Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Isn't it nice...
[Read the article: Clinton's nondenial on Obama pastor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...for the first time we have a black man running for president, with a primary coming up that could be decisive, and rather than talk about him and his challenger, all of our media and even the entirety of Democratic activists have spent the last ten days talking about 1/100,000 of the things his black preacher over the course of 20 years (ironically, things the preacher said about how racism still pulses through the American experience).
To use Clarence Thomas' own words (more appropriately), this is a high tech lynching. The good news is that it may not work. But the awful news is that even supporters of the other Democratic candidate don't see this, they are so blinded by the fact that keeping Rev. Wright in the spotlight might deliver a miracle for their cause. And how is that not racism at work? Not that Clinton supporters are racist, but encouraging standards that could not be, nor ever have been, applied to whites in a similar position to Obama certainly feeds the disease.
Again, where is the outrage over Clinton serving on the board of a company whose head hatefully attacks labor? Does she agree with this? Why didn't she quit? If her husband's dismantling of welfare, taking away the rights of death row inmates, enacting NAFTA, perjury under oath aren't grounds for Clinton leaving him, why are 1/100,000 of Rev. Wright's words cause for Obama leaving his flock? Will Clinton supporters call for 24/7 coverage of any white who attended a church that attacked gays or demagogued on black crime?
That Rev. Wright is an issue -- a huge, single focus issue -- is just breathtaking. We are witnessing an awful, race-based double standard and most people think it's okay (except Obama supporters and McCain). Is winning the only value in this nation?
[And as my posts make clear, I never drank the Obama Koolaid and can cite his legitimate shortcomings as well as anyone. They also show, and I will state again, I do not judge Clinton by the words/actions of those close to her -- I only ask why those who would do so for Obama don't apply the same standards to Clinton, if they have a consistent set of values.]
-
I'd like to see a poll that asks:
[Read the article: Will Wright hurt Obama's chances?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does Pastor Hagee's remarks endanger McCain's campaign? (Maybe 20 percent would even know what the pollster was talking about.)
Does Clinton's participation on a corporate board whose company head viciously attacked organized workers endanger her campaign? (Maybe 10 percent even know she worked for Walmart, or that at shareholder meetings she attended organized labor was excoriated in terms more hateful than Rev. Wright's.)
This is hurting Obama because the media is making it an issue. If the media covered Bill Clinton's lies non-stop as a reason to doubt his wife's campaign, it would be scurrilous and defamatory, but it would hurt her poll numbers all the same.