Dear Glenn,

I agree with you. Bill Clinton's comments are indefensible. He is clearly trying to marginalize Obama as the "black candidate". As it was reported on the CBC radio news this morning, it sounds like Clinton is saying that the true test for Obama will come when the "real" (i.e., mainstream, i.e., white) voters in other parts of the country vote.

There may be some truth to the idea that many black voters in South Carolina voted for a black candidate. But to go on to suggest that this, therefore, invalidates Obama's victory is not to simply observe what may be a sociological reality. It is also to play to this idea, to promote the notion that other Americans who are not of African background should maybe start thinking about voting along racial lines themselves. Moreover, it is an approach that seems completely insensitive to the racial realities of the US. Bill Clinton is playing the race card. There is no way that this is acceptable. As it is, if Obama ends up as the Democratic candidate, the Republicans will play racial politics with everything they have. It will take a lot to prevent the US from dividing along racial lines in many areas of the country. It will be much harder for the Democrats to respond to that, if and when the time comes, if their front-runners are guilty of the same thing.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Joan,

I have not been following the American primaries too closely, but the breaking open of racial issues has caught my attention. I just read Glenn Greenwald's recent column, and I have to say that I completely agree with Glenn. Wherever and whoever started putting race into this campaign, Bill Clinton's most recent comments seem to indicate that he is running with the racial card. And that is just sad.

I do have a quick comment on your statement that most of the MSNBC panels are predominantly white and male: I see the dangers of this, but I also wonder about the catch-22 problem: Obama (and his supporters) don't want him to be seen as the "African-American candidate". Does putting African Americans on panels because one of the front-runners is of their race undermine this entire idea? Can we assume that Hispanic candidates require Hispanic commentators or a native

American candidate would require native commentators? I realize, of course, that pretending that race doesn't matter in the US is like pretending the sun won't come up tomorrow, but it does seem to me that Obama's candidacy has the chance to move beyond race - but it can only do that if race is not made into an issue.(Though it may well be too late for that) In other words, making too big a deal of it makes it too big a deal - and altering the content of panels of commentators may be a step in the wrong direction. It's an interesting conundrum.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

The argument that Iran is building a nuclear weapon has always been pretty questionable. Iran's nuclear weapons program (started by the Shah) was restarted in the 1980s due to the fear that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was trying to develop his own nuclear weapons. The effort was allowed to slide after Saddam's overthrow, then restarted in the late 1990s after Pakistan got its bomb (and Pakistan, the sponsor of the Taliban and in real danger of being controlled by radical Sunni Muslims, is regarded as a potential threat to Shi'ite Iran). It is perfectly reasonable that Iran abandoned its most recent efforts at acquiring nukes in 2003. In all likelihood, what Iran wants - and what it has always wanted - is the knowledge of how to build a bomb in order to deter the US, Israel and other Western powers from attacking it.

The really interesting question is how the neocons will spin this. Already, they are saying that sanctions and pressure worked and so "we" should keep it up. But to what end? If Iran is not developing nuclear weapons then it has every right to develop nuclear power. And let's not forget that the US is the real nuclear threat here, given that the current US administration has destroyed or is in the process of violating every nuclear safeguard treaty ever signed by the US. The US is simply in no position to cast stones at any other country over its nuclear intentions.

The NIE indicates that negotiation with Iran is not only possible but likely to be successful. Of course, this won't happen. The current crop of "policymakers" in the White House are dedicated to humbling Iran, to making it pay because it has dared to defy American power and, more than 25 years ago, humiliated the one, true superpower. The real crazies are in the White House. Those who want another war would seem to have been dealt a significant defeat with this new report, but these people are master manipulators. Let's see how this all plays out.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine