Letters to the Editor
-
re. Joan as concern troll
It took me a really long time to understand why Joan is always calling out, and thereby calling attention to, the very nastiest anti-Clinton people and anti-Clinton posts. I have a tendency to do it myself, just on the off chance that some totally un-self-aware idiot will actually get a clue. But I am not a powerful, high-profile editor and I don't write editorial after editorial on the subject.
Here's the thing, though, guys. Did you notice that "high-profile" part? Joan has to distance herself over and over again from these freaks who just refuse to get it. People will come to this site and associate Joan with the very worst possible anti-Clinton remarks. She wants to stand up and say very clearly that she's not down with that garbage. Yesterday on Carpetbagger, Steve Benen pointed out that Freeper had to close down its comments section on Ted Kennedy because the comments were so nasty. And, right on cue, some part of my mind thought, "Yeah, those asshole freepers are always saying over-the-top and crazily inappropriate things! Can't stand them!" Then I thought about the comments section here at Salon, and how I always thought the idea that people would judge Salon by the comments section was not only misguided but also silly. Oops. Maybe not.
Joan, I would like to make two requests that I think will do more for this particular cause of yours than all the face-bluing statements about "Obama supporters" put together:
1. No more calling anti-Clinton statements or anti-Clinton people "pro-Obama" or "Obama supporters." Your "alleged Obama supporters" was a good line, but why not just "anti-Clinton trolls" or "anti-Clinton posters"?
2. Please, please stop with the tabloid-style headlines and commentary. A few now and then are good for a laugh, but this has become a disturbing pandemic on Salon. The more outrageous and biased the headlines and commentary are, the more outrageous and biased the comments will be. When Salon sets a different tone, I expect sensationalists who are attracted by the tabloid style - as opposed to the fuddy duddy loyalists like myself - will stop reading and, even better, stop running their ugly mouths.
-
the Sore Winner Brigade
I beleive the sneering sore losers are causing a heck of a lot more damage than sneering sore winners. The constant stereotyping of Obama supporters displays a serious blind spot among Clinton supporters. That doesn't show caring about the Democratic party or a win, it shows anger that divides the party.
-
The Selfish Gene
Written by a woman....who worked on Hillary's ill fated health care task force.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/the-selfish-gene-is-femal_b_102784.html
-
Running the perfect campaign
Joan points out in her article that there are things Obama and his team should have done better.
Sure, they are running a campaign, an imperfect carnival of an event where the tent goes up and down nearly every night and people come to watch and critique and be amazed and awed by the performers.
We can quibble about how Obama performed in the high-wire act, or whether his lion tamer schtick wasn't quite up to par with Clinton's. But these are mere quibbles, because he's won best in show.
Overall, his team scored well, and they deserve high praise for a job well done.
So, all that's left to decide is whether and when the Clinton tent gets folded in its entirety, the caravan trains sent to Florida, or if the camp gets hitched to the Obama engine.
-
on the exit polls
I have seen several people claiming that the 25% must be an underestimate, because people don't want to admit their racism to pollsters.
There are several problems with this.
1. I read 1 in 5, which is not a quarter; it's 20%. Let me know if you saw different numbers.
2. What this TWENTY percent agreed was not that they were rabid racist fucks, but that race played a part in their vote. Most people are rational and persuadable, so don't count EVEN these folks out.
3. I have taken two exit polls, and they were on paper, just like my ballot, and I folded it up and stuffed it into a ballot box without anyone else ever seeing it. No one has to admit to another person that race played a part.
4. Do you think Obama wants to write this 20 percent off? If so, I think you are mistaken. He was just endorsed by Robert Byrd, and I don't think I'm the only person who cried about that symbolism.
-
Obama and the hillbilly vote
In the last two elections the chattering class has bemoaned the Democratic party's loss of NASCAR dads and the bubba vote. Now that the only qualified candidate in the primary has managed to bring them back into the fold, the arrogant and elitist Obamaphiles now insult their intelligence and call them racists. While they claim to want a dialog about race, all they really want is to continue to inject race into the campaign by defaming Hillary, Bill, and even the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. Here's a thought, maybe these ignorant, toothless hillbillies actually continue to vote for Hillary because they get it that she is the most qualified and they are pissed off with his arrogance, lack of experience, and racist followers. Hopefully Hillary is going to take a rest and let the great agent of hope fend for himself in the fall while her supporters stay home or vote for Nader and Gonzalez.
-
Joan's Blog Post Deconstructed
Let's see how many passive-aggressive anti-Obama, Hillary-shilling comments Joan can cram into one blog post....
"Split democractic decision" -- in what sense, Joan? They each won a state last night, but he has reached a majority of pledged delegates, and he has a nearly insurmountable lead.
"Barack Obama did the right thing" -- passive-aggressive, implying that he usually doesn't
"I'm not sure who in his campaign thought a big Iowa victory rally was a good idea" -- passive-aggressive, implying that it wasn't a good idea
"as I've always said, Obama is better than many of the people behind him" -- passive-aggressive, implying he has bad people behind him
"I thought his praising Hillary Clinton was exactly what he needs to do" -- straight out Hillary-shilling
"Hillary Clinton's been doing the right thing lately" -- Hillary-shilling, given that some in the party believe she's pursuing a self-aggrandizing, egomaniacal strategy to the detriment of the party and its November chances
"without divisive rhetoric" -- Hillary-shilling -- Joan doesn't believe that Hillary's flip-flopping and lying about getting Florida and Michigan seated -- "I've always fought for this" -- after she agreed publicly to follow the party rules, and even saw her opponent take his name off the ballot, isn't divisive
"I have always thought, and I continue to think, that if she wants to, Clinton should campaign through the end of the primaries" -- Hillary-shilling
"I understand that some staunch Obama supporters" -- passive-aggressive -- can't ever mention Obama without putting some sort of questionable adjective in front
"I think he'd have lost West Virginia, Kentucky and (next week) Puerto Rico even with Clinton off the ballot." -- Joan's implying that he's a loser
"it might seem misguided to focus on the things it's done wrong" -- yes, yet misguided Joan forges ahead to do just that and focus on the things it's done wrong
"there might be a few things he could do better" -- passive-aggressive
"but I don't believe racism alone accounts for such mind-blowing Clinton wins" -- Hillary-shilling AND Obama attacking
"and his supporters who indulge in despicable Appalachian stereotypes to explain his losses aren't doing their alleged candidate any favors" -- Joan's typical tactic of focusing on a few vehement and obnoxious supporters as repesentative of the entire campaign
"At any rate, there was clearly no John Edwards effect in Kentucky." -- Hillary-shilling -- because there is bitterness that Hillary didn't get the endorsement, Joan devalues it
"Certainly it's easy to imagine if Obama patches things up with the Clintons" -- Joan positions it that Obama has to patch things up with the Clintons -- again, more Hillary-shilling. Some would suggest that Hillary, with her nasty, lowbrow campaign, needs to patch things up with Obama in order to restore any remaining standing she and her husband have with the party. But we won't mention THAT.
"a dyspeptic Carl Bernstein was railing divisively against Clinton and her supporters" -- because could anybody who rails against Hillary be anything other than dyspeptic?
"warning that she's started a movement that will demand Democrats "change the rules" to give her the nomination" -- actually, yes, she HAS started a movement to do just that. So, major Hillary-shilling to suggest that she isn't. Hillary wants to change the rules, so that she can get the nomination. Why isn't THAT a front-page story at Salon. (Oh, wait, we know why).
"He got nuttier later, warning about an "angry army" of Clinton supporters, mostly women..." -- interesting, as Joan seems to be among the angry army of Clinton supporters who can't let go, won't let go, and are out to torpedo Obama