Letters to the Editor
Joan Walsh
Published Letters: 459 Editor's Choice: 15
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: A supersize controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]bioniclutz, I was dealing with a worst-case hypothetical, not suggesting the "seriously flawed candidate" is Obama. It might be Clinton. I just think it's clear that party leaders built in superdelegates for a reason beyond just ratifying the decision of the pledged delegates, and I can imagine various scenarios in which that could make sense. I can imagine scenarios in which that could benefit Obama -- and so can David Axelrod, which is why he's taken the position he has.
-
From Joan Walsh, again
[Read the article: A supersize controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry, I pressed publish too soon: I've stated before, and I'll state again, I think they're both great candidates. I see no reason for a superdelegate override. Despite the polarization in these letters threads, I think most Democrats are truly torn between them, which is why it's as close as it is.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: A few debate thoughts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]bulgakovian, honestly I didn't see the Clinton campaign flip-flop email. dhendrix, we disagree on overall debate performance, but we agree completely about the Terry McAuliffe email, I got it too and shook my head at the bad judgment. Finally, anonymous who called me on saying the Xerox "line" was the "best of the night;" I did say that, because it was the most memorable single line, and it will be the only one we'll remember (if we remember any line) a year from now. That said, I still cringed! But I'm interested in ljwalker53's point, which I held out as a possibility: Some of us may have cringed, but it might have worked on the larger audience. We'll see. LBS, thank you for your smart letter, as always, I agree about the Obama campaign's remarkable organizing and we'll have more on that in the week to come.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: A few debate thoughts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]AKA Smith, I'm not sure what to say. I think she always does very well in debates (I used to think John Edwards won some, but I pretty much always thought she did better than Obama). So yes, I thought she looked good and "ready;" I don't think it was her valedictory but I think it's possible she's made peace with a victory being unlikely. Which I have always thought was her best shot: I was hoping that her loss in Iowa would get her to throw off the mantle of faux-invincibility, the incumbent shroud, that her handlers had thrown around her -- but it didn't, beyond New Hampshire. Not sure I answered your question, but a lot of the debate is already up on YouTube and CNN; go look and tell us what you think.
-
Oh my lord...
[Read the article: Hot off "The Wire"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can't we start this again a week early? I just watched Episode 9. We need to start another thread for people who need to cathart privately...
Seriously, I am shaken. But most of the biggest questions are still left unanswered. I hope the finale is two hours.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Should Hillary Clinton drop out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]AKA Smith, I ask the question because others are asking the question! I frankly think it's crazy, as I say in the video. rebecalouise, thanks for your contributions to Salon, and thanks for your hard work on the Obama campaign, but the idea that Clinton should drop out so you can go home...? I must be missing something.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few comments:
I have read, and praised, Dreams From My Father, in the pages of Salon and on this blog. At length.
I don't give red stars, dterrydraw.
I mostly praised Obama's great speech, but yes, I talked about the things that didn't sit right with me. Anyone can disagree. But the inability of many Obama supporters to see any good faith in my grappling with these tough issues is dispiriting. As are the many (often smug and dismissive) references to my race, gender and age. Way to build a Democratic coalition! And thanks to TRenee, an Obama supporter, for objecting to the use of the term "Bitch Hillary."
I admit to being surprised and a little disturbed that Obama would compare his frail, elderly grandmother, a private figure, to a polarizing public figure like Wright. Those of you who appreciated the comparison have raised some interesting points. You haven't changed my mind yet, but somebody might. I could even be wrong. But the charges of bias and bad faith are depressing.
I have said many times that I will vote for the Democratic nominee whether it's Clinton or Obama. I admire both; I have reservations about both. The Wright flap crystallized, for me, some of my reservations about Obama, which I'll continue exploring in the weeks to come, along with my questions about Clinton. That's my job, and I love it. Thanks for all of your passionate interest in the race, and in Salon.
-
From Joan Walsh
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's long strange journey on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]burlydee, a serious answer.
No, I don't believe sexism is the "only" reason Clinton is trailing Obama, and I didn't say that. Read the post. And I certainly don't mean to let her off the hook for listening to bad advice. She is ultimately responsible for her campaign and its many questionable decisions.
On my use of the word Obamaton, which many people have objected to: I was making the point (perhaps poorly?) that for every person who seems uncritically over the top for Obama -- and they're out there, read these and other sites' comments threads! -- there are several people who genuinely oppose Hillary Clinton specifically because of her stance on the war. My point was: so-called Obamatons are vastly outnumbered by thoughtful Obama supporters who have a good reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. Sorry you missed it.