Letters to the Editor
-
What really angers them is that Obama is soo good
He's clearly the best political talent we've seen in this country in the past 30 years (or at least since 1980) and they know it. It pisses them off. That's what has them so angry.
I'll repeat, the one assertion which has yet to be answered, why did white candidates who were just as charismatic (Lincoln, JFK, RFK, Reagan) get just as far? Give me a break this is politics people. Part of it is getting people to like you. That's not a foul. It's fair.
The second part is running a campaign and it's the part one candidate (Hillary Rodham Clinton) should have had a HUGE advantage in, she got to watch first-hand two successful campaigns. Yet hers has been a disaster. This is a FACT. You're wanting to change it cannot do so.
You want to talk about Jeremiah Wright? Fine, let's talk about that. Barack dismissed his statements months ago. Again, just plain good commmon political sense. So while you all get up in a tizzy talking about it, he can point to statements he made weeks ago and people will go, "Hmmm. Well I might not like it, but he did say it way back in October. Gotta give Obama credit for that." Obama can then distance himself further. This is good politics.
This is an election, not a coronation. No offense, but Hillary's side has never gotten this which is why she continues to lose. Barack's running a better campaign, hence his winning. And guess what? He will win. When the best candidate runs the best campaign they tend to win regardless of gender, race, religion or any other stupid factors we try to force on them.
I have respect for older white women, older white men, older black men and older black women. But if they honestly believe in the Democratic platform and choose to sit this one out then they will have only themselves to answer to if we somehow end up with another Republican president, more wars, and the continued narrowing of a woman's right to choose.
My hunch is Obama knows they don't like him. And again he's going to keep moving forward. They're angry that he won't bow down and beg them for support. Too bad. We're going forward, Barack is going to continue winning, as he has done so far, and WILL BE the next president of the United States come November 2008. Maybe when he walks onto those steps and holds his right hand up on January 20, 2009 you'll finally accept this or not. Either way it's going to be reality the one place HRC and supporters have refused to enter for the past month and still won't come near.
-
Geraldine Ferraro needs to continue to speak out.
Geraldine Ferraro told the simple truth when she said Barack Obama is where he is because he is black. Here's why.
The black population is concentrated in some states more than others. It is also concentrated in the Democratic party. The black population, quite naturally, turned out in those states to support a black candidate in very great numbers. That is certainly why Obama carried South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and will almost certainly carry North Carolina and some other states in the upcoming primaries, He will also carry signigicantly black areas of Pennsylvania.
In addition, the democratic party is essentially liberal--on race and almost every other issue. Most white liberals have a guilt complex, it appears, when it comes to race: it is fine for black folks to take pride in their race, but white folks should not do so, and certainly not vote for anyone because they are white. A lot of those people want to vote for a black candidate wherever possible to demonstrate they are not prejudiced. In addition, since the mid 1980s, urban black "culture" (Rap and Hip-Hop music, urban street language, and fashion in particular) has been sold to the public, especially young folks, as worthy of emulation.
These factors, taken together, I think have accounted for a significant percentage of the white vote which has gone to Obama in the caucuses and primaries.
I hope Geraldine Ferraro will continue to speak out on this subject, and confront and refute the kind of comments in Mr. Conason's column.
-
She doesn't need to apologize: she deserves reverence from your ilk.
Instead, you people need to grow up. You need to realize that sexism is an insidious force in your cohort, more insidious than racism. Deal with it. Grow up, again. Then get over yourselves, again, show some appropriate respect, stop getting off on abusing white women, and then, and only after showing that respect, contemplate apologizing to us enough to actually garner enough of our votes to win an election. Or we'll keep defecting to where our identity isn't treated with contempt. Get it?
Otherwise, you'll win nothing, Joe Conason, et. al. Pretend women like me are people. Count the numbers, contemplate the contempt, think about your misdirected sanctimoniousness, count again, and change your tune or lose. It's not like we're asking for anything more that what you demand is accorded routinely to your type. Enough is enough. We've been thanklessly carrying water in this movement for long enough. Grow up and get over it, and respect us, and we'll still vote for your inappropriately-advanced candidates, your fantasy candidates, even though you fear women, and your candidates have neither earned it nor deserved it, because women are still, and perhaps unavoidably, repulsively, forgiving that way. Though we shouldn't be. Show some respect, and we'll still show up.
Which is more than I can say for your ilk. It's an election. You've already alienated me. But if you stop and make a half-hearted attempt to apologize, I'll still show up to vote, which is more than I can say for you.
-
"...Where He Is Today...."
SMONTGOMERY's letter, the first letter posted here, expresses at the end what for me is the nut of this conversation about Ferraro and Obama: "But Ms. Ferraro is right on, even if we aren't supposed to talk about it. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black (and he would probably not have made it this far as an eloquent black woman). When did it become a crime to point out the blatantly obvious?"
How one can even use the phrase "...wouldn't be where he is...." without even considering his upbringing, his life as a young child, boy, adolescent, man; his education; his activist work in communities; his contributions to the US Senate, etc. "Wouldn't be where he is" encompasses all of that and more. He is today where he is because of ALL OF THAT!
Ferraro and Obama are not equivalents in this discussion that Ferraro introduced first. Ferraro can't even see what she is saying about herself as a woman. She suggests that she was never picked for her brains, for her contributions to American politics, for her contributions to our society and her party. She implies that she was picked just because she is a woman. I am not going to argue with her on that point. She may right. But Obama was not picked just because he is black. No one looked around and said, "Hmmm, we need us a black senator to run for president. Hmmm, hey, let's pick Obama! Yeah!"
No one "picked" Obama. But Obama picked himself, and not because he was black, but because he was an African American who felt prepared and ready. It is not the case that Obama wouldn't be where he is because he is black. He is also today in this race where he is because of how thousands of voters have heard a calling from him that resonated with their own core hopes and desires for this Nation.
But Ferraro -- well, perhaps she was picked just because someone wanted a woman. But she can't even believe that she was the best woman to pick! How sad.
Please, Gealdine, please do not project your diffidence on to Barack Hussein Obama.