Letters to the Editor
-
I for one
I for one don't recall ever thinking that you in particular were biased against any given candidate.
Now if Tim Grieve would man up and explain why he's so eager to kiss Obama's ass and ignore anything positive that happens about Hillary, that would be nice. As far as I can tell, Grieve is the only really unashamedly biased 'journalist' on Salon right now.
-
Who Is Joe Conason Kidding?
Joe Conason has been a shill for the Clintons for years, and I stopped reading him back in the late 90s for that reason. James North
-
Ok.
Now tell me why you hate John Edwards so much!?
-
Call 'Em As You See 'Em Joe
Good for you and good for us. By not having a dog in the hunt you even handedly see the faults and strengths in each candidate if more journalists did this we would be a better nation today. Each of the criticisms of the candidates you enumerate I agree with completely and could add a few more. Grow up people and stop playing identity politics none of the candidates are perfect but anyone of them is an exponential improvement over Bush.
-
Obamabots
I understand your perplexity, Mr. Conason. Sometimes the Obama fans can sound like the beginnings of a cult--how *dare* you criticize our leader (L. Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand, etc.), they are flawless, the world's future is riding on their messianic triumph, their enemies are embodiments of evil, etc. I suspect most of these folks are very very young.
-
Criticism
Both Obama and Clinton have provided ample reasons to criticize them, while neither have actually exhibited much in the way of leadership. For example, either or both should be taking a more active role in the opposition to Harry Reid, who forces his own party to explicitly filibuster while granting the Republicans a free pass. They are in the Senate, after all.
-
Perception
This is one of the fundamental problems with "letters" sections in general, whether herein Salon, or any other forum where political issues are discussed.
There are many people who are passionate about their causes and candidates, and that's a good thing. But often that passion is blinding. Too many times, readers see something positive written about another candidate, and perceive it as an attack on "their" candidate. They're then forced to assign all sorts of nefarious motives to the writer.
It's particularly ironic for the progressive crowd that makes up a large chunk of Salon readers, as it smacks so much of the bunker mentality encouraged by the Right. It has way too much of a "you're either with us or against us" vibe for my taste. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that you can be less than enthusiastic about a particular person or cause without being diametrically opposed to that person/cause. Likewise, noting positive aspects of a particular person/position does not certify you as a zealot for that person/position.
I've always thought that one of the hallmarks of liberal thought is a recognition that there is little that is black or white, that the world has an awful lot of grey. I know that's one of the things that infuriates the authoritarians who make up a large portion of today's GOP, who take great comfort in believing that there is ONE RIGHT WAY in the world (and that, of course, their leader is marching steadfastly towards that WAY).
I commend Mr. Conason for trying, but just the first few posts here in response suggest that he's pissing into the wind. Alas.
-
YOU are not really Serious
"...I usually focus on those who strike me as serious contenders..."
That statement by itself shows you ARE taking sides, and are not much better than the MSM in pandering, even in your critism, of star power over electability and who is directly addressing the root ISSUES that count the most.
Your sensibilites, not your reason, will not let you acknowledge John Edwards is still a serious contender. Especially when you consider the objective facts that it's still very early, and previous WINNERS of the nomination were farther behind in "the polls" and in the delegate count. Three primaries and the MSM do not a nominee make.
-
Cythera.
You've been indulging in straw man arguments about Obama supporters across several different columns now. Please, grow up.
I don't see Obama as the coming of a new political messiah, nor do any of the many Obama supporters I know. As I've said many times now, he's just a man and a politician, who, like everyone else, has had to make the compromises necessary to stay viable in the game.
That being said, I believe him to be a far better candidate than Senator Clinton, and the type of unifying, hope-stirring candidate we don't see all that often. And I think he has run a more above-board campaign to this point. The Clintons, on the other hand, are indulging in cheap Rovian tactics all the live-long day now, as I've articulated several times before to you.
As for Conason's lack of bias, or Grieve's, or Walsh's, these sorts of problems could be sidelined if every columnist would just admit who they're leaning toward upfront. That being said, I do think Conason has been pretty fair about attacking candidates across the board -- his most recent column at the Observer could hardly be called pro-Clinton. (As his last line testifies, I thought he seemed a lot more predisposed to Gore and against Bradley two cycles ago.)
-
Not seeing much Clinton bias around this block.
I certainly have not found what you have written, or Salon in general, to be HC-biased.
I agree, however, with the first letter posted here; there is an amazing amount of Obama worship on Salon, beginning with Mr. Grieve, but trickling down to the sensationalist gushing of Ms. Paglia and the graphics editor; I have yet to see any portrait or photograph of HC that is remotely flattering. For example, when there was a column ostensibly countering the criticism of HC's "crying" moment, which column pointed out that the woman had not, in fact, cried, the cartoon Salon ran above the column showed Ms. Clinton boo-hooing and clutching a hankie. It kind of underscored that "fair and unbalanced" slant the article itself was supposed to utilize.
I am not anti-Obama, but the Obama worship is troubling. The last thing the Democrats need is another Carter presidency.