Letters to the Editor
blank-
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Here the Historian, Gil Troy gets it right
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"After a week of disappointing political pussyfooting, on Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama’s speech analyzing America’s racial issues was masterful. Once again, Illinois’ rookie Senator hit a grand slam with two strikes against him. Obama’s speech was thoughtful, thought-provoking, rich, complex, effective, poetic, and inspiring.
Finally, on Tuesday, Obama did what he needed to do (and in my previous blog posting I said I hoped he would do) – he told the truth. Overlooking his previous Clintonesque denials, he admitted he had heard Reverend Wright make outrageous statements. Obama rejected Wright’s “profoundly distorted view of this country.” Obama said “white racism” is not “endemic. He warned of the tendency to elevate “what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.” And Obama refused to blame the Middle East conflict on “stalwart allies like Israel,” instead blaming “the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”
At the same time, Obama rooted these statements in African-Americans’ historic anguish and affirmed his loyalty to his pastor and his community. By explaining the anger, Obama did what modern politicians rarely do, he acknowledged complexity. By refusing to disown Reverend Wright while disavowing Wright’s ideology, Obama avoided charges that he lacked steadfastness while showing his independence of mind and the courage of his convictions.
Having staunched the bleeding, Obama then offered some healing. He eloquently highlighted his distinctive, patriotic message of self-awareness, self-criticism and reconciliation. Without explaining how he personally transcended this rage, he repudiated it. “That anger is not always productive,” Obama confessed; “indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.” Obama boldly mentioned moments of deep racial division like the O.J. Simpson trial, a risky but accurate comparison because it too showed the clashing perceptions and sensibilities of whites and blacks. Moreover, Obama thoughtfully acknowledged white resentment over issues such as busing and affirmative action. Characteristically, he refused to dwell in the land of wrongs and recriminations, offering a clever formulation to push the country toward healing and hope. “This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected,” he proclaimed, inviting his fellow Americans to help transcend the divisions and perfect their union.
True, Obama overstepped occasionally. He unfairly compared the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s years of invective with former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro’s one foolish comment attributing Obama’s success to his race. And true, Obama was far too forgiving of his pastor’s hate-mongering, and his own passivity. But it was hard to resist the speech’s – or the speaker’s – appeal. Americans are looking for redemption, and Barack Obama plays the redeemer brilliantly. If the speech works politically as well as it worked rhetorically and substantively, historians will compare it to John F. Kennedy’s speech in Houston to the Baptist ministers on religious tolerance in America.
Here, then, remains the Obama campaign’s great mystery. Many Americans want to believe, to trust that he is what he purports to be, that his gift for words will translate into a genius for governance. But the questions cropping up are not simply about his inexperience but his inaction. He never confronted Jeremiah Wright. He sat silently by as the United Church of Christ to which he belongs passed a resolution singling out Israel, among all countries for opprobrium and possible divestment. Still, in our media-besotted age, words do matter, presidential rhetoric can shape an era. Americans of all parties and races should be proud that this presidential candidate is willing to tackle difficult topics, build rhetorical bridges, and try healing some of the nation’s deepest wounds."
http://hnn.us/blogs/68.html
-
http://leastdangerousbranch.blogspot.com/
[Read the article: Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppose the measure of someone's character is the list of things they're willing to tolerate, both good and bad. But I can't honestly imagine any President going to Church every Sunday and listening to someone rail about the "US of KKK-A". Perhaps you can but I think this shows either a political stupidity or moral blindness and indifference to all Americans. You can't very well claim an inclusion that's supposed to heal all wounds and then turn around and silently tolerate someone condemning 80% of Americans who aren't black. We get it, really. Malcolm-X, revolution, de-stroy white boy. We get it. It's not even particularly new or interesting. But it makes for bad Presidential theater.
-
-- The Notorious W.E.S
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes you're right. Obama fans, acolytes and supporters risk crossing over that line of religious fervor, ecstatic frenzy and mass hypnosis. We call that demagoguery. I really feel like I'm listening to members of a cult when I hear the minions of Obama sometimes. We're probably about a month away from people not even noticing if he says anything material at all or even speaks. He'll be lowered down to the lectern on wires, bathed in white light with the Harlem Boys Choir in the background. The blind will be made to see, the lame to walk.
-
Which or what regulation would that be?
[Read the article: Who predicted the credit crunch abyss?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to hear what regulation you supposed could have averted this?
-
busybody
[Read the article: High tide for the Reagan revolution?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]deregulation of what?
-
Northwestwoods
[Read the article: Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In many ways, especially if you still embrace it like Obama seems to be proud of today. No one sane cares that his parents sent him to this or that school when he was 7. But if he gets up most Sundays, as he claims to now, plunks his butt in the pew and spends a raucous hour listening to this drivel then that's what he does, and reflects on and excuses today. Now. It's like claiming that an Italian politician really doesn't have any connection to the Mafia if a Don is his kids' Godfather, they all hang out together and yet the politician claims after the fact to not have any truck with organized crime.
Uh, ok, in a court of law that's called a conflict of interest.
-
This is the risk you took turning a 2 year election process into one single solitary issue
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's long strange journey on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Iraq".