Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 5
-
"evidence" is a strong word
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think it's news that some people who don't like Hillary Clinton will attack her based on her gender.
But I don't think everyone who attacks her should be written off as sexist. I agree with the Olberman clips used in there because I do think she's trying to be whoever the people she's talking to want her to be. She portrays herself as a tough war hero and an experienced politician in some instances and an outsider and underdog in others. Nowhere does he say she's being duplicitous BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, and I don't think it's implied.
There are other comments in there that I agree with and are judgments that aren't based on her gender. And then there's Chris Mathews. He should be called out often and with great vigor, but he isn't the majority of voices in the media.
That people from Fox would go after her any way they can isn't that surprising - including your new buddy, Rush. I don't think that even counts, honestly - they will hate her for any reason they can, her gender just being the easiest place to start, and their audience is right there with them.
What's disappointing about this little montage to me is the heavy-handed effort to jazz the whole thing up. Let's contrast Olberman with Edward R. Murrow! Never mind that it's a fictitious speech written for a movie, just do it! That'll show those meanies that don't like Clinton! It takes what is a pretty reasonable argument (a lot of people don't like Clinton and some of them are being sexist about it) and puts a beat to it rather than evidence. At least it got your toe tapping, Joan, because it's a song you believe in, but it doesn't do much to back up the point. These sorts of videos are all over youtube, proving that 9/11 was an inside job and that evolution is a sham. Fine. But don't repost them as "evidence", please. It isn't. It's a montage.
-
Logical error
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't read all of the letters here (although my guess is I've read most of them in response to other columns of yours), so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has already brought up, but there's a problem with your characterization of Obama here.
You say his appeal is (or the perception is that his appeal is) only to coastal liberals. In essence, this means NY and CA, both states that Clinton won. Considering that he's won just about every other state, I would suggest that this perception is yours, not the general publics.
-
Another subscriber leaving
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been reading your blog because I'm trying to make sense of your opposition to Obama, looking for something insightful or penetrating. I give up.
"most people"? "tough questions"? "stumble"? You don't give any examples and certainly no basis for your opinion. The only "stumble" you sight is Clinton's, but that's not what's in the headline. I'm shocked to read you defending that debate as "tough". Honestly? What was tough about it? Tough to sit through, surely, but admirable journalism?
If you want to go after Obama, do some journalism. There are plenty of areas where you can dig in on him - go for it. This is embarrassing, though.
I cannot in good conscience keep paying for this service. I like Greenwald quite a a bit and war room has been regular reading for me. And that's directly because of you, Ms Walsh. I dislike your writing and I dislike your editorship.
Feel free to chalk it up to me being an Obama cultist or whatever makes you feel okay with it. I'm only one subscriber here, so I'm sure this gesture is relatively meaningless to you. But it's meaningful to me. Salon has meant a lot to me in the past (I've been a subscriber since day one), and I'm grateful for its previous existence. There's just not much here for me anymore.
I'd like to leave you with this article on confirmation bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
It's a relevant issue. I don't doubt that you, Ms Walsh, believe what you're saying. I doubt that you've got much basis for saying it. Your motives aren't insight, they're being right.
-
You'll be missed
[Read the article: Passing back the baton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've been great around here, and I appreciate your approach to covering this stuff. I will definitely be carpetbagging regularly from now on.
-
Recap
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So you like the fact that Clinton will make promises that you know she can't deliver on and wish Obama would do the same?
There's a really fundamental problem of logic there.
-
I like Krugman, but...
[Read the article: Krugman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just because she's still running doesn't mean she's still in the race.
-
uh...
[Read the article: When did Obama start running for president?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank god that you come to his defense in the last paragraph! Otherwise he might be sunk. Worse yet, people might think this conflation of non-news had a bias to it.
I'm told (and you can quote me as an anonymous source on this one) that he does a terrible job keeping his toenails trimmed, and on those rare occasions when he addresses this fundamental issue of hygiene he simply lets the clippings fall where they may. Some might argue that he expects others to clean up after him because he's such an elitist.
Do you think you could just publish the memo from Joan that says to phrase every column about Obama as an accusation? Because that would be a lot more interesting.