Letters to the Editor
-
It does more harm to write articles like this than to just endorse Clinton.
"Barack Obama is not out of the woods yet on these issues, especially because of newly discovered, archaic slurs by his pastor Jeremiah Wright about Italians' "garlic noses," as well as some one-sided remarks he published on his "pastor's page" in the church bulletin about Israel. That controversy might not go away."
I used to think that it was funny how Joan would twist logic and common sense to argue a pro-Clinton position, while claiming to be unbiased and unaffiliated in this election. Now it's tiresome and painful. I know what to expect when I see that she's posted: another missive about how Obama hasn't met her expectations and more explanation about why it's good for democracy that Clinton stay in the race.
This last paragraph of Joan's says it all. Joan won't leave "that controversy" alone. Even though it's been shown in a War Room post that the Wright controversy (to Joan's dismay?) had no effect on Obama's approval ratings or standing in the polls, and even though after the Wright/Bosnia controversies, Clinton's approval ratings have dipped, Joan feels compelled to bring up something that Wright may or may not have said or written who knows when (Joan does not provide a link or citation). Also, nice work throwing in the hints of anti-Israel bias there. And, nice work sliding your Wright re-hashing into a piece ostensibly about something that Michelle Obama may have done right.
But meanwhile, there has been nothing from her about the Bosnia controversy, nothing about Obama's new endorsments (Sen. Casey of PA announced this morning)' nothing about Ferraro, nothing about Carville calling Richardson "Judas," nothing about how Wright was invited to the White House for Bill's redemption/prayer breakfast, nothing about how Hillary made her "if that were my pastor" statements to one of the most virulent right wing, anti-Clinton newspapers in the country, nothing about how Hillary's pastor may have made statements that were offensive to jews and critical of America, nothing about Hagee. Nothing, as a feminist, about how Michelle Obama is in some ways as inspiring as Barack. Nothing about how Michelle, with her clear partnership with her husband, may even be a better example of a 21st century feminist role model than Hillary herself.
It's one thing to prefer one particular political candidate over another, but it is disingenous to continue to claim neutrality in such an emotionally charged and potentially divisive election, while continuing to write biased posts and continuing to edit a widely read political forum.