Letters to the Editor
doloresflower
Published Letters: 1201 Editor's Choice: 10
-
jebdlmm and others
[Read the article: Is Obama playing the race card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suggest you watch Jon Stewart to see his take on the race issue and who brought it up first:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147886&title=the-race-card
Seriously, you mention several examples, but not in one of them does Obama call anyone a racist. As for stating that someone or something is has no racial content to it whatsoever...that's not his job--that's the public's job, thank-you very much. In retrospect, I think the public, egged on by the media may have been overly harsh towards the Clintons during this campaign. But this let's blame the black guy for not stopping anybody from bringing up race ever in this campaign is ridiculous. Do you know who usually wins in this country when race gets brought up? I was a history major in college so I can give you a little clue about this: typically NOT the black guy.
So anyway.
sheesh. I don't mind your support of Hillary, but ceaselessly blaming Obama for bringing up race when he didn't: think about this: Race was not brought up in Iowa and who won Iowa? Oh, yes, Obama did. Race in regard to Bill Clinton's remarks didn't occur until after South Carolina and who had already won South Carolina by a large margin? Obama had.
If this is the only way you can think that anyone would vote for him...seriously do you know even one person who voted for Obama because they thought the Clintons are racists? I don't know of one person who thought or voted that way. And that includes a few black women I know in California who voted for Hillary, and three told me it was because "I'm a woman first."
Media noise. This whole race-baiting thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever....I mean...oops.
shalom.
-
@Salon Fan
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for pressing send. Thanks for the reminder that these aren't just abstract popularity contests, but people are voting with pocketbooks, bills, health problems, families. Yes, the conversations here do become abstract and depressingly vicious. I grew up in a Republican household and the Republicans I knew were nice to one another, and mean to liberals. I had to grow up to find out that liberals are mean to eachother, and nice to everyone else.
Good work making phone calls and supporting a cause you care about. Don't let this silly stuff get to you. Good luck. I saw Samantha Power speak a few days ago, and she confirmed to me that the people who work for Obama, with Obama are smart, compassionate, wise and enthusiastic.
Hang in there.
-
I love Nader as a person
[Read the article: Ralph Nader loves John McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But his symbolic work for justice through presidential campaigns has become a symbol of something ugly to myself and many other progressive Americans.
If Nader seriously wanted to be president, he should have built a grassroots campaign and been willing to lead the Green Party. We could respect him as progressives if this was what he had done as a presidential contender.
Instead, without even being able to consolidate the support of a party that was created for him by his supporters...he is there mainly like a burr in our sides. Yes, he reminds us that we are compromising with our choice of candidates....but through promoting more cynicism/idealism in the political system as it is, he is from a practical point of view taking us further away from accomplishing the very things he stands for.
-
Bryce Anderson
[Read the article: The audacity of narcissism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nader is committed to making a symbolic gesture in his run for president. This is the problem. If he were serious about being president he would be building up the grassroots and a political organization that actually works. The party created for him, the Green Party--he is too idealistic apparently even to unite a party that formed itself to get him elected. How can someone who is so single-minded that he cannot work even within a coalition of his own supporters--hold public office?
One of my favorite political books--even though it wasn't particularly well written, was the book "Conscience of a Liberal" by Senator Paul Wellstone. It's a little bragadocious, and it's a little simplified. But the way he describes trying to organize the grassroots in order to make change happen is interesting. It's also funny but realistic the way he talks about senators wheeling and dealing to get bills through in Congress. He says he never realized things worked like that until he got there. Friendships and being able to call favors makes a difference. Threatening to demonize people if they do not vote for your bills does not get your legislation passed.
This will be the first year since Kennedy that a senator will become president. Maybe this is why Clinton was so circumspect in her votes--and Obama too played to the conservatives. Too much, maybe. Partially to win approval from centrist voters, and partially to make deals for their own bills.
I know that real idealists get pissed off at this kind of thing. But Congressmen who only try to make symbolic gestures will not be able to pass real legislation. I'm not sure that Matt Gonzalez or Nader understand or accept the compromising nature of public office. Too bad, because both could have a more than symbolic contribution to make to fixing some of the problems we do face from the corporatification of Washington D.C. Consumers and workers need real advocates in Washington, not mere symbolic ones.