Letters to the Editor
-
Why is this inherently American?
If Michelle Obama had said this is human nature, a general tendency all people have, no matter where they live, that would be more understandable. But how is this inherently "American"? I'm not sure why she'd believe it, either. When I heard the whole statement, "that's America" really stood out to me, and I haven't been in the least bothered by the Wright comments, or her own previous flap. I'm not offended. I'm not an outrage junkie. I try to weigh all comments in context, and not rely on the media to present its preferred snippets. Even then, I always give the benefit of the doubt. But I do find it curious that that's where her mind goes when talking about people's differences, in a country that's giving her husband a real shot at the presidency.
-
@ Rayon Fog -- On Hagee
"Why is McCain getting a free pass?"
Because Hagee isn't McCain's pastor.
-
Got all those Right Wing talking points in, huh Joan? Am I reading Newsmax?
You have seriously gone over the cliff and we're not buying the "oh so concerned" disguise.
I'm grateful every day that I'm no longer a Premium Subscriber, although I've been w/Salon since the good old days.
This is the kind of crap I expect from Hillary's new friends Scaife & Murdock, so I guess you're on that bandwagon now too.
My, what strange bedfellows politics makes.
Ugh.
-
@ Maddie -- Trust me, I'm sick of hearing about Rev Wright, too.
But Joan keeps bringing him up. She just won't let it go. Meanwhile, I'm even more sick and tired of Joan refusing to do an anti-Clinton story -- despite the fact the Bosnia lie is the bigger story now. I want to hold Joan accountable. Especially after she claimed on TV that Salon wass "all over" that story.
NOT!
-
@AncientAssyrian (I know, I know)
Good points. And maybe you are correct about Joan's professional intentions. I just don't think that should matter in how we respond to ideas with which we disagree. Plus, if part of our criticism of Joan is in how much time she spends hallucinating about polls and the "true" insides of particular candidates, let's show her that you can have a much more interesting conversation without any such fetishizing and speculation. At this point I'd simply like to hear Joan justify spending anymore Salon time on the issue of who-is-more-moral between these two candidates. She seems to value this type of question, but more disturbing to me is the approach she seems to recommend on "discovering" which Senator we should be worried about. With her limited time I would expect she simply would be ignoring methods/ideas that really don't open up the discourse.
I think many of us are a bit stunned to repeatedly see Joan expousing the kind of ideas that we take shelter from, typically, in Salon. I want to stress my choice of the world kind in reference to her ideas. I really don't mind if she likes Cliton. I don't even think I'd mind if she explicitly came out and said so (as many are urging).
It's the kind (the assumptions and methodology) of analysis she is providing that I want to urge her to shift. She is a unique position to shed light on the nature of this political discourse.
I have no doubt that Joan could be very insightful about why the media sticks to these strategically conventional storylines as opposed to lifting up the mainstream rocks and exploring what lies beneath.
But I appreciate your points. My main point is that we all might do better to really just stick with the content of our disagreements with Joan.
Until she gets petty and mean about the personalities of those who support a particular candidate, it might be better to simply argue about her ideas and approaches rather than our hallucinations about how she could be a better person. But, AncientAssyrian, that's not aimed at you; I'm not seeing that in your post.
That said, I'm going to make my final pronouncement after she criticises Clinton in one of her next posts (it WILL be soon). If her take is in the "moral analysis" ("hmmm...what conclusions should we draw about Clinton based on this blah blah") or "political strategy" ("hmmm...what effect will this have on Clinton's campaign) vein of discussion, I probably won't be reading her blog anymore. I don't think Joan is suppose to agree with anybody here, but I do think she would do well to address many of the underlying questions regarding why she is covering the primary in the manner (not for/against stuff, but kind of analysis)she is; it would be a very good use of her blog, in my opinion.
-
to Maddie
You are welcome. I do not beleive Condie Rice's remarks were an accident at all, but she is in her way and as much as she can, defending the Obama's.
-
@ virtue001
Because Hagee isn't McCain's pastor.
Makes not a whit of difference, especially when you consider McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement. If Hagee was nothing more than some random wing-nut who just happened to support McCain, I'd agree with you. This relationship is deeper than that.
-
@ Carol Richards
You write:
I just don't think that should matter in how we respond to ideas with which we disagree.
I assume what you mean here is that it matters less what the topic is than in how we discuss it. Here I disagree with you 100 percent. Our politics suck because we accept the topics we are given rather than demand the ones we should be talking about.
We spent an entire year talking about Bill and Monica because that was the only debate the media put on the table. Were those who said this is not worth the attention it's getting wrong??
-
@Carol Richards the best is yet to come
Hi Carol. Personally I have no idea what Joan is up to. And for the most part, I don't care. It's her business. But I think it's hard for any of us to be objective, especially when we hold strong convictions. I think the issue for some folks like Hutman is that trying to appear unbiased when you really have a strong opinion doesn't work too well. We'd like to think that we are Adults and could take it if Joan was openly pro-Clinton or pro-Obama.
My concern on the subject matter is a little different. I heard this same Michelle story on my favorite (evil) talk radio station yesterday (albiet with a more high energy racist kick) and apparently it ran on FOX as well. So clearly there is a systematic attempt to define the issues (or manipulate if you will) and pigeonhole the Obamas as non-mainstream AA racists. Is Joan's reportage just another echo in that giant echo chamber? Why let them (the 'evil RW media conspriarcy') continue to define what's covered and what's not?
I was psyched to see some front-page coverage of economic speeches from the three candidates. Finally some weighty coverage. But it didn't stay up long, and not that many people commented, despite the fact that three very different approaches were offered.
So how can the discourse elevate, when we would all rather gossip and participate in primate territorial rituals?