Letters to the Editor
little lord baltimore
Published Letters: 189 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Joan, I have to hope you move past this.
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So what next? As someone who's worked for many years to close the racial divide, I have to hope Obama moves past this."
I think Obama has moved past this, and it is Hillary supporters and posts and articles like this one that continue to insist that Obama do the impossible: have a hard conversation about race, but never say anything that anyone could possibly take the wrong way; and that refuse to even ask why in her 35 years of service Hillary has not made any effort to also elevate our national discussion about gender, about discrimination or even about race.
For someone who continues to claim that she is not biased in this election, it seems so strange to me that you would continue to focus on Obama and these particularly nit-picky criticisms of his speech and his comments yesterday. On a news day and even a news week where so many other things have happened (Richardson's endorsement, the Politico post, McCain's gaffes, Bill Clinton's "mugging" comments, the passport files), what is the point of continuing to complain that Obama was unfair to his grandmother?
How can you title your post "Moving beyond Obama and race" but then use your post as an opportunity to continue to criticize Obama for not meeting an impossible standard. If you listened to the full quote from Obama, it's clear that he was trying, clumsily, to say that in many ways the fear his grandmother felt when she saw a black man she didn't know was typical of many other white men and women of her generation. To imply that Obama does not know how extraordinary his grandmother is or how remarkable their relationship is, is really the worst kind of spin. It also completely diverts attention away from the substantive issue of how do we begin to tackle our fears of an unknown a racial and cultural other, both real and imagined and instead makes the whole issue about Obama and what you think he should or shouldn't have said.
You claim that you want us to join the conversation on race, but then you use your turn at the mike to criticize Obama and insist that disagreement with you is based on readers' preconceptions and not a legitimate quarrel with you and your strange take on this entire issue.
Obama gave one of the most honest, and complicated analyses of race I've ever heard from a politician. It is more than anyone expected he would do and it did more to suggest that we could in fact begin to find some common ground. His speech gave us a place to start a discussion that we desperately need to have. As someone who claims to have worked to close the racial divide, I don't understand why for you that isn't something to be thankful for or why it isn't something to urge more politicians and more of your readers to also do.
-
Remember when Alex K. wondered who was disagreeing with Politico's conclusions about Hillary's chances?
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess we know now that it's Joan and Salon.
-
It does more harm to write articles like this than to just endorse Clinton.
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Barack Obama is not out of the woods yet on these issues, especially because of newly discovered, archaic slurs by his pastor Jeremiah Wright about Italians' "garlic noses," as well as some one-sided remarks he published on his "pastor's page" in the church bulletin about Israel. That controversy might not go away."
I used to think that it was funny how Joan would twist logic and common sense to argue a pro-Clinton position, while claiming to be unbiased and unaffiliated in this election. Now it's tiresome and painful. I know what to expect when I see that she's posted: another missive about how Obama hasn't met her expectations and more explanation about why it's good for democracy that Clinton stay in the race.
This last paragraph of Joan's says it all. Joan won't leave "that controversy" alone. Even though it's been shown in a War Room post that the Wright controversy (to Joan's dismay?) had no effect on Obama's approval ratings or standing in the polls, and even though after the Wright/Bosnia controversies, Clinton's approval ratings have dipped, Joan feels compelled to bring up something that Wright may or may not have said or written who knows when (Joan does not provide a link or citation). Also, nice work throwing in the hints of anti-Israel bias there. And, nice work sliding your Wright re-hashing into a piece ostensibly about something that Michelle Obama may have done right.
But meanwhile, there has been nothing from her about the Bosnia controversy, nothing about Obama's new endorsments (Sen. Casey of PA announced this morning)' nothing about Ferraro, nothing about Carville calling Richardson "Judas," nothing about how Wright was invited to the White House for Bill's redemption/prayer breakfast, nothing about how Hillary made her "if that were my pastor" statements to one of the most virulent right wing, anti-Clinton newspapers in the country, nothing about how Hillary's pastor may have made statements that were offensive to jews and critical of America, nothing about Hagee. Nothing, as a feminist, about how Michelle Obama is in some ways as inspiring as Barack. Nothing about how Michelle, with her clear partnership with her husband, may even be a better example of a 21st century feminist role model than Hillary herself.
It's one thing to prefer one particular political candidate over another, but it is disingenous to continue to claim neutrality in such an emotionally charged and potentially divisive election, while continuing to write biased posts and continuing to edit a widely read political forum.