Letters to the Editor
-
Late to this discussion
I know I'm jumping into a discussion that has been going on for 20+ pages of posts already, so please bear with me on this. Rather than try to account for all that's already been written, I'm going to jump in and simply try to clearly express my views and my reasons for them.
While I may not be the typical Obama supporter (I have no way of assessing that), I can say with complete confidence that I am not supporting him because of his skin color or any other superficial characteristic that our society had historically used to exclude or include folks from office. Similarly, Hillary is not my first choice, but not because of her gender.
I started by supporting Richardson, then Edwards, and now Obama. I think my first two choices show pretty clearly that skin color has not been uppermost in my decision making. I have chosen who to support based on their stated policies and my judgment of whether they would be able to undo the damage done over the last 7 years and move the country in a new and better direction. At this point, for me, Obama is a better choice, particularly because, I think he stands a better chance of healing the wounds inflicted by the Republicans since the Contract with America in the 90s. For me, Obama is simply the better choice irrespective of his color, sex, religion, etc. I also think he has run a remarkably good campaign with a minimum of sniping toward Clinton.
Prior to the nastiness that creeped into the Clinton campaign in the run up to the March 4th primaries, I was perfectly happy to accept the possibility of a Clinton nomination. Hillary's policies are very similar to Barack's in most cases, and I'll be damned if I want to have any more Republicans in the White House. I will still vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, but I do think that she has revealed that her desire for the Presidency can override her need to not only do what is best for her campaign, but also for the Democrats and, to some extent, the country.
-
Racism
If anyone thought that race and gender would not be issues in this campaign, they must be living in an alternate universe. Who began to play the race card? Well, who has benefited most by it? Like they say, "follow the money" or in this case "the votes". We have two choices. Either the Clintons, who have been considered the shrewdest, most political savvy politicians of our lifetime totally lost their minds (as well as their political skill) and thought that in the democratic party, playing the race card would bring them an avalanche of good will; OR to quote sajwan, "Obama achieved 90% of the black vote by indeed making race an issue, playing the race card for the first time in national politics to a black person’s advantage". Guess we each have to decide which is more logical.
Since it has been pointed out that Gerry Ferraro used basically the same line with respect to Jesse Jackson in 1988, I can't for the life of me understand those who claim that it was really all a sinister plot by the Clinton campaign. Except to the extent that anything and everything negative that happens in the world today is a result of a sinister plot by the Clinton campaign. Come to think of it, I think I've heard that before... from the republicans.
I think that whether you agree or disagree with Ferraro's assessment, it was probably pretty stupid of her to say it given this climate where the slightest criticism of Senator Obama is seen as racist. Hillary Clinton has denounced it, disagreed with it, repudiated it and Ferraro is no longer with the campaign. Pretty much like the reaction to the Samantha Power comment. Should a candidate be judged by their associates? Well, I really hate to bring this up because I know I am going to get a lot of grief, but if we can't even attempt to talk honestly about race, we have no hope whatsoever of ever getting past it.
Geraldine Ferraro was, at most, a peripheral figure in the Clinton campaign. A party "elder" serving in a volunteer position. To my knowledge there is no deep, personal relationship between Ferraro and the Clintons. I am far more concerned with Senator Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I know this has been mentioned before, but seems to have been dismissed as totally irrelevant. He's only a pastor. He's not part of the Obama campaign. That is true. But perhaps we want to know something about Barack Obama the man, in addition to Barack Obama the politician. Obama has said he doesn't agree with everything his pastor says. And that seems to have satisfied everyone. But I would like to know what he does agree with. I would like to know what it was about the church that attracted him more than other churches. Why has he remained a member of that church for 20 years? Why does he consider Reverend Wright his "mentor"? Here is a clip from one of Reverend Wright's sermons.
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://redstate.com/
Would anyone like to defend this? If Ferraro's comments were racist, what is this? Just a preacher's fiery sermon not to be taken seriously? This is certainly not the only reason I don't support Obama or even the main reason. But if I am going to be honest, and I can't help being honest, I do find it disturbing. And if anyone thinks this won't come up in the general election... it already has. OK, I'm ready for the flames.
-
@Kate
Well, I acknowledge the reality of myth making. Corporations spend billions annually to shroud their mundane products in mystique. They must know something or believe it strongly. But seeing that reality doesn't get us off the hook. Certainly not my dear fellow readers here at Salon, who I will hold to a higher standard.
If you think about the number of people posting here from all different walks of life, and experience, and different points on the globe, we have an opportunity for a salon in the true sense of the word, a post modern Henry James or Boswell and Johnson experience. We usually squander that potential by squabbling over pre-digested talking points. I'm ok with that most of the time because it's hard work to have something original to say, and why not recycle someone else's words if they truly represent the position you arrived at after deliberation.
It's the lack of deliberation and the failure to adjust a position after new facts are presented that I find discouraging.