I well recall the sellout to the 'welfare-queen' crowd: the one-Upping of the troglodyte opposition by beating them to the most reactionary response ... playing contrite now/especially from within yet another formulaic-contest? is as meaningless as it is cynical.
Near bottom of replies: James O'donnell Iii says: [February 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm] garners a reply from Judith Levitt, all brief, (then his response to Leavitt.) His comment:
The Young'uns ain't got the in-your-face original Proof which the now-Geezer-group carries within our very own neurons. I hope that enough of these impatient ones/now also overloaded by techno-distractions:
... will somehow view the Clintons' insulation and early-on machinations: from today's 20-20 hindsight.
(That's a Lot to expect from callow yout ... fingers-crossed time, in Spades.)
Near bottom of replies: James O'donnell Iii says: [February 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm] garners a reply from Judith Levitt, all brief, (then his response to Leavitt.) His comment:
"The New Jim Crow" essential reading for all Americans. In short, you are one of my true heroes (along with Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, and a handful of other titans of principled progressivism); and I don't believe it is possible to overstate your contribution to our national discussion on race. Again, thank you. That said, I have two minor beefs with today's article, and they are as follows: 1) You give short shrift to Bernie Sanders' career-long battle for social justice, including (but not limited to) fighting for desegregation and marching with Dr. King; and 2) you make no reference to the shameless race-baiting campaign the Clintons ran against then-Sen. Obama in 2008, including disseminating their little photo of Barack Obama in Kenya (wearing the traditional garb of a Somali elder) and refusing to state categorically that Obama is a Christian (as then-Sen. Clinton did on "60 Minutes"). The Clintons in 2008 apparently concluded that ghetto-izing drug references and feeding into a little Islamophobic "birtherism" might help them win... which was shameless and morally reprehensible. As much as I respect your work, I feel strongly that you should have included both of these significant points.
The Young'uns ain't got the in-your-face original Proof which the now-Geezer-group carries within our very own neurons. I hope that enough of these impatient ones/now also overloaded by techno-distractions:
... will somehow view the Clintons' insulation and early-on machinations: from today's 20-20 hindsight.
(That's a Lot to expect from callow yout ... fingers-crossed time, in Spades.)