Letters to the Editor
-
He's been running for over 10 years
Until a couple of years ago, I lived in Evanston, IL, across the street from north Chicago. I remember answering the door one afternoon to greet a tall white guy, in his mid-thirties, who had a fist full of glossy brochures.(An African-American, I lived in an integrated neighborhood, as I always had, being born and raised there, so I was used to an array of callers at my door.) He grinned as he began his pitch about someone called Barack Obama. "Who?" I asked. He repeated the name as he thrust a brochure at me, asking me to vote for him in the upcoming senatorial election (Peter Fitzgerald was stepping down).
He looked black, I thought as I scrutinized the brochure. No, he looks mixed. What kind of name is that? Always active in politics, I'd never heard of him before. And if he is black, how strange that he would have white men canvassing for him.
Over the months, his profile grew in Chicago and I gathered more information about Obama. But for awhile Obama's ethnic identify was still confusing. At work, I met a white guy about my age, a retired Republican politico in the throes of a scourging alcoholism. We hung out occasionally, and I saw that he still couldn't resist his old professional duties. Election day was upon us, and Obama looked like a victor. "You know he's actually Hawaiian, don't you? my alcoholic friend suggested, hoping that I'd not vote for Obama because he wasn't really black.
"I'm not voting Republican, sweetheart. And I'm not voting for him only because he is black."
Now Obama is off to the presidency, but remembering that day i answered the door, I get the feeling this day was in many minds long, long ago. Obama is not Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Al Sharpton, or Maxine Waters. His patrician style and exotic Tahitian looks comprise an X-factor that make him palatable to an interracial base. And it's the x-factor that troubles me. If Obama looked different, if he were ugly or looked more black, would so many be thrilled about him? I wonder.
-
QN
So we agree that neither of us care about the actual word 'marriage', what are we arguing about?
I won't say that 'married status' doesn't carry social import, or factor into advancement, but the obstacle there will be your sexuality, not your marriage license.
You might have missed that point. What I can't seem to understand from your point of view is why you think having 'civil unions' that confer the exact same rights and privileges under government as 'marriage' does, is unequal?
-
dawggone,
you are quite right about LBJ. He knew exactly how to get things done; he did far more on civil rights than ANY president - before or since. He wasn't afraid to make enemies. I don't think that it is a coincidence that when the US got serious about civil rights, we found ourselves in an unwinnable war that drained us for years.
More than anything, we need a president who has the brass to gut the war department and turn it into a true defense department. We are NEVER going to get anything done on health care, retirement security, energy independence, etc until something is done to scale back the "all war all the time" war mongering department. It is my understanding that every congressional district is on the receiving end of some kind of war department spending. It is a sickness, and it is destroying our ability to function as a society.
There are a number of pols who could get things done as president IF they could get elected. My short list includes: Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gebhardt, and Chuck Schumer. I don't think the US will elect a black person. Colin Powell didn't run in '96 because he knew he could not win.
-
He's running!
I love all the talk about "experience" (or lack thereof) from the skeptics. Does that really matter when voters go to the polls? What experience did the current idiot in the White House have in 1999? Being Governor of Texas is more of a ceremonial position; although he had 6 years under his belt before moving to Pennsylvania Avenue we see that it's intellect that counts, not experience.
-
Experience: Not all its hyped to be
In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected to office with one of the most distinguished political careers in American history. In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld had more experince in the executive and legislative branches than had anyone else in the last 2 decades. And even if you think W's not a puppet of Cheney, he was obviously so childishly gullable that he did whatever Cheney and Rummy told him to. My point: experience ain't all it's cracked up to be.
In 2000, the Democrats had a nominee who was far more experienced and far more intelligent and prepared to take over the presidency. In 2004, the Democrats had a nominee who was literally battle tested. We lost both of those elections, not because those nominees were inexperienced, but because the American people didn't like them. We need a nominee with that "thing" that makes people want to pull the lever next to their name.
Moreover, is there any job in government, or on Earth for that matter, that can prepare one to be president of the United States? The most I think we can ask for is a man or woman with brains, integrity, gravitas, and vision to set a course for our country that will leave us better when they left than when they came. I for one, believe Senator Obama has all those things and more. And for all of you who say you don't know him, or where he stands, maybe you should read the books, they give a pretty clear picture in my judgement.
-
More Than Words and Smiles
Since I generally appreciate his posts, I'm going to address Dr. Zachary Smith directly.
Position papers, regardless of how "correct" they are and appeal to your positions (or mine as well), charitable committments, lots of experience in midwestern state politics, a good education, the ability to always smile at the camera, and a charismatic personality that helps win elections is not even close to the skill and outright cunning it takes to be an effective politician in the current milieu.
I'd rather have somebody who looked and talked like a duck who got "real" things done, and has proven it than the latest gladhander. The only pol I've known in the last fifty years who has had both qualities has been Bill Clinton--and I am simply not so sure genius (in politics or anything) is that common.
I don't see anybody making the case for any piece of legislation that Obama has promoted, or a tough position he has taken and fought for despite the odds that even comes close, say, to Hillary Clinton's fight for health care. Even if it failed, it showed the kind of guts that tells me what I want to know. Given the resources you claim, correct me if I am wrong--and I am willing to be wrong.
I want somebody I know who doesn't just dream and express a "new" agenda, but has the very specific and exacting skill it takes to make it happen. I can't see voting for somebody for president because he loves his wife, kids, "God" and comes up with the "right" platform without much evidence it isn't all just a pile of words and smiles.