A few commenters have wondered in the past few weeks why there's been such a paltry amount of coverage of the primaries and their attendent issues on this site. I can't speak for my colleagues — as we always write, in tiny print, in the magazine's masthead, we have varying opinions and no monolithic position on most of the issues we cover — but I've become, as I'm sure many of you have, really exhuasted by the circularity of so much of the dialogue surrounding the question of who deserves the nomination more, Hillary or Barack. There are so many hurt feelings, well-meaning but misguided lashings out, and, of course, infuriatingly simplistic editorials about the identity politics shading every corner of the Democratic picture that I personally don't want to add another voice to the cacophony.
That said, there are definitely things I've read recently that I want readers here to check out, so I'll be periodically posting those. A couple to start with: Problem Chylde's exasperated and to-the-point rebuttal of the afore-linked Washington Post piece on the stupid, stupid question of — say it with me, now — whether sexism or racism is a bigger problem in the Democratic race. (For those counting, that's two insulting WaPo articles this week alone, three if you weren't a fan of the Linda Hirshman piece that ran alongside our pal Charlotte Allen's op-ed last weekend.) Shakesville blogger Melissa McEwan's post, reprinted on AlterNet, succintly titled "Hey Maureen Dowd, Please Shut Up!" perfectly sums up why I've pretty much stopped reading anything Dowd has to say, on this election or otherwise. And Jessica Valenti's article at the Nation today gives a solid rundown of just how depressing one particular flavor of feminist infighting has become.
So read on, and we'll aim to give you more, time and sanity permitting. Now I'm off to nurse what's either a cold an actual case of my head exploding.