Letters to the Editor
-
From Joan Walsh
Hi Carol, thanks for asking about what I said on Hardball. I said a lot of what I said here last night: Obama's speech was great, and his success in winning over the portion of the Democratic coalition that has doubts about him will depend at least partially on how he treats their candidate, Hillary Clinton. And he knows that; he was awesome last night.
As I've said for months, Obama's terrific, but some of his supporters, not so much. There are a fair number of sore winners on this thread. There are also a couple of people who really do seem like GOP trolls posing as Obama supporters. The nastiness on both sides (there are some "Clinton supporters" who probably work side by side with the creepiest "Obama supporters" in a basement somewhere) are just going to be good news for John McCain.
I'm actually taking some time to think about my next post on the election. I do believe Clinton is near the end, and I want to think about what happens next. I disagree with people who thought this was not a worthy post; the debate between Brazile and Begala defines the race at this point.
I should also note that of course, blogging isn't my job at Salon. I had a full day of meetings about some other great things we have going on, which we'll be rolling out shortly. Thanks for your patience.
-
HealThisNation
She looked as if the world had ended.
Joan looked like someone who was caught in her own web of deceit. She looked like someone who could no longer defend the indefensible. Clearly there was not much respect left for her spin either. A black republican strategist called her bluff on race. All in all, Joan was out of her league and her face showed total resignation.
-
From Joan Walsh
HealThisNation, that's really quite unfair. Weathermen? Really? I'll find a transcript and post it tomorrow. If I looked sad, it was because I'd just read these letters.
I have said repeatedly that I think the Obama campaign is good old fashioned Chicago politics, and the media ignores their version of hardball. And I said it again today when Chris suggested that McCain v. Obama was going to be clean politics on both sides -- I said that was inaccurate about McCain, as well. The people who want to believe we're about to have a race between two political saints are really going to have a hard time come the fall.
-
Joan Walsh
As I've said for months, Obama's terrific, but some of his supporters, not so much. There are a fair number of sore winners on this thread. There are also a couple of people who really do seem like GOP trolls posing as Obama supporters. The nastiness on both sides (there are some "Clinton supporters" who probably work side by side with the creepiest "Obama supporters" in a basement somewhere) are just going to be good news for John McCain.
You can call us creepy all you want Joan, especially since many of us are calling your bias as a Clinton troll posing as an impartial journalist. Time and again you gave Clinton a free pass on sniper gate, foreign policy experience, NAFTA and many gaffes or deliberate Clinton dirty tricks like the 3 am fear mongering ad. Yet you jumped on the "bitter" comment over and over again and just would not let up on typical white woman. What is important? Complete lies or misrepresentation of your interpretation of what Obama said. He gave a first class speech on race. All you could get out of it was your own diabolical misrepresentation of race.
I wear the "creepiest Obama supporter" badge with honor.
-
From Joan Walsh
Thanks, 08YesWeCan!
-
@joan
I don't doubt your sincerity in your latest post. The problem that I have is your editorial policy. Whatever the debate is about who is most progressive or who is being the most nasty, the problem I have is the refusal to address the class issue.
Hilary has staked out a position which I think, is tied to her political contributions. That as it might be, how class is defined in terms of income level is an incredibly important point that you have seriously ignored. I can only chalk it up to a serious blind spot. It is the one point that distinguishes the two and causes much suspicion.
I think that Obama did so well in Indiana raises some very serious questions. Indiana is an incredibly red state and my experience lately is that given Obama came so close says more about class than gender. Racism is plenty strong in rural Indiana and yes many swing voters don't like Hilary, but the number of people who went to Obama that lived in the rural areas can't be discounted.
yer pal
kent
-
Joan
I'm profoundly sorry that your take on these letter threads is one of demoralization. I can't emphasize enough how much my posts at least are in good-faith.
This election season has affected me deeply, not in my outrage over Clinton's behavior so much (because that came on gradually, as you'd see in my letter history) but in my total discomfiture at the tribalism going on here. I used to think that was a Republican thing.
I wonder now, and I have wondered before, do you reflect on your own partisanship? I ask out of genuine curiosity and comradeship, conceding always that I see reality through my own bias, however curious it is that we arrived at different biases. My sense is that you should feel obligated to do so (reflect) given your position. You might say or think, Of course, but you see, don't you, that that is not evident here? That is, in fact, the central complaint.
You have not answered, so far as I know, why you never addressed, for example, the Geraldine Ferraro story, even as you managed to bring up Reverend Wright in several posts. And the questions or observations from posters that you choose to address are so small and specific. You have failed to answer to the larger, more philosophical points brought up by many here. I suppose I am not alone in wondering which of us you find "creepy," and it is no credit to you that those of us who have been mostly civil believe you capable of thinking that our honest challenges are on your potential creepy list.
Count me among those who think you have a difficult job. One that many of us would love, mind you, but one that clearly takes an emotional toll. I have been--only once--on the receiving end of public criticism, and I literally went into a clinical depression for six months. But my sympathy for your beleaguered status here, and I think it is--I think your views are not reflective of your readers' in the aggregate--simply does not go so far as excusing what I believe to be lapses in judgment, fairness, and thoughtful analysis.
I have a feeling I would like you very much in person, and I think you would like me. I don't know what the hell that might mean to you, but you can take it for what it's worth: my (and others'?) postings here are largely intellectual. That is, we mean what we say and have thought a lot about it, but at the end of the day, it's all just a distant conversation about stuff that doesn't quite measure up to the problems of daily living--Is it garbage night? Will baseball practice be rained out? Is my kid being picked on in school? Will anyone help me clean out the attic full of boxes?
If you're ever feeling down about the kind of hold some of us as readers have over your mental state, feel better by thinking this: "I'm sitting here with a national audience and a cool job that involves intellectualism, politics, and writing, and lateagain is a fricking substitute teacher."
Have a nice night. And now I'm going to find some video of your Hardball comments and probably be appalled that you sold out the presumptive Democratic nominee and maybe come back at you. But now you know what to think to yourself. :)