Letters to the Editor
-
Missing the point (Again)
You and others are missing my point: We can talk about race if Obama becomes the nominee -- as a Clinton supporter I am willing to acknowledge that looks likely -- or we can put a Democrat in the White House. I don't really think we can do both.
In my case, I think you are placing too much faith in my powers of deduction. I thought you were going in a totally different direction. The current point above is legitimate, and one to be mulled over at length. Another point would be that if Hillary is nominated we will inevitably talk about sexism instead. Something that a lot of posters here feel as entrenched or more so than racism. The democratic party has already decided they didn't want the "safe white male" candidates. None of them got any traction except for Edwards, who only got a little. Maybe we the people are up to something, even if we don't know quite what it is yet.
-
AKA race is going to be an Issue no matter who
Our nominee is. What you seem to be saying is that you will not vote for Sen. Obama over a McCain. It sounds like you will vote against universal health care,get our troops out,tax cuts for the middle class, redoing NAFTA, infrastructure development, more money for education,less money spent in Iraq, more money spent on VETS and a much needed conversation on race. In other words you are saying when Sen Obama is the nominee its Go McCAIN,Libermann,Blount,Graham,more Judge Alitos,more Judge Robertsons,Thomas, oil companies and bailouts of corporations.
-
@doloresflower
partly because she's editor-in-chief; partly because often the only election article is in the War Room and is, to "obamabots" like myself, one-sided. We think Salon is biased towards Hillary yet Walsh won't admit it so SOME of us say "which side are you on? which side are you on. the time has come for every man, he has to make a stand. either you're a union man or a thug for JH Blair."
-
Well, I guess if we're on the subject of race
Can we look into why the hospital (not for profit hospitl) that Michelle Obama is employed at (to the tune of over 350,000 $ a year charges uninsured minotiries at over 3 times the rate of the insured (mostly white folks)...Maybe they could have used the 200,000 dollar raise she received (right after Barack was elected to Senate) to help ensure the hostpital stayed as a not for profit. Instead, using the same practices Barack decries they made over 100,000,000 in profit last year.
-
Open invitation to right wing Salon visitors
Texan and MiltonJr,
What brings you here? It would be great to hear your thoughtful conservative views, not just reactions to what you're told.
Here are some specific questions: Do you believe that conservative talking heads are right in their insinuations that Wright's rhetoric is a threat to democracy? If so, why? Do you think that Black America is more angry than White, Red or Blue America? If so, why? And then, can you tell us if you don't ever hear "Damn liberal America" when you listen to Limbaugh's rants?
Your rational, thoughtful contributions to the dialogue could be of interest while you're visiting here.
-
Another Troubling Remark
I'm an Obama supporter but this latest obtuse comment reminds me of his appearance on Larry King, perhaps a year ago, when he said "I don't think gay people should be abused more than necessary". That really took me aback - more than necessary?. I do wonder if Obama really is ready for prime time. I don't want to wonder because the two alternatives are so unappealing.
-
Bias
Seriously, Joan. Do you work for HRC? Or are you just someone who identifies with her (which is understandable) and therefore chooses to toss any sense of journalistic integrity out the window? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just a biased and transparent journalist rather than a formal HRC shill. Keep it up. Maybe you'll get a job at the White House if HRC trumps the people's will and canoodles her way in...
-
@ jonathanseer
Thank you for an intelligent post. I hope it will be possible for Obama to attain the presidency (if Clinton is not the nominee), but I know damned well that he cannot attain it if he is cast as an angry black male.
I begin to fear that his supporters want to have a conversation about race more than they want to win the presidency. I begin to fear that they wish to express the liberal solidarity with blacks or their anger as black people more than they want to see him in the White House. I begin to fear that they want to air their grievances and nurse those grievances more than they want to save the world.
Not putting a Democrat in the White House means the equivilent of the third Bush term. And that is why we don't need a damned conversation about race. Be realistic people! What will not putting a Democrat in office do for black people?
Anything?
-
Blueflash
According to some here, you probably didn't understand the "nuance" of his statement...Just like Gavin Newsome didn't understand that Obama didn't snub him...He simply nudged him forward under a mass transportation vehicle...
-
Odog
I am sure you have the best interest of poor black people at heart. If you look at most black families that are involved with their church they help more people then you could imagine. The black middle and upper class have always shared and carried a burden of having to reach back and help their community. I bet they give large amounts of money to church functions. Scholorship funds,day cares, building homes are a few of the things I belive Trinty is involved. His church believe in helping in the community and I am sure the Obamas have helped the church by giving and find funs to aid in those endevors.
-
"...but I know damned well that he cannot attain it if he is cast as an angry black male."
Obama sounds like anything BUT an angry black male (your choice of "male" over "man" is revealing in and of itself). Eloquent, yes. Empassioned, yes. Blunt, yes, sometimes.
Unfortunately, people like you are wired to see "angry black male" when your worldview is challenged. Sort of like HRC.