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 Editor,

One of the sad things about this quote is its claim that the Democratica Party is a "made-in-the-USA Western European liberal party" with all of its associated faults. If only. But the sad truth is that the DP is - by the standards of the rest of the Western world - a right-wing political party. It's a sad commentary on the state of American politics that the entire political spectrum is so far to the right that a right-wing party can be (implicitly) called left.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

I really like Obama and I agree with the general principle that his appearance and background has some significant potential to halt or reverse the massive decline in American legitimacy, reputation and power that has occured on the global level since George W. Bush took office.

However, I also think that most people around the world who dislike the US do so because they are aware of American actions and how far those actions depart from what Americans claim as their ideals. The reaction to 9-11 on the street in much of the world was "well, it's too bad, but it's not surprising it happened." In short, people dislike the US because of what it does, not what it says.

If Obama can change the behaviour of the US then he stands some change of reversing the American decline. However, change starts in the Middle East and, quite frankly, with different American policies towards Israel. Given how far Obama is bending over right now to woo the Jewish vote by pledging his undying fealty to Israel, it doesn't seem too hopeful that US policy in this area will start to change anytime soon. As Mearsheimer and Walt have pointed out, US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict has grossly distorted US foreign policy and is now having real and harmful ramifications. Yet, it seems that is still political suicide - for some reason - to simply tell the Israel lobby that American national interests require the US to take a more balanced approach to that conflict.

Obama is saying the right things by indicating that he will talk to the leaders of places like Iran. Creating a general stability in the region that might make it possible for the US to leave Iraq is only possible through diplomacy. Again, however, the Israel lobby gets in the way of this, and the issues are all interconnected.

Change American actions and the American image will improve. Stay on the same path of imperialism and bigotry and the American decline will just accelerate.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

I don't understand the problem here. If this individual wishes to have children and is biologically capable of doing so, then this is entirely his business. I don't think that it is the business of any of us to question his motives or psychological well-being, or sexual credentials.

Simply treat the man with respect. As far as I can tell, he is not treating anyone else with disrespect, which is more than can be said for a lot of us.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Rebecca,

I think that there is a powerful need here to distinguish between the candidate and his supporters. I'm Canadian, so I don't have any vote in this, and I do find the Obama-fanaticism to be disturbing. On the other hand, I think that there is little doubt he is the better candidate - maybe not on all of his policies, but certainly in his character and integrity and his political and moral judgment. (Hillary will still never get around why she supported the Iraq War, IMHO).

What is also true of Obama, I think, is that he is also uncomfortable with the fanaticism that is developing around him. He realizes that he is "just a man" and the enormous expectations that are growing around him can be just as destructive and politically problematic as the reverse. There is, in fact, no way that he can live up to what people want him to be. The fact that this cult is taking shape is an indication, I suspect, of how desperate Americans are for a savior, after the debacle of 8 years of George W. Bush.

All of this being said, I recently met a young woman in San Francisco who is an ardent Obama supporter. At the same time, she can't stand Hillary, at least in part because of the Clinton campaign's descent into attack politics. The gender divide on this question is tenuous, at best.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine