Letters to the Editor
-
Questioning Alex Koppelman's explanation
I think we have to take Alex Koppelman at his word, and I'm not going to make a big issue of this. But I do have a few minor comments:
Koppelman: "First off, we just don't have time to cover everything."
This is understandable. On the other hand, many items in War Room do not really constitute "coverage" so much as quick items of interest. Time-wise, Koppelman could probably do a write-up on the Geraldine Ferraro comment in a couple minutes. The time explanation also becomes semi-dubious when you're simultaneously putting a high degree of effort into countering people like Michelle Malkin. Or when past coverage on similar matters (the Samantha Power "monster" comment) has been so thorough.
Koppelman: "Another reason I held off on coverage is that I think this whole thing has been overblown, mostly by the media but also to some degree by the Obama campaign."
This is an interesting statement, because it suggests you are basing your coverage not on a question of "Is this newsworthy to the focus of 'War Room'?" but "How much has this been covered elsewhere?"
I also question whether the Obama campaign's response was overblown. You've posted entire memos from the Clinton team that could arguably be called overblown. From what I saw, the response of Barack Obama himself was very precise and non-escalating, using the term "wrongheaded" but avoiding charges of racism.
Finally, I don't think the Ferraro thing was overblown at first. It was only reported here and there on Monday. On Monday night it got the Associated Press treatment, and then on Tuesday it developed legs after Obama's campaign responded to it. By the time Keith Olbermann weighed in on it, it was officially overblown (Olbermann's bombastic treatment made him seem rather "underblown" if you know what I mean).
Anyway, I am uncomfortable with going too far trying to tell any writers/editors on Salon what they should be doing. (Granted, I sometimes do this anyway, but I try to swing back to a position of humility as much as I can.) As you well know, Mr. Koppelman, we readers are hypersensitive to questions of balance and bias.
Regarding the various stories you also didn't mention, like the Saddam-and-9/11 report, I encourage you to write more on such matters. Write....write like the wind. We are your baby birds, mouths open, waiting for your regurgitations.
-
Note to Alex
Obama can do no wrong. Anyone who criticizes him is wrong (and quite possibly a racist). Hillary Clinton can do no right. Anyone who does not her criticize is wrong (and quite possibly a racist).
Upon failure to cooperate with the above paradigm, your keyboard will be seized and thrown into the flames. (Note: Office Depot has some pretty cheap models, just in case.)
-
You know what, AKA
I did take what Ferraro said personally, obviously, as I am sure did lots of other professional black folks.
And, you know what else, AA didn't give me an edge on white people equally as talented; It gave me an edge on white people who weren't.
That's it. Please don't write to me anymore. I'm still shaking because of this. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.
-
Wow, Alex
"And so what she said about Obama -- and about herself -- can easily be interpreted as an observation of political reality. Sadly, in American politics sometimes intangibles like race and gender matter much more than political beliefs or credentials."
Of course in American politics intangibles matter. No one is debating that. But it is patently ridiculous to defend Ferraro's remarks by claiming that really she was just making an "observation of political reality." If in fact Ferraro were commenting on the sorry state of American politics, why did she refrain from including Hillary in her round up of people who would not be in the position they are now if not for their race or gender? Why did she not conclude her remarks about Obama the same way she concluded her remarks about herself? Why did she say the exact, (not similar, but the exact) same thing about Jesse Jackson 20 years ago?
If Ferraro were so egregiously misquoted and misrepresented and if the criticism of her were so overblown, then why didn't she use any of the her media appearances after the story broke to clarify her position?
Instead she went on Bill O'Reilly's show and said:
"O'REILLY: I absolutely know they can take you out of context, but do you believe that Barack Obama, if he were a white man, white senator, would not be in the position?
FERRARO: Absolutely"
Given another opportunity to explain herself and clarify, she said:
"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
and:
"Sexism is a bigger problem. It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
Or please Alex, give me the "interpretation" for what Ferraro meant when the day before she gave her quote to the Daily Breeze, Ferraro said:
"If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position?
I was disappointed with Ferraro's comments, but I am actually truly saddened by Alex's post. I think this is a reminder for me as a black woman, that for many white people, no matter how educated or how liberal minded they claim to be, there will always be a reluctance to just identify and condemn racism when it shows its face. I know Alex said that what Ferraro said was wrong. But he just can't bring himself to admit that it is racist, and inexcusable. I'm not saying that Ferraro is racist, but that what she said is. And even with the sad state of American politics, it shouldn't be so hard to just come out and say that. Then we can work on how we move beyond it.
-
@ Uncle Fester:
I am sorry you thought it was OT of me to mention affirmative action, but let me hasten to say that I was not the first to bring up affirmative action. If you will read back over TRenee's posts you will see that she brought up affirmative action and that I addressed my post specifically to her because I was unclear of her stance on affirmative action. From her post, I thought she might be opposed to it. This puzzled me.