Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Did it ever occur to Ferraro and those defending her here
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that it might be the other way around?
That there might have been any number of capable, talented, charismatic men in the past who didn't get to be front runners for a Presidential nomination because of the color of their skin?
Yes, we may be reaching a moment when being black is not an automatic disqualifier as it was in the past. What this means however is at that point, someone talented, experienced, charismatic, brilliant, and immensely capable can be considered on his own merits.
To say that qualified people were denied the chance to be considered for this job does not automatically mean that anyone who IS chosen now is subpar in some way, in fact it can mean the opposite, that someone perfectly suited to the job who happens to be black is finally being considered.
Ferraro's statement was an attempt to diminish Obama by saying that he would never qualify without his skin color giving an edge. It's an attempt, by a Clinton supporter and surrogate, to claim that he's getting a free ride. The facts say differently. Obama's experience matches Kennedy's, and it more than matches Hillary Clinton's.
To me this doesn't mean that Ferraro, or Clinton, are inherently racist as some claim and as they protest. In fact, I think that's a red herring. I think that this campaign, Clinton and her surrogates, have become simply shameless in saying virtually anything they think will help her, no matter what kind of lines it crosses. The holding up of McCain, the Republican rival, over Obama was just as bad.
Mainly however this notion that "well, he's black and he's the front runner, so that's GOT to be why!" is simply false reasoning. Kennedy was Cathlolic. Did anyone say that this was why he was elected? No, we said that it was now not a problem anymore, not a barrier to being considered. This doesn't automatically turn it into "the reason he was elected".
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Clinton, Obama talk peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fascinating way to turn things. On the other hand, I'd put it this way:
In some odd fantasy world outside the Internet (On mainstream TV broadcasts, some newspapers, anecdotale conversations with my relatives who aren't on the Internet but get news from these mainstream venues, and so on) Hillary Clinton won big in Ohio and Texas, turned the whole race around, and now things are pretty much tied, it's "neck and neck" I hear a lot, that phrase exactly.
In the real world on the other hand, Obama won more delegates from Texas than Hillary did, and her winning in Ohio was a small blip in a long, long, string of losses to Barack Obama, so that he's now got an insurmountable lead in delegates (which he had already before Ohio actually), so she cannot win, not by any means short of shenanigans of some sort.
Funny, that "real world" thing.
I think the word "real" is overused, and very definitely when speaking of what passes for information dissemenation around here.
I'll stick with the one that matches reality better.
-
This is a parody of the GOP, right?
[Read the article: GOP congressional candidate parodies Clinton "3 a.m." ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, blaming Democrats for "running up the deficit..."??
They're not going to actually try that this election are they?
I usually hate sports metaphors, but talk about serving up a big hanging curve ball, right over the plate....
-
Even right wingers are calling it
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a remarkable, unusual, striking, honest, stunning speech.
Salon's summary? "Obaba's speech: Was it enough? I don't think so."
The blinder effect of being a Hillary Clinton supporter is truly something to behold. When you out right-wing the right-wingers, you should stop and ask yourself why.
-
Context, nitpicking, and let it go already please
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So there's the substantive part regrading your question which is this: He meant "this isn't unusual behavior, many white people have these fears". It's the most reasonable way to interpret the phrase you and Fox and others have plucked out of context, especially when you look at what was clearly the overall message of the speech, which isn't race-baiting but precisely its opposite. He obviously meant to soften the picture of his grandmother by saying "now, I know she's not alone in this."
Then there's the other part, which is this: Why are you going around asking this inane question along with Fox News and others who clearly have A) missed the point of the speech entirely and B) done so intentionally?
Your statement that "I hope Obama moves beyond this" followed and surrounded by a column that clearly tries to keep the ginned-up controversy alive is one of the most disineguous things I've ever read in Salon, and yes, that's saying a lot.
-
Gee, it's almost like
[Read the article: "We Don't Know This Sen. Joe"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the progressive netroots people were right.
When they were telling you this about Lieberman. What he really was, and what he would become.
Yes, this is an "I told you so", but really more a "maybe you should stop listening to the right-wing corporate spin, even when it comes from Democrats."
Oh and by the way, the real lesson here may be this one: One of his biggest supporters, whose cheerleading played no small part in getting him elected, was Hillary Clinton.
-
-- doc5467
[Read the article: "We Don't Know This Sen. Joe"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]people will stop the distortions about how Hillary is terrible because she supported Lieberman while Barack supported Lamont. That was the original declaration which just is not true. and yet, it keeps getting said.
I didn't say anything about Obama.
Speaking of distortions.
Here's another one.
That's just not true. Barack Obama supported Lieberman. Hillary supported Lamont.
So your claim now is that both did the same, that's your summary. So what was this first claim supposed to be?
Your assumption that I was praising Obama was an understandable guess I suppose, but if you actually read the post you can see that I didn't.
Seems like on the distortion tally you're batting 0 for 3.