Read other letters about this article
The fact that Ms Kaplan wrote a two page essay on the subject of Michelle Obama's posterior is not the most disturbing part of this whole affair. Kaplan, as evidenced by other things she has written, is apparently weirdly fascinated by the female African-American ass, so it is not surprising that she would submit 1000 words that read as if they were hastily scrawled in a loose-leaf notebook with a dull pencil.
Unfortunately, Joan Walsh made not one, but two astonishingly bad editorial decisions. Not only did she decide to run a two-page paean to Ms Obama's rear end, which could perhaps have been dismissed as a hopelessly incompetent attempt to be amusingly light-hearted. But she then decided to run it as the lead story on the front page that day. Having considered the issues of a serious economic crisis, the future of our country under a new president, bickering among liberals over the developing direction of the Obama presidency, etc., Joan Walsh decided that the most important article submitted to Salon that morning was this unsettling glimpse into the stranger parts of Ms Kaplan's psyche.
It was these decisions, I believe, that led to the firestorm of disapproval in this letters section and the well-deserved mockery of Salon which is taking place in the conservative parts of the blogosphere.
The article itself is more strange than anything, a slightly disturbing look at one African-American's self-image issues. Ms Walsh's choice to give it such prominence elevates it to the level of offensiveness and, yes, racism. Since I am certain that Ms Walsh is not racist, I am at a loss to explain this, except perhaps by uncharacteristic incompetence.
Making this the first thing readers saw that morning also trivializes Salon as a whole. Today, do you think that people formerly unfamliar with Salon think of it as the home of insightful commentary by Glenn Greenwald and Juan Cole, or as the site that had the article about Michelle Obama's ass?