Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (24563)	1/13/2010 4:54:49 PM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 103300

Didn't know that.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (24563)	1/13/2010 5:06:40 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

WILDER: Not enough - Reid still owes Americans an By Douglas Wilder Twenty years ago this week, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the constitutions of both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America. The people of Virginia had just gone to the polls and shown that a majority of voters were ready to judge candidates for the highest offices by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Twenty years ago, that happened not just in any state - but in a state that once led the Confederate South and later led the fight to block black children from entering the same schoolhouses as their white neighbors. The results of that election in November 1989 made me Virginia's governor, but the great importance of what happened wasn't what it did for me - the importance of that day was what it said about Virginians and, by proxy, the American people. Voters said, "Look to a candidate's qualifications and vision, not the color affixed to their skin at birth." So it saddened me to read the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he ostensibly was trying to bolster the bid of Barack Obama for the White House. Mr. Reid suggested that as a "light-skinned" black man, Mr. Obama would be more palatable to the electorate as a potential president. The Nevada senator "praised" Mr. Obama's ability to turn off what Mr. Reid must perceive as a widespread "Negro dialect" when speaking to audiences who are not amenable to such a speaking style. Voters certainly deserve more credit than some of the people they elect to high office give them. Whether those words and the sentiment they represent were spoken in the U.S. Senate to praise Mr. Obama or used to sanitize deep-seated hatred at a White Citizens' Council meeting in the 1950s, they are reprehensible and indefensible. No ifs ands or buts about it. Our leaders need to acknowledge that fact. Mr. Reid, indeed, has apologized to President Obama for what has to be one of the most dreadful compliments in American political history. But I have to ask why he stopped there. His words were, as a matter of fact, an offense against the president, but they also were a slap in the face of the American people - especially the millions of younger Americans who have worked diligently to extend the American dream to every person in every corner of this nation. And they didn't do it just at the ballot box - they did it on school buses, in classrooms, in cafeterias and in basement rec rooms around the country. They did it by just refusing to hate and by merely living with their neighbors as friends and people of common good cheer. Where was Mr. Reid's apology to those everyday Americans he underestimated and dismissed as yesteryear's market-variety haters? The people of this country have earned more respect from Mr. Reid than that, and he should not let too much time go by before he tells them he regrets what he assumed about America. Words such as "light-skinned" and comments about the lack of a "Negro dialect" also cut at other wounds that I saw healing as I traveled around the country when Mr. Reid made his comments in 2008. For years, such sentiments were used to divide the black community. Once, if a black person could pass a so-called paper-bag test (meaning his or her skin was lighter than a grocery bag) he or she was thought to have greater social value. The word "articulate" has been used like a verbal cleaver to divide certain members of the black community from the majority of those brought to America from Africa as slaves. "Articulate" blacks were considered "the good ones," who at least could catch a glimpse of the people enjoying equality. This became so pernicious that there was a backlash in the black community about speaking too properly, achieving too much - i.e. "acting too white." Let's not relegate another generation of black children, or any American child for that matter, to such archaic thinking about the value of lighter skin tones or division by dialect. We can do better. Some have compared Mr. Reid's comments to former Sen. Trent Lott's 2002 comment that the country would have been better off if a racist segregationist had been elected president of the United States in the 1940s. These situations don't compare in the least, and Mr. Reid was not suggesting that the country's progress in fighting discrimination should stop or implying that he might use his position so to do. Hence, I do not call for his resignation. But that doesn't mean that we as a nation don't need to have a discussion about how far we have come and how far we have left to go. Let's talk rationally about race in this country - and catch up with the nation's young people, who are light-years ahead of certain folks with big offices on Capitol Hill. Douglas Wilder was the first black elected governor of a U.S. state.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (24563)	1/13/2010 5:09:21 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Justice rebuffs Panthers subpoenaRate this story By Jerry Seper The Justice Department refused Tuesday to turn over most of the information and documents sought by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights explaining why a civil complaint was dismissed against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the November 2008 elections. In a 38-page response, the department objected — except for a few court records, letters and procedural documents — to "each and every" question and document request submitted by the commission, saying the subpoenas violated existing executive orders, privacy and privilege concerns, and were burdensome, vague and ambiguous. The lengthy response, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, also said the requested information and documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege or were not subject to disclosure because they included attorney or law enforcement work products. The department also refused to release any information about an investigation of the New Black Panther Party case by its office of professional responsibility, saying the ongoing review was privileged information or was covered by the Privacy Act. In an accompanying letter to the commission, Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department's Federal Programs Branch, which oversees litigation matters, said the department is "constrained by the need to protect against disclosures that would harm its deliberative processes or that otherwise would undermine its ability to carry out its mission." Mr. Hunt added that the department "continues to evaluate whether it can provide further response consistent with the need to protect privileged information and may supplement this response at a later date." He did not elaborate. But Commissioner Todd Gaziano, an independent appointed by the House, questioned the department's refusal to turn over the bulk of the requested information and documents. "The department offered no arguments as to their legal position in denying the requests," Mr. Gaziano said during an interview Tuesday. "This is just more delay, more stonewalling and without any justification. "The department has no privilege in this matter other than executive privilege, and if the president wants to assert it, he should do so," he said. The Civil Rights Commission, frustrated by the Justice Department's failure to explain the dismissal despite repeated written requests for information, issued subpoenas on Dec. 9 demanding records showing how the case was handled. washingtontimes.com