Salon Editor Surprised at Hillary's Iowa Showing
For the record, I don't give a hoot about Iowa. Or New Hampshire. Or any of the other hamster races. But I'm a smoke 'em if you got 'em kinda guy. And I like to archive some of the comments I leave elsewhere because - especially at a big outfit like Salon - all it would take is a change in editorial policy to render such things hard to find. Not to mention the obvious fact that content is hard to come by for lazy bastards such as m'self.
[Response to Joan Walsh's "On To New Hampshire"]
Joan's Tin Ear Tinnitus
Unlike the smattering of predictable whines directed toward Glenn Greenwald whenever he writes, for good or ill, about any of the primary candidates, reader criticism of your coverage & commentary has a decidedly different RINNNGGG to it.
In late November, I asked you a direct, simple question (http://tinyurl.com/3dnyk7): Would you consider a role in a Clinton Administration? I all but begged you for a straight answer.
Your deft, disarming response (http://tinyurl.com/2zrxqq), notable for its casual charm, was like watching Jackie Chan dodge knives and bullets:
An answer to my question - again, a very simple question which centered on consideration (vs. your use of intent and present circumstance) - was nowhere to be found.
It was an artful evasion worthy of the most accomplished masters of political doublespeak, which was why - knowing credentials when I see 'em - I asked the question in the first place. Yes, I would consider or No, I wouldn't consider or I'm not certain if I would consider. Any of those would've laid a predicate for a straightforward response upon which your candor could be evaluated with a critical eye. Which, one can only surmise, is why you offered a non-answer. One considerably more revealing than an actual answer.
Given this blatant aversion to straight-shooting, is it any wonder Salon readers associate you with another evasive triangulator?
In that same response, addressing another one of your readers:
For a professional communicator, the gulf which exists between what you say and what a substantial portion of your readers hears should be a significant concern. Unfortunately, a willingness to ignore the credibility gap is just another cost of membership at The Pundit Class Country Club. In no time at all, you'll be referring to "my friend, Bill Kristol..."
Isn't it something how things - humans and situations and viruses - reproduce? The hierarchal contempt of the Democratic Party Establishment toward its lowly base - wrapped in tidy, condescending obfuscations - is strikingly similar to the relationship between Salon and its readers. In both of these situations, an honest conversation would be, to put it mildly, very refreshing. Well, for the little people, anyway. The big people would find it as refreshing as inhaling the particulate of their own teeth as the dental drill grinds on and on. What a role reversal that would be.
Despite the Conventional Wisdom Factory in which you toil, and counterintuitive though it may be to many people (though certainly not you and your friends, all of whom know better): People can handle the truth. That's a real problem for those who prefer their bread buttered in the dark. Where there are problems, there are opportunities - in this case, job security for you and other first responders in The Applecart Vanguard.
P.S. No. 1: Al Giordano nailed Iowa. Funny how the real cool kids are never the ones who aspire to the club.
P.S. No. 2: Speaking of funny things, it's also funny how your blog's prominence on Salon's index page waxes and wanes according to the volume and tone of reader responses.
[Response to Joan Walsh's "On To New Hampshire"]
Joan's Tin Ear Tinnitus
Unlike the smattering of predictable whines directed toward Glenn Greenwald whenever he writes, for good or ill, about any of the primary candidates, reader criticism of your coverage & commentary has a decidedly different RINNNGGG to it.
In late November, I asked you a direct, simple question (http://tinyurl.com/3dnyk7): Would you consider a role in a Clinton Administration? I all but begged you for a straight answer.
Your deft, disarming response (http://tinyurl.com/2zrxqq), notable for its casual charm, was like watching Jackie Chan dodge knives and bullets:
I worked for the California State Legislature, briefly, early in my career, and I learned a lot, but I was miserable. I have a big mouth! Politicians really don't want to employ me. Plus, I have no intention of working in a place that's swampier and more humid than Sacramento and so much farther from San Francisco. Finally, I have the world's best job. Hillary applied, and when she didn't get it, she ran for president. (Kidding!)
An answer to my question - again, a very simple question which centered on consideration (vs. your use of intent and present circumstance) - was nowhere to be found.
It was an artful evasion worthy of the most accomplished masters of political doublespeak, which was why - knowing credentials when I see 'em - I asked the question in the first place. Yes, I would consider or No, I wouldn't consider or I'm not certain if I would consider. Any of those would've laid a predicate for a straightforward response upon which your candor could be evaluated with a critical eye. Which, one can only surmise, is why you offered a non-answer. One considerably more revealing than an actual answer.
Given this blatant aversion to straight-shooting, is it any wonder Salon readers associate you with another evasive triangulator?
In that same response, addressing another one of your readers:
I stopped answering letters claiming I'm in the tank for Hillary a while ago. But I'm going to finish this answer, and then reprint it in every letters thread when it comes up again.and
I'm not supporting Hillary Clinton, much to the chagrin of friends and family who are. (Don't worry, I have plenty of friends and family who aren't!) I truly haven't made up my mind. I will say, though, that when MSM folks who were so wrong on impeachment, including my friend Chris Matthews and now, the next generation of Beltway smirkers, like my friend Ana Marie Cox, go after Hillary Clinton, well, I can imagine myself going into the voting booth and thinking about the way the media gangs up on her, and, yes, voting for her. Right now, that's not my plan. But I don't know.
For a professional communicator, the gulf which exists between what you say and what a substantial portion of your readers hears should be a significant concern. Unfortunately, a willingness to ignore the credibility gap is just another cost of membership at The Pundit Class Country Club. In no time at all, you'll be referring to "my friend, Bill Kristol..."
Isn't it something how things - humans and situations and viruses - reproduce? The hierarchal contempt of the Democratic Party Establishment toward its lowly base - wrapped in tidy, condescending obfuscations - is strikingly similar to the relationship between Salon and its readers. In both of these situations, an honest conversation would be, to put it mildly, very refreshing. Well, for the little people, anyway. The big people would find it as refreshing as inhaling the particulate of their own teeth as the dental drill grinds on and on. What a role reversal that would be.
Despite the Conventional Wisdom Factory in which you toil, and counterintuitive though it may be to many people (though certainly not you and your friends, all of whom know better): People can handle the truth. That's a real problem for those who prefer their bread buttered in the dark. Where there are problems, there are opportunities - in this case, job security for you and other first responders in The Applecart Vanguard.
P.S. No. 1: Al Giordano nailed Iowa. Funny how the real cool kids are never the ones who aspire to the club.
P.S. No. 2: Speaking of funny things, it's also funny how your blog's prominence on Salon's index page waxes and wanes according to the volume and tone of reader responses.
posted by Arvin Hill at 1/04/2008 04:02:00 PM
<< Home