- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Not sure if you're being ironic or not, but no, it's not that he wasn't "black enough," but that he wasn't radical enough. I think I see your point, though, about our perspectives and first responses being so different. Yes, he wasn't "black enough" for me inasmuch as blackness confers radical politics, perspective, etc. But frankly, most of the black politicians I see on the television leave me feeling underwhelmed. Of course, most of the politicians I see on the television leave me feeling that way, so there you have it.
But initially, I too thought Obama was a breath of fresh air, but I wasn't convinced he was Up to the Moment, as it were, equal to the Fierce Urgency of Now he talks about. But then, no one up there seemed up to it. Kucinich obviously was my ideological choice, but he obviously wasn't viable.
Obama's the first viable candidate I can remember that I've actually wanted to vote for.
Yes, your point is taken indeed, it was Obama's ability to unite that impressed me. Once people in Iowa voted for him (and I lived in Iowa, for many years) I really started to believe maybe he could put together a working majority.
At any rate, it's clear (to me) he's the only one who even stands a chance at that. There can be no "forward" movement under McCain or Clinton. The best Clinton could ever be is a placeholder and frankly, we're long past the point where that's even remotely adequate.
Clinton is issue-oriented, which is fine for rapid response, but I don't think she thinks structurally or long-term, which is why we need someone who can actually plan for the future.
So far, Clinton has displayed ZERO evidence of being able to show the foresight God gave a billy goat.
That's what happens when you spend your life in survival mode.
