Letters to the Editor
TRenee
Published Letters: 285
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't think it was about neighborhoods. I was making a side-note observation about how the article you posted referenced Hyde Park as a fancy rich person's neighborhood. It touched me where I live because I am fond of that particular area--that neighborhood does make me think that diverse people can get along. That's all.
-
ShawnWM, Lord Baltimore
[Read the article: Clinton wins Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You’re right: Some of those things did happen for blacks under Clinton. What bothers me, as a black woman, however, is that before throwing blacks under the bus in the election, Clinton was the one held up as black messiah when he clearly should not have been. He had become an expert at using the race card to his advantage. (I bet he was shocked when it backfired on him in South Carolina.) Attacking Sister Souljah, executing a mentally handicapped black man as governor were all done to illustrate to whites, that, yes, he might go to a black church once in a while, but really he could be tough on ‘em when whites required it of him.
Yes, economically SOME blacks (as some whites) did well under Clinton, but the gap between the rich and poor expanded during his administration. Who do you think is the poorest group by percentage in this nation? (I’ll give you a hint: It ain’t white people.) More black people were thrown in jail than any other administration prior to his. (He didn’t do anything about mandatory minimums or the drug war, both of which disproportionately affected blacks.)
As far as the blacks Clinton had in his cabinet, what about his complete desertion of Lani Gunier and Jocelyn Elders (great woman)? When it was politically expedient for him to do so, he abandoned some of those black cabinet members for minimal issues (Hello, as Elders said, masturbation is not bad. Was that enough to get her fired?).
This is not negating that he did do some good things for black Americans, but it is a fallacy to suggest that he did more for this one group than others. He was just good at making it appear he did. Blacks supported him because he was the first politician to even speak to them. That’s great, but because he threw us some crumbs, we should be groveling at his feet?
-
KateTex
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In one of your posts you write, of Obama, that you want people to know "the true nature of his rise in politics, which was classic Chicago style." Have you any evidence that his rise to politics in Chicago was seamy? Or that it was more so than Hillary Clinton's?
I am from Chicago, and from what I understand, Obama came to Chicago, inspired by Harold Washington (A great mayor, the first black Mayor of Chicago, and one who represented a clean break with machine politics. It's a tragedy that he died during office because he probably could have made Chicago an even greater city.) and has spent much of his political career building coalitions with blacks, rural whites, republicans and others. Many of Obama's campaign themes (multiracial coalitions, no such thing as black America and white America) are directly descended from Washington himself.
There is a great 10-page article that details Obama's rise in politics. I urge everyone to read it: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/
-
Hooray!
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From ShawnWM:
"This is the fault of the leftwing nutbirds alone and I'm done with you. Permanently. I want no part of a party with you at all."
Does that mean you'll stop your nutbird racist talk on the boards of Salon? Hallelujah!
-
Being educated is elitist?
[Read the article: Obama advisor Power resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I cannot fathom where this talk of classism comes from re: the Samantha Power remarks.
As someone whom, I guess, would be called a "latte liberal," a designation originating in the Republican Party to denigrate Democrats, by Clinton supporters in this forum but who also grew up really poor (I mean single mother, welfare recipient, living in the worst projects in the country poor), I gotta say it's disheartening to hear people devaluing a college education.
I wonder at what point poor and working-class people get labeled a "latte liberal"? Is it getting a college education, which would make me a "latte liberal" for 10 years? Or is it making more than $35,000 a year, which would reduce my tenure of being a "latte liberal" by nine years?
People who claim that going to college is more about garnering a piece of paper miss the point. I'm sure some do, but getting a liberal arts college education was the most important thing I ever did in my entire life—Not because it enabled me to get a higher-paying job than my mother (though, that didn't hurt), but because it unlocked my brain; it made me see the real enemy. I began to think about class, race, gender in ways I hadn't before. I could actually address the SOURCE of these isms, see how they worked in conjunction, rather than focusing on the small-fry, albeit it important, issues.
In this country, we tend to equate education and intellectualism with elitism; we don't value these things. It's real shame and we are beginning to reap the consequences of this in fields such as science. Working-class folks talk about losing jobs overseas. Scientists can't even find enough Americans to run their labs. Where do they go? Asia. In America, the popular kids in school are the quarterbacks. In India and China? They're the ones we call geeks and nerds.
In order for us to compete on a global scale, we must stop demonizing education and intelligence. Honestly, I think becoming educated and intellectual are the working man's best weapons.