Letters to the Editor
Joan Walsh
Published Letters: 454 Editor's Choice: 15
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People are asking me to reply in this thread; I'm in meetings today and honestly, I'm blogging on this daily, you all know what I think. I don't think the biggest divide in this race is race or gender; I think it's generational, and that worries me too. We can argue for a long time about which battles Obama was referring to, and Lord knows I'd love to get past the specious battles, most of which have been forced on us by Republicans. But I continue to think in an interview with a conservative newspaper, he spoke in a way that, intentionally or not, set himself apart from the struggles that made his run possible, in order to reassure his audience. All politicians do that, there's an art to doing it in a way that doesn't turn off part of your base, Obama's artful but he isn't quite there yet. I'm two years older than Obama, I wasn't marching in the 60s, either, folks, but I wouldn't talk about them that way.
Anyone claiming I'm attacking Michelle Obama didn't read the piece. Good for her, out there defending her husband! I like her! But why ignore that she -- and the Obama campaign -- are playing the say one thing, do another game as well? I'm pointing out the double standard in Clinton/Obama coverage, and I still see it.
And Thrasher, you're getting out of control. I've been a huge defender of yours, but you're on my last nerve. You're putting vicious words in my mouth, and I'm deleting the nastiest posts. Please exercise some better judgment. I'm starting to wonder if the people who think you're an anti-Obama troll are right, because you're not winning anyone over to your point of view.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Last anonymous, re: class. You're absolutely right. I should have said that.
Thrasher, read the terms of your participation on this site. You routinely violate them by insulting other posters. You've been warned. Play by the rules; I do.
For the record, your last post was fine. That's why it's still up.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jade7243, I would note that I specifically said I would NOT say African-Americans are being "over-sensitive." I did ask whether any criticism of Obama's experience had to be read as racially coded disrespect. I don't have a good answer for that question. As to MSNBC, yes, the panels can be awfully white (and male) but State Rep. Bakari Sellars, an African American Obama supporter, and MSNBC's Lester Holt, also African American, were the two panelists on just before me. I thought those three segments together were some of the best talk about race in this race I've heard yet. I'm sorry you didn't hear it that way.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks, Jade7243. I'm writing a post about this morning's conversation and your thoughts are helping me refine my own. There's no transcript yet of my remarks, but when I find one, I'll post it. I'd like to explore the gulf between what I think I said and what I really said (if there is one) as well as the gulf between what I said and what you heard.
I think I do understand the way some or many people heard Clinton's remarks on Dr. King. Here's what I wrote last Saturday:
"Hillary Clinton has already tried to clarify her tin-eared remarks about how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. needed Lyndon Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act. True and tin-eared at the same time. Nobody wants to hear white people saying black people wouldn't have gotten their civil rights without us. Blech. Clearly, Johnson spent political capital to do what he did, but he'd never have been there without the sacrifice and energy and brilliance of untold black activists and strategists, King being the most famous. There's been an endless debate over whether Clinton's infamous teary moment was borne of exhaustion, but I think she and the campaign should find a way to say the LBJ quote was in fact the campaign's running-on-fumes low moment, and she should come back at it another way in South Carolina."
The question to me is whether there was any kind of intentional racial coding or disrespect. I am really, really not saying that if white ears can't hear it, it ain't there. I have had to work on my hearing over the years, and I admit it's still not all the way there. You'll have to give me the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm not as sheltered as you might think. I've spent a lot of time thinking and working on these issues (maybe, in your opinion, with little success!) But I'm not saying anything nearly as simple-minded as you seem to be hearing, and I'm concerned about the gap between what I think I'm saying and you think I'm saying.
I appreciate that we can disagree (if indeed we do!) respectfully, and I look forward to more conversation with you.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Obama and the Kennedy legend]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jimblong, I'm a journalist. That's my job.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Can Obama get the Latino vote?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My question is based on polls showing she's leading Obama anywhere from 2-1 to 3-1, AncientAssyrian, as well as her overwhelming victory in Nevada. Thanks for weighing in.