Debra, please stop writing.

Salon, please stop printing Debra's writing.

This is what premium dollars go toward? I will seriously be thinking of this when time to renew. I love Salon and have been happy to support you, but, I am really tired of this woman's bizarre pieces.

What proof does Ms. Dickerson provide for her accusations? None, as far as I can tell, but I also had to read the first 2 paragraphs 3 times to attempt to understand the logic of her argument...I feel if a reporter is going to contend something in the headline and in her article she should be expected to provide proof for it at some point in that article...

Another anti-Barack polemic from the woman who thinks the Michelin Man is darker-skinned than Obama? This is what Salon gives us: the black writer who hates the black candidate for not being black enough, and Consigliore Paglia, the "feminist" (HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA) who hates Hillary because... well, Paglia's mentally ill, so the point is moot.

I wish we could merge the two candidates into one -- Hillbama, if you will. That way Debra and Camille could unite in a mutual hatred. And isn't unity what sisterhood is all about?

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama's backdoor folks used the sleazy NY Post to launch an attack to distance their candidate from a lightning rod "Black establishment" figure. After all, other than OJ, it's hard to imagine another black figure, who upon the mere mention of his name, tends to drive "mainstream" whites to aplocetic irrationality. But given the very dubious souce, the NY Post, it wouldn't surprise me if the story was bs either.

What's irksome to me in this case is DD's usual posing. She seems to think that she's some sort of iconoclast who's courageously speaking brave new contrarian thoughts to and about blacks, when in reality, she's skimming the surface and examining ideas/thoughts that have been said much better and deeper by others. She reminds me of Stanley Crouch.

I'm with her and I'm with Reverend Al on this one. Obama's all that? He needs to prove it. Period.

Obama decided at the last minute to disinvite his own minister from giving the opening prayer at his campaign kick-off in Springfield, Ill. A minor, insider issue that should have garnered little attention. Apparently, the minister can be a little strident and even nationalist in sermons on earthly matters. Obama probably doesn't share all of his views, is not required to as a church member (!), and probably didn't want to spend time explaining or answering for them. No puzzle there. It was Obama's call. His minister should have put ego aside, and left unto Caesar . . .

The next thing you know, there's a NYTimes article in which Sharpton is prominently quoted at gratuitous length on the matter, claiming that to black Americans, it's important to "stand by your preacher" right or wrong. That notion of absolute loyalty is facile and misplaced on its face: this is not intrachurch politics (where it still ought to be challenged and dismissed), it's national, presidential politics, which requires a bit more of the kind of sophistication and foresight Obama has mostly shown, and Sharpton usually lacks.

In any event, I read the quotes as Al unfairly trying to hit Obama where it might hurt him with a church-based black electorate: being so inauthentic as to violate the cardinal rule of never abandoning his preacher for mere political expedience and, worse, to appease white folk. Al, being black America's first preacher, stood to gain from the contrived fallout. The NYT article died a quick death, but the damaging insinuation may linger as a nagging doubt about Obama's bona fides to some black voters.

Tit for tat? Maybe, if Obama's camp had anything to do with the Post article. But, it may just be that NYC locals have a long memory and common sense. Some blacks are really excited about Obama's candidacy, protective of him, and willing, without any prompting from Obama's people, to tell it like it is about Sharpton's grandstanding and rather self-evident motives.

Although I'm not exactly mainstream.

I find Al Sharpton to be very intelligent, well spoken and quick witted. I certainly don't agree with him all the time but I do respect the fact that he often speaks truth to power in ways that very few other public figures are willing to do.

If Obama did explicitly or implicitly approve of the attack on Reverend Al I seriously doubt he would have been stupid enough to leave his fingerprints anywhere near the scene of the crime.

Now that blacks are starting to move up to the political big time they're going to have to accept the fact that, as Tip O'Neill once stated, "politics ain't beanbag".

"Black as circumstances allow."

and

"African African American."

and

"Not a Brother but an Adopted Brother."

Hard to take note of your opinions after that.

http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/comedy/2007/02/09/debra_dickerson_colbert/index.html

I don't mind reading articles I disagree with. I don't mind (too much) being pigeon-holed or stereotyped (man, do y'all hate it when we don't do as we're told). But I can't stand it when I read something that I just don't understand. Try as I might, I could not make sense of this article. Salon: Thy name is (usually) excellent writing (and editing). Not this time.

I find the irony and obliviousness overwhelming: Dickerson tries to defend Sharpton while acknowledging--as though it were possible otherwise--how much the Brawley case destroyed him as a credible political candidate (though not as a public figure, or spokesperson). She has apparently overlooked that her own phenomenally stupid commentary on Barack Obama's race equally destroyed her credibility, in the eyes of many. Just as the mention of Sharpton's name causes eyes to glaze over, the realization that Debra Dickerson is writing about race in politics causes one to close the browser, crumple up the newspaper, or throw away the magazine.

And has repeatedly let his own bigotries percolated through vis a vis Jews, no matter. Rev Al makes sense. And Debra, welcome to the intolerant world of Salon where you are handed a card of officially blessed opinions and positions to hold and woe to he or she who pisses on them. It could be worse, you could have dissed Ned Lamont.