Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 494 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Perfectly stated!
[Read the article: The company he keeps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know how anyone can deny the fact that Obama has to explain his association with his former pastor is based racism.
The point that it is a cheap easy story for the media is also true. Doesn't mean it is not also racist. McCain stands on a stage with his arm around Haggee and the parallel is dismissed with a wave of the hand.
The Kennedy campaign is way before my time but from what I know the idea- was that a catholic would have allegiance to the pope fist, his country second. There were little murmurs of this around the edges when Kerry became the nominee (to the effect of - will they try this again?) but it was pretty much dismissed out of hand. Because it was so obviously incredibly stupid and deserved to be dismissed!
To those who say Obama’s campaign or supporters cry racism at every turn- I call bullshit. Anyone with any sense knows that it is almost impossible to call out racism – even when the bigotry is so completely egregious as it is here- without being labeled a victim. (Not that I want to open up that discussion again but that is the basic difference between the reactions to racism and sexism in this campaign – both exist out in the open and some more subtlety- women can complain and look strong but if minorities complain they look weak.) This cycle is part of the self justifying narrative of bigots.
To those who say it is about his judgment and that Obama should have distanced himself sooner. He did. He retracted an invite to the reverend to speak when he announced his campaign. Because he wanted to run a different kind of campaign not based on divineness, wedge issues and identity politics. Then he gave the race speech in Philadelphia – which was well received by anyone who actually listened to it.
Obama comes out again this week- distances himself further and now the narrative is he threw Wright under the bus! No subtlety, no nuance, no actual listening to his words.
What is remarkable to me is not the pettiness of our discourse, the not so thinly veiled racism of our corporate media, the mudslinging or the level to which Clinton will sink in order to win. What surprises me is that Obama has come this far on a message of unity and despite as he put it – throwing a couple of elbows- run a remarkably dignified campaign. If he loses, having tried to fight a clean fight, it just means we get what we deserve. More of the same. But it really is on us this time we won’t even have Rove or the other side to blame.
-
Wow- thanks for this info.
[Read the article: Clinton responds to gas tax attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought they were referring to a gas sales tax that the consumer pays at the pump. (I don't know much about that though- I know the price of fuel makes eveyrhting in my life expenseive but I don't drive.)
How on earth would Clinton - or anyone else- stop the oil companies to not pass their costs onto the consumer?
-
@ Alex Koppelman
[Read the article: Voter suppression in North Carolina?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the first I've heard of this story. Just taking the taking what you've written at is face there is a huge contradiction. Was it "The timing was clearly a mistake. " Or were they running it after the primary deadline because of the spike "AFTER the registration deadline has passed" as Bond defends them?
Doesn't seem like they could have it both ways. They made a mistake and regret the confusion but they were also deliberately trying to get votes after the deadline?
And if these robocalls are illegal - how can one make the argument that they are acting in good faith? they should find legal means of communicationg their message. At the very least they should have their 501c3 revoked.
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Voter suppression in North Carolina?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The timing was a mistake only because it caused confusion."
But in their defense, Bond site that they do much research that showed after the primary was the best time to get people registered and they wanted to do it in toime for the primary. If she is correct - and she seems to be defending them, then the timing was not a mistake.
What the orgs spokesperson said was:
"The timing was clearly a mistake. We regret the confusion."
Which implies that they meant to do the call at a different time- presumabley before the primary registration deadline. It clearly implies that their mistake was sending out their packets and calls late not that the mistake was people's misunderstanding of their strategy.
At the very least this means they are being extremely disingenuous.
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Voter suppression in North Carolina?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now you're contradicting yourself. In your post up thread you said the mistake was that they caused confusion. Now only stupid people would be confused by these ill timed calls? I don't think anyone of any race would be confused about whether or not they registered. Clearly someone who registered before the deadline and had not received confirmation might be confused. But even that is not the salient point.
If their goal was to register people for the general - why not say that? "Hello public records show that you missed the deadline to register in the primary but if you fill out the packet we mailed you you will be registered in time to vote in the GE...." or some such.
But they leave it all loose and open and yes confusing. Even if their intent is honerable their dissembling looks suspicious. Why not play it above board? Especially if they have a repeat problem with confusing people? Why not figure out a way to be clear about what they are doing and not create an opportunity for confusion that could disenfranchise?