Letters to the Editor

• Who writes this drivel?

  [Read the article: The crazy uncles in Obama's attic]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Does Salon even have editors review these articles anymore, or do they just have a quota for pro and con articles on Obama and Hillary they auto-post everyday?

  Here, we get an article from a Great Lakes travel writer, who is CLEARLY qualified to be a fearless truthsayer on the evils Obama brings. (Politics, travelogues - like, totally the same thing!)

  He would never be stirring the pot and trying to fling dirt to build a name for himself as a real journalist. Obviously! Just look at his other pieces about Obama on Salon.

  Oh, but wait...they are all similar faint smear jobs filled with suggestion and fearful innuendo built upon the latest tidbit being discussed in the MSM. Hmmm, quite the journalist. After all, look at gems like this:

  "To apologize for knowing them would be to apologize for who he is: an African-American, a Christian, a city dweller, an academic, a liberal. Most of those would be exotic qualities in a president. And maybe that's the real problem."

  Let's go to journalism school for a moment and breakdown this conclusion. After all, this must be insight into who Obama is, and it ends with some scary reference to "a real problem"!

  Orange alert! Orange alert! Duct tape!

  "who he is: an African-American, a Christian, a city dweller, an academic, a liberal. Most of those would be exotic qualities in a president."

  "Most" - normally describes a majority. Since the author lists 5 traits ("African-American, a Christian, a city dweller, an academic, a liberal"), let assume he meant '3 or more'.

  "Exotic qualities in a President" - Let's forget about the fact that the 5 things are not all 'qualities' in a person (city dweller?). The point being made is that aspects of who Obama is would be 'foreign' to the Presidency, and therefore scary to middle-American. And with the "most" qualifier, we can assume 3 or more of the 5 traits listed would be 'foreign' to the Presidency.

  Let's run with that:

  1) African-American: That counts as 1. Foreign to the White House indeed.

  2) A Christian: Ummm - no. Not foreign at all to residents of the semi-round room, Jefferson's deism notwithstanding.

  3) City Dweller: Would have to check, but I think a great many Big-Dog-In-Chief's have been city dwellers prior to taking the job. Certainly enough to make it a decidedly 'non-exotic' trait.

  4) An Academic: While the population is smaller on this one (*cough* Dubya *cough*), there have still been plenty of academically-inclined Presidents in a similar vein as Obama.

  5) A Liberal: Yes, Virginia, there have been liberals in the Oval Office. Maybe an 'exotic' aspect for the last 30 years (depending on where Bill lands in the world of liberal), but not in the history of the office.

  So, what's the tally? 1 out of 5 'qualities' listed would qualify as 'exotic'. And some of the five are not even qualities.

  Verdict? A mediocre article, in fine 'semi-tabloid-news' fasion, designed to stir the 'pot o the day' on Obama and pull in reader eyeballs.

  Oh, Salon. How the mighty have fallen. Where's a good Republican Congressional scandal to whip you back into shape?

  Permalink Monday, March 17, 2008 09:47 PM