- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
1. Style
2. Substance
The Editors at Salon seem to be mystified by all the criticism this piece recieved. For the Editor's Choice selections they picked several posts from people saying they don't see what all the fuss is about. They seem to be saying, "sure the piece starts out pretty negative, but it ends with a quite few compliments, so why are all you Obama people getting your panties in a bunch?"
I can't speak for others, but I can tell you why I view the piece as a bit of slippery character assasination. The point is authenticity. The reason so many people are so excited about Obama is because he seems so genuine. We hunger for a leader who knows themselves and speaks the truth as he or she sees it. I have read both of Obama's books, and read everything I can find written about the man. The composite portrait that emerges from all this information is that Obama is just such a person and that he has the potential to be just such a President. McClelland's article paints a far different picture; he seems to suggest that it is all a carefully contrived, recently created, illusion. McClelland's portrait is at odds with almost everything I have read and at odds with numerous comments from people who know Obama personally.
Finally, the angry reaction this piece received cannot be understood without the context of the firestorm created by the Debra Dickerson article. Salon has certainly poured gasoline on the fire. I can't help but wonder at the editor's motives, it certainly feeds a little paranoid conspiracy theories about "Team Hillary."
