Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 365 Editor's Choice: 1
-
What I'd like to see from Joan
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]luminesce said:
Joan has more than every right to be neutral, and those of you have problems respecting other people's rights to be neutral or even - to respectfully have opinions other than your own -don't seem very grown-up.
It's best if everyone is true to themselves, but also true to being open to other perspectives... or at least not having to hate so much about them.
I couldn't agree more. And I think that what some of us are saying when we disagree with Joan is that we absolutely wish that she would exercise her right to be neutral. Hitting Obama hard on things like Rev. Wright and his attitude in the "gotcha debate" while almost (if not totally) overlooking Hillary's sniper lie and her flawed and self-serving reasoning to seat the FL and MI delegates is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of bias.
I'm not saying that it's an easy thing to be neutral in a historic race like this. I'm a writer and journalist by trade, and if I were the editor-in-chief of this site, I'd be getting flamed from all sides, because there'd be three "Why Doesn't Hillary Just Drop Out?" features per week. I absolutely understand the concept of journalistic neutrality and the need to avoid bias whenever possible, if you truly want to facilitate an open and honest debate. But I've been waiting all my life for a president who's smarter than me, who works harder than me, and who's a better person than me. I see Obama as our best chance at going from 0/3 to 3/3 in one election, and there's very little I wouldn't say or do to make that happen.
And Joan, if it's absolutely impossible to restrain your bias (as I think it might be for you, despite your struggle; and as I know it would be for me, in your position), then I wish you would be "true to [yourself], but also true to being open to other perspectives." Acknowledge that you support Hillary. Make the argument for her. And be honest about the lens through which you see the race. Talk about what inspires you about her and what you wish she did better, or didn't do at all. Maybe take some of your readers up on their challenges to examine things like her MI/FL delegate logic. When you write a piece on the difficulty Obama is having capturing the rural white vote and the problems that may pose for him, how about following that up with a piece on how Hillary can't seem to make any traction with urban areas (especially ones with lots of black voters) and is losing the support of an energized youth movement, and what that says about her chances in November.
Above all, find a new way to talk about the unique challenges of women in society. The current line of attack is becoming really, really one-note. And, as with the Keith Olbermann thing, sometimes you need to stretch to ridiculous lengths to tie trivial comments back to your "sexist society" meme.
I personally would like to see a well-reasoned article on what the first successful female presidential candidate will look like, because Hillary's obviously not it. Will she be another woman who *haaack-ptoo* knocks back shots of whiskey and threatens to obliterate little brown nations if their leaders attack Israel? Is this actually a winning strategy that's being executed by a weak candidate, or will the first female president take a different approach? And if so, what would that be? Such a piece could talk about the future of feminism and femininity itself, and although I don't consider myself a feminist, I'd find it pretty fascinating reading.
Another article I'd like to see is something that compares Hillary's unsuccessful campaign for president to the successful campaigns of other women who've been elected to high office. I grew up in Vermont under a female governor, so having a woman in a position of power has always seemed natural to me. I'd be interested in reading an analysis of why we were able to elect a Jewish woman as governor in 1985, but 23 years later, Hillary can't seem to close the deal, despite overwhelming name recognition and a huge war chest. Is sexism solely to blame in a country where 22 states have elected female governors? Or is there something more to it?
My gut feeling is that sexism is about as much of a millstone around Hillary's neck as being a black dude with a Muslim name is for Obama, or being a 124-year old with a ravenous appetite for human brains is for McCain. And yet, one of the three is going to be our next president. Is it just going to be the one whose socioeconomic category is least offensive to voters, or is it going to be the person who manages to transcend societal bias? And if so, how are they going to do it?
It is possible to talk about Hillary's campaign without talking about her gender. And it is possible to talk about her gender and feminism and femininity without constantly invoking sexism. Hopefully we'll see some of that soon.