This is going to be short.
There is a hitpiece in the LA TIMES On OBAMA's speech.
IT is the most ludicrous argument , and its not only being made by this author rodriguez, but also by Bill Kristol in the NYT.
take a look at this crap, and see what the public is being fed:
http://www.latimes.com/...
Bill Kristol:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
So now, its A BAD THING to talk about riacism in America.
Rodriguez argues in quite a dimwitted way that Obama's talk about race is bringing the nation down collectively:
Obama was a much more powerful force for racial progress when he so effortlessly symbolized it, rather than when he called on us to address "old wounds."
So it is more important to be a symbol rather than someone who addresses the isue directly?
This is horrifyingly idiotic logic.
Just maybe we don't have to suffer through yet another national debate on race -- President Clinton launched his fruitless Initiative on Race in 1997 quoting, as Obama did, the preamble to the Constitution
So we shouldn't suffer, Barack. Put us out of our misery. Give us soundbites, so we can concenrate our attention on what really matters: The NCAA tournament.