Letters to the Editor
-
@ doloresflower
I went to the Washington Post link that you provided and found the column "The Trail" much more nuanced on this "drug dealer" issue than I expected judging from your posts. First of all Shaheen never said anything that implied that Obama dealt drugs. Instead, he said that Republicans would probably raise the issue. He seems to have concerns about how Obama would withstand a Republican campaign to cast Obama as a drug user (which Obama admits) and ultimate Republican questions about how far into drug culture that Obama actually was. Do you doubt that Republicans will do this?
Moreover, Clinton immediately asked for Shaheen to withdraw as co-chair and he apologized and did so. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he needed to do either. Here is what Obama says about his own drug use:
Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.
Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man," he wrote. "Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was....I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.
Having written this, which no doubt served his needs as a writer and which no doubt was probably cathartic, he cannot run away from it now. We may give him points for honestly discussing this, but the Republicans won't.
Over and over in the way the Obama campaign is conducted, I see a sort of assault on the truth. Obama wants to use the truth when it suits him -- his truth -- but without suffering the gross violation of interpretation.
Excuse me! People, especially politicians, just don't have that luxury.
Now please tell me again what is racist about pointing out that Obama used cocaine, he admits he used cocaine, and he even explored and wrote about it?
Obama's surrogates attacked Senator Clinton for perfectly truthful statements about the history of the Civil Rights Act. Why is the truth subject to assault? Obama by his choice of adjectives condoned his supporters absurd outrage.
Bill Clinton does a bit of musing on past South Carolina primaries -- as an old pol is likely to do -- and he is suddenly cast as America's number one racist, with the help of people who overtly or covertly support Obama. Not lower level staffers. Important black politicians. People you know and I know surely know better. The Clintons have long supported black causes. Tell me what Bill Clinton said that wasn't the truth?
Drudge get a photo that he says came from the Clinton campaign of Obama dressed in Somali garb, which Obama posed for. Does Obama bother to verify that it came from the Clinton campaign? No. He could have picked up the telephone and called Clinton and gotten her immediate statement that she had no knowledge of the matter. Instead, he would rather make a to do about it. That is because "the truth" is an endlessly malleable and useful tool for those who want to select their own truth.
Is that or is that not Obama in that photo? Let us just deal with the truth.
Did Obama not cronicle a long struggle with identity that tells the tale of a man making a journey to a black identity? So why is it wrong to say that he is the black candidate in the presidential race. That's who he says he is -- except when that isn't who he wants to be.
Forgive me for wondering if he is still confused.
I don't see any reason why Obama supporters can say that Shaheen should carry the taint of racist shame, but that Jesse Jackson Jr. gets a pass for his attacks and arm-twisting using the race card. He too is a co-chair. Why hasn't he been asked to resign.
-
KStone....@the lone gunman
if there was a concerted effort to race-bait as the article alleges, shouldn't there be more than one statement by Jackson Jr. that was....I think at least....ill advised?
All the other "evidence" in that article amounted to blaming without showing who had begun the conversation, whether it was the media or what the media was saying about the Clintons or the Clintons.
I have to admit that I was personally disappointed by Hillary's LBJ remarks. Not because I thought they were racist or she is racist. But it was a strange place to put emphasis. I thought if a man were saying that women receiving the vote was dependent on a man putting through the legislative can-do, while technically correct (because women weren't in office how could they for themselves), it would have seemed like a strange place to put emphasis.
Personally, I didn't think Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson were so terrible. But the point is that how people respond to these remarks cannot be in any way entirely Obama's fault...people had time to respond before Obama or his surrogates had any opportunity to intervene publically....many people feel like they "know" the clintons, so they wouldn't be so easily manipulated by Obama's spin on things. People responded directly, and maybe because the bar was high, they were a little disappointed.
However, how many people in this country switched their vote to Obama because they think that the Clintons are racists? Is this really the case? You would have to speak with such people. I felt a little bit disappointed in their campaign, but I didn't think, well, this settles it. Now I'm voting for someone else. There have been many issues....the war...health care....race is only one piece of the puzzle. And for those who switched their support, I wonder if it was because of Obama manipulation or because their support wasn't strong to begin with.
It's starting to sound like a conspiracy theory, that every time race is brought up that it must be a manipulation on the part of Obama. I have the feeling that he would have been happier if no one brought it up at all. But once they did, he couldn't wave a wand and make it disappear. He responded with dignity and a calm spirit each time. When you go back to look at the record, other than Jesse Jackson Jr.'s statement, there have not been stirrings of this pot like there could have been over a black candidate.
My seventy five cents at least.