Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 678 Editor's Choice: 2
-
To Reject and Denounce
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Point of clarification re: the Farakkhan thing.
A couple of people have expressed agreement with Hillary that there is a difference between rejecting and denouncing, and saw Obama's response as strained.
Frankly, when Obama said, "It's not as if there's some formal offer of help on the table from Farakkhan that would necessitate my rejection," it seemed a crystalline answer.
In other words, was there some action that Hillary took, over and above denunciation, that constituted rejection?
Not being facetious at all, but what was Obama meant to do: publicly plead with "anyone who likes Louis Farakkhan" not to vote for him but to vote for McCaine or Hillary or stay home instead?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the substance behind the distinction Hillary attempted to draw.
Any illumination on this?
Thanks.
-
Dear Ohio Girl
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The Farrakhan answer was nuanced at best, insincere at worst. I'm not convinced."
I ask this in all earnestness: of what are you not convinced?
-
quick study
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just wanted to mention that it's true, Obama clearly isn't as comfortable with some issues (the Russian scene, e.g.)
as HIllary is. But that's ok; if the man's proven nothing else over this last year, it's that he's an uncommonly quick study.
He clearly knows how to take in, analyze and respond to new information.
I think it's all right to acknowledge that he still seems amateurish in some areas. What's important is that he knows how to learn.
I'd imagine that being president will always involves dealing with the unexpected and I have every confidence that Obama will perform admirably in this regard.
-
OhioGirl
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheers!
:)
-
The indignation expressed here is deeply dismaying.
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't even know what to say.
The responses here make clear that, like Ferraro herself, you people can't even take a deep breath long enough to listen.
It's not the mere observation Ferraro was making that I find problematic, though it does arouse my suspicion.
It's Ferraro's defiance.
Her inexcusable and race-baiting defiance: ""Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?""
How can I communicate just to you people just how ugly this is?
If that's not an ugly, defensive, contemptuous tone I don't know what is.
If Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly issued that statement, would we even be having this conversation?
Why such a brazen refusal to even contemplate why her statements may be offensive?
She wasn't writing a sociology report, so I find it disingenuous that she was merely offering an objective assessment of the factors behind Obama's success.
I don't know what she meant to say or why she was saying it, but I do know that, having grown up in Yonkers, surrounded by the Archie Bunkers Conason invokes, the resentment she was expressing (and she clearly is full of resentment) will resonate with a good many people.
Frankly, her comments, but especially her subsequent defiance, will serve as a call to arms of the same people who clamored for the heads of Public Enemy Number One, the Welfare Queen.
I don't know what Ferraro's purpose was, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that's exactly what she meant to do.
But her intentions are really not relevant here.
It's her defiance that tells the tale.
-
small nitpick
[Read the article: Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The speech was far and away the most historic, apt, sophisticated, truthful, etc. speech I've ever heard from a would-be president.
Period.
That said, there were a couple of small panders, one of which someone noted was the Israel-radical Islam thing.
The other, though, was the "only in America" could someone like me exist.
That's absurd.
America is not the only place in the world where multi-racialism exists.
Again, just ftw; I don't expect even someone as daring as Obama to start telling us that America's actually not so special as we think it is.
But, I do think speeches like this put us on a course where maybe we can begin to hear even that message in a generation or too.
-
are we talking about race or politics?
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm very unclear here.
Joan writes:
I've gotten a ton of criticism in letters for questioning Obama's use of his grandmother in his landmark race speech, and it's all made me think twice. Many more times than twice, actually. Yet I hold to my view that Obama's speech, and its aftermath, could well be politically damaging despite rave reviews, and that his use of his grandmother is part of the problem. I would ask my critics' indulgence, hoping they'll join the conversation on race Obama correctly says we need, and put aside their own preconceptions while I explain my reaction.
Is she assessing the cogency or aptness of Obama's invocation of his grandmother in this context or merely offering facile musings about the potential for political fallout of the invocation?
That's question number one.
Ok, let me get back to the piece now...