- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I answered Carol Richards in an old thread about to close, so I'm rewriting here: Thanks, Carol, for your comment. To answer your question (which I feel like I've answered before): I am very proud of Salon's coverage of the Democratic primary. We are not pulling for any candidate, or trying to correct for any impression that we're pulling for any candidate. We're reporting the news fairly, and in our opinion columns, we're asking and trying to answer compelling questions other people aren't tackling. When we all look back in 2009, I think Salon will stand out for its fairness, especially when one looks at primary coverage on the Web.
After reading Carol's first question in this thread: I think it's a fair question, to ask why I'm more disturbed by Obama's more vicious supporters than Clinton's. I'll give it some more thought. On first reflection, I think it's that Obama says he stands for a new kind of politics, but his slash-and-burn supporters are the worst of the old politics. I also think even some of his nicer, more well-meaning supporters represent another dead-end kind of old politics: the politics of liberal self-righteousness, where we know we're better than those benighted supporters of those other guys (or gals), and that cheers us, even if we can't convince a majority we're right. And I say "we" because, honestly, they/you are my people: San Francisco by way of Madison, Wisconsin kind of people (but yes, the dad from Ireland/the Bronx sent off to the Christian Brothers does mix everyone up, including me.) I'm just trying harder this election to see the other side. And honestly, some Obama supporters are making it a lot easier to see the other side. I promise to develop these thoughts at greater length soon.
