Hey there....

Just to clarify.....

None of what I complained about in the previous posting would be so completely irritating if Ms. Clark-Flory (like several other Broadsheet writers) didn't spend her days playing a junior-varisty-level "gotcha" game with any other writer, publication, researcher, or plain-person who said something "WRONG!".

It's just a fact that Broadsheet's stock-in-trade is smart-assedly upbraiding and criticizing other folks for their supposed (and, of course, sometimes quite-real) errors, misrepresentations, and/or shoddy reasoning.

Why don't you pursue a bit of truth-in-advertising and simply rename the section "The Pot & Kettle Forum"?

Sincerely yours,

David Terry

Hey there,

Ummm? Ms. Flory?.....

You make it apparent, on a pretty regular basis, that you don't write particularly well. Now, it seems that you're not so great at reading, either.

Your headline is completely misleading (the "nice" word for it).

Wintour did NOT say Clinton was "mannish."

Just because you don't have anything to say on a particular day?... that doesn't mean you have make stuff (the "nice" word for it) up.

Does it ever occur to you (and I assume that you're not entirely cynical in regard to your current Broadsheet gig), that there are plenty of young women out there who might mistakenly use your articles as sources for a paper that they (unlike you) will actually be graded on?

What happens if some 12th grade, budding feminist turns in a paper in which she refers to Mary Daly as a former nun (one of your many surprising claims), or in which she quotes (for an example) this latest article of yours?

Seriously, if I were still teaching, I would use your column in class on a very regular basis, just as I would Anne Coulter's.....and for the same reason.

I have no idea why Salon keeps publishing silly shit like this latest article of yours.

sincerely,

David Terry

Tracy, please don't fall into the trap so many journalists do these days, the one where a person's words are twisted to make it appear as if he or she was being critical of another specific person when in fact the one being quoted was speaking in generalities. You say: "Oh no she didn't! Jezebel reports (via Women's Wear Daily) that Anna Wintour, Vogue's editor in chief, called a certain presidential hopeful -- the only candidate for whom it would be an insult -- 'mannish.'"

Then in the next paragraph, Anna Wintour's actual quote appears: "Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female president hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying."

Wintour does not "call" Hillary mannish at all. You have put words in her mouth by paraphrasing her, and in so doing attributed a catty bitchiness to her feelings about Hillary Clinton that may not be valid. Wintour makes a generalization about a "notion," not a person. Although the inference may be drawn that clearly it was her intention to imply that Senator Clinton is mannish, I don't think it is your function as a journalist to draw such conclusions, especially ones that may mischaracterize the person being quoted. Wintour actually cleverly AVOIDED calling Hillary "mannish," and you completely turned her quote around when you said she did. Not true, Tracy! You can do better than that. That's the stuff of petty, vapid tabloid gossip journalism, not the discerning analysis and truthful reporting Salon.com readers have come to expect.

If Anna Wintour finds Senator Clinton mannish, it is certainly within her rights to say so in any open forum. One of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy, after all, is a discourse that accommodates dissent and criticism. But it appears that you're trying to stir up trouble rather than report on the facts, Tracy, and it's just not right. I have no reason to defend Anna Wintour; I'm just standing up for the truth, a position I know from most of your articles that you also support. But in this instance it's as if you were the second person down the line in a game of "Operator," and already you garbled the message.

Diogenes with a Lamp,

Perry Barber

why did Clinton appear on Tyra Banks show this week talking about her marriage and gossiping with the girls?

I don't quite understand her logic in turning down Vogue for Tyra. I'm not saying that she had to do either....I guess what sticks in my mind is how none of the male candidates appeared on Tyra (or on an equivalent Maury Pauvitch or whomever) discussing their personal lives and marriages although...

to see giuliani go head to head with Montel Williams about how he felt during the break up of his marriages--that might be worth staying home for. Better yet--a DNA tested possible love child of Fred Thompson on Pauvitch....that would be what I call equal opportunity politics....

I hate to say this. It suddenly occurred to me: do you think Clinton chose to go on Tyra because she's black? Because of recent "racial" events and the Obama-Oprah connection?

If so I think she miscalculated the youth vibe. She might have gotten more cred for going on Ellen.

just my thoughts.

Vogue is 500-plus pages of tree-killing high-gloss paper, most of which are covered NOT by actual writing but by advertisements for clothes and accessories that the women Hillary needs to reach as a candidate can neither fit into nor afford. She's already been featured in Vogue - as First Lady. How could Wintour forget? She waived the magazine's weight limit for Hillary and everything... And yes, I know Obama was on the cover of GQ (the REAL men's Vogue), but that magazine actually puts real articles in between the pretty-boy photo shoots so it's not in the same category as Clinton in Vogue.

I'm a woman, I like wearing pants to work too (my office is freezing) and I'm an Edwards supporter but I gotta take Hillary's side on this one. With 2 wars going on (Iraq/Afghanistan), New Orleans still in ruins, our Constitution in the paper shredder and our economy in the crapper, we need to hear solutions - not fashion - from our candidates. Criticizing Hillary for trying to focus on the issues rather her gender (and by extension, her looks) makes Wintour looks shallow and petty.