude to ask the questions they want to ask.
I see two benefits to the progressive movement: 1) because outlets that claim to be liberal will be able to deliver more unknown information, they would compete well; and 2) because so few mainstream outlets would admit to being liberal, it would boost the profile of alternative media among a growing audience.
Joan,
By writing this when you were tired and upset, you really showed your cards. Even if this had been a post on the Clinton site it would still seem a little like sour grapes ("throwback," "I didn't see this coming," "On to New Hampshire"). The lack of any analysis about what this means is a real giveaway -- at least any analysis beyond what this means to shocked Clinton supporters.
Given the covert, generous coverage Bush got in the MSM when he ran, and the outrage that caused among people who come to sites like Salon, your unacknowledged identification with Clinton is a real problem.
There's nothing wrong with supporting her, but you shouldn't do it on the site, or if you do, you should explicitly endorse her. Please endorse her now. We already know. It's a matter of salvaging journalistic responsibility at this point. While you are at it, you should apologize for not doing so earlier.
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
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
