Letters to the Editor
-
racial politics
Dear Joan,
I have not been following the American primaries too closely, but the breaking open of racial issues has caught my attention. I just read Glenn Greenwald's recent column, and I have to say that I completely agree with Glenn. Wherever and whoever started putting race into this campaign, Bill Clinton's most recent comments seem to indicate that he is running with the racial card. And that is just sad.
I do have a quick comment on your statement that most of the MSNBC panels are predominantly white and male: I see the dangers of this, but I also wonder about the catch-22 problem: Obama (and his supporters) don't want him to be seen as the "African-American candidate". Does putting African Americans on panels because one of the front-runners is of their race undermine this entire idea? Can we assume that Hispanic candidates require Hispanic commentators or a native
American candidate would require native commentators? I realize, of course, that pretending that race doesn't matter in the US is like pretending the sun won't come up tomorrow, but it does seem to me that Obama's candidacy has the chance to move beyond race - but it can only do that if race is not made into an issue.(Though it may well be too late for that) In other words, making too big a deal of it makes it too big a deal - and altering the content of panels of commentators may be a step in the wrong direction. It's an interesting conundrum.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
Obama's Worst Friends May Be His Supporters
Joan you have a lot of courage to continue to speak rationally on this subject. The left, sensing victory in the general election, is moving into its customary circular firing squad formation.
I think it's Obama's white, liberal supporters who will bring him down. They are screaming "racism" at every possible turn. About things that are not even hurtful. This is getting tired and reeks of paternalism.
Of course race is relevant in this election. Of course gender is relevant. Every time Obama or Hillary talk about "making history", what do you suppose that means? For Obama, the first time a Man got elected president? For Hillary, the first time a White Person ever got elected? I don't think so. It's there, so deal with it. And if you can learn to accept that race and gender are & will be issues in this election, you might be ready to learn where babies really come from.
I have my own pet theories that the irrational hatred toward Hillary - on BOTH sides of the spectrum - has a lot to do with homophobia. But I wouldn't dream of working that into a political strategy.
We have lost two elections by not being willing to fight hard. So, sorry Michelle, win at any cost sounds pretty good to me right now. Crying "racism" (or "sexism") might call off the bullies in our own Democratic camp, but you'd better have some better moves than that for the big fight.
The Obama campaign needs to come up with more effective ways to deal with these, honestly, rather softball pokes. Because if he's nominated, the Republicans are not going to stop at horrifying insults like "clean & articulate" or comparisons to Jessie Jackson (wasn't that Hitler's right hand man?).
We have three great candidates here. Don't forget that unless one of them wins we get at least 4 more years of death & destruction. But then some of us are just more comfortable, as well, losers. It's like a familiar pair of shoes.
-
Who's black?
Speaking of race, if a person has a black mother and a white father, is he or she then black or white? In other words, Obama (white mother, black father) is half and half. yet we calle him black. In other words, the father's ethnicity rules. What is his parentage had been the reverse. Would he then be called white?
-
@translation
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
Translation: Obama won because he's black.
Hmmm, who is making race an issue?
==============
The South Carolinans?
I think if anything, it shows that winning South Carolina has not been important for winning the Democratic nomination. Had Barack been in the Republican party and won, it may be another story.
Maybe Colbert was right when he said that facts have a well known liberal bias.
-
Can The Press Handle a Black President
I welcome your foray into a conversation regarding the media's behavior during this presidential campaign. I have been at home more than usual the last several weeks and have watched far more coverage than I, or most, would watch on TV. I've also read coverage on line. I am amazed and appalled at the media hysteria, hype, and American Idol mentality of what I thought was supposed to be thoughtful and somewhat unbiased coverage. I know I don't count. I'm just the public, the audience and I don't know what's good for me and I'm not smart enough to understand the "strategy, code words, and manipulation of these candidates...I should be grateful for the rabid passionate and forceful help at forming my views. If I didn't get a speech from Joe Scarborugh at least once a day I'd be lost.
Here's the problem. If I only saw the coverage every now and then or here and there...I wouldn't know how really terrible it is. I wouldn't know that what the talking head is saying today is not at all what they said a couple of days ago.It might even be exactly the opposite. For instance, when my friend Tim Russett told me that the Culinary Union endorsement was HUGE,HUGE ..tadamount to winning the Nevada primary (he told me this before they endorsed) I thought I was learning that from him..turns out, (after the media was wrong again in Nevada...)it was H. Clinton who had spun me...no wait, not me...had spun the media into telling me that that endorsement was huge and an advantage... fact is..the media has been wrong a lot in their analysis and they have had egg on their face...but they will not accept responsibility for it..
when they were wrong in N. Ham. they said it might be the Bradly effect...Which to the best of my recollection, is when race entered the conversation...once race entered the conversation..they seemed to be paralysed to even talk about it in a balanced articulate way. They are so terrified of seeming racist or inappropriate that they dare not critize Obama about anything, (response to Joe Canason so intense he caved and responded) they ask no one any questions i.e. can you please explain what these code words are? They do not question the "racist" charges in any way...they are paralysed and so it seems to me they have turned to what they can talk about with impunity..Bill Clinton..they are obsessed. Even in your conversation on Morning Joe both you and Mika stammered and twisted and used so many "qualifiers" it seemed painful. Here is my question?? I am not concerned about the county or Americans being able to handle a black president...CAN THE PRESS HANDLE A BLACK PRESIDENT??? If this is an audition of how they will cover, question, critque, stammmer and stumble around then they have failed the audition. That is a legitimate concern that we will never her discussed by the talking heads.