Letters to the Editor
isbell
Published Letters: 7
-
The difference between Obama and Huckabee?
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are many differences in the way that they deal with their religion, but the biggest one is simply that Obama's message is actually: I'M NOT MUSLIM. I suspect if he could make a two page spread that just said that directly, he would.
Peace.
-
GlennGreenwald: Update II: Hordes of Obama supporters?
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hordes of Obama supporters are claiming in comments and elsewhere that this brochure was nothing more than a perfectly innocent attempt to counter the whispering campaign that Obama is a Muslim.
This sort of surprised me. Having read at least some of the comments, including my own, I'm not entirely sure why you're characterizing those who are proposing the Muslim explanation(tm) as Obama supporters. I think one could put this forward without being an Obama supporter in the same way that you can criticize Clinton without being Pro-Obama, and so on, as you're constantly pointing out.
Anyway, having said that, I think this comes up in South Carolina because--and I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but--it's South Carolina. Past history would suggest that this sort of thing will matter there. You might as well ask why farm subsidies come up in Iowa and not NYC.
But you know all of this already.
Peace.
-
GlennGreenwald: Continuing Update II: Hordes of Obama supporters?
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said from the beginning that rebutting the "Muslim" campaign was a part of this. But I don't see how anyone can read that flier - which is probably the single most overtly religious piece of political adverstisement I've ever seen -- and believe that an overt appeal to Christian voters based on Obama's Christianity isn't part of the motive.
I guess I'm not sure that those are really two different things in this case. I see the latter as dealing with the former. I suspect that if there were no Obama-is-a-Muslim campaign then we wouldn't have gotten this spread. Maybe that doesn't matter, though I tend to think that it does.
I mean, I take your point that one shouldn't try to have it both ways on Huckabee's vs Obama's (versus anyone else's) appeals to religion, condemning one and supporting the other; however, I don't see any hypocrisy on this issue from the Obama campaign, so I guess I can't get that exercised about it. Of course, I wasn't all that exercised about Huckabee's direct appeals to Christian voters either.
Peace.
(You know, Salon needs a better letter / commenting system with indented replies and all that sort of thing. This whole experience makes me long for USENET and such. Anyway.)
-
Joan battles the sixties?
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do find myself thinking: Am I fighting the last war, continuing to raise questions about the double standard in the way the media covers the Clinton and Obama campaigns? I hope not, but I'm still thinking about it.
You already know the answer to this.
I also continue to think about the meaning of Obama's saying he's "not as invested" in the "battles of the sixties," and why that bothers me. See the video below.
Not being invested in the battles of the sixties does not mean not being invested in civil, human, or any other rights, for example. Not wanting to re-fight Vietnam does not mean that one doesn't care about fighting stupid wars that happen to be like Vietnam. I'm not invested in the battles of the thirties myself, but it turns out that this isn't a tacit approval of fascism.
I guess I'm younger than you. I don't feel invested in the battles of the sixties in part because I wasn't there; however, I have very strong feelings about, for example, institutional racism and the battles that haven't been resolved from the sixties and before. I've been the only one looking like me in the places where I've worked/studied/etc for most of my life and it's more than a little irritating, let me tell you. But, I don't have to attack those problems that I care about in the language of the 1960s and, in fact, I don't want to. I don't want to re-fight the Vietnam debate because I'd rather fight in the Iraq debate.
I feel as if the current political establishment is too locked in a fight that's so informed by their formative years and how the world was split up then that it can't make any progress in today's world: post-Cold War, post-Vietnam, possibly post-American century.
One day, perhaps twenty or thirty years from now, the next generation will be complaining how my generation is still fighting the battles of the 2000s, and they wish we'd move on. They'll probably be right, and I hope we get out of their way.
Peace.
-
You depress me, but thank you
[Read the article: The WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, another Monday ruined by Glenn telling me about something depressing.
I'm glad someone is doing it, though. As much as I get drawn into the horserace of this year's election cycle, this has to be one of the more important events of the last year.
Nope didn't really have anything to add beyond that.
Peace.