Early lessons from 2009

The following is excerpted from a report to the Communist Party USA National Committee Nov. 13. To read the full report, go to www.cpusa.org.


By and large, we were on the mark. But it is also the case that after a year of real events, real struggles, and real clashes of real people some changes in our thinking are necessary.

To begin, the first year of the Obama administration was a sprint. The conditions of struggle were far more favorable than in the preceding eight years, to say the least. The mood was hopeful. And the political conversation and agenda on a range of issues was reframed, thanks in no small measure to the president.

The forms of struggle were many - marches, picket lines, town hall meetings, civil disobedience, strikes, demonstrations, lobbying, phone banking, online petitions, solidarity actions, informal conversations and organizing, and so on. Some actions were local, others statewide, and still others national.

Early on the struggle over the collapsing economy was atop the agenda and that has continued. But other issues entered the public domain as well, placed there by the Obama administration and by the popular movement - health care, nuclear weapons, Iraq, financial regulation, Guantanamo detainees, and climate change, to name a few. As a result, the space to take initiative, build broad unity, and organize for progressive change was considerably enlarged.

The fight was bitter. The opposition to the administration's policy gave no ground.

The legislative process turned into the main, but not the only, site of class and democratic struggles (notable were the plant takeover by workers at Chicago's Republic Windows and Doors, the Ford workers' rejection of concessionary contract, G-20 actions, the campaign to win Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, protests at the campuses in University of California system and the Chicago anti-bank protests.)

On both sides of every legislative issue, contending political blocs flexed their muscles.

In the House, the majority of Democrats pressed for an agenda that addressed people's needs. The caucuses - African American, Hispanic, Asian Pacific, Women's, and Progressive - and individuals like Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee and others - distinguished themselves. In nearly every instance they found themselves a step ahead of other Democrats and the Obama administration. The Blue Dogs, on the other hand, were busy trying to rein in reform measures.

Senate Democrats, despite holding 58 seats, plus the support of Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, were a different kettle of fish. While clashing with Senate Republicans, they were less progressive than their counterparts in the House. And when combined with the rule that requires sixty votes to send legislation to the floor for deliberation and action, the Senate has been (and probably will continue to be) a drag on progressive change.

To make matters more difficult, corporate interests and their lobbyists poisoned the Congressional well in a thousand ways. Their ability to block or contain the legislative process goes way beyond simply owning a stable of congress people. So much so that columnist Paul Krugman wondered in early September if the country was becoming ungovernable. He is both right and wrong - right about the difficulty of governing as long as corporations dominate and infest our public institutions, but wrong about the impossibility of changing this.

Outside of Washington, the loose people's coalition that elected the president regrouped and redirected its energies to the legislative process.

At the core of this loose coalition are the main organizations of the working class, African American, Mexican American, and other racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women and youth.
In addition, seniors, immigrants, and many other social movements and organizations are in the mix.
The labor movement is a particularly active, clear and unifying voice, and continues to emerge through dint of effort, organization, and resources as a leader of this broader coalition.

To no one's surprise, the right wing hasn't retired from politics. To the contrary, these "un-American" extremists also regrouped and came out fighting the president's agenda, hoping to pave the way for the Republicans' return to power.

With an African American in the White House, a Latina on the Supreme Court, the presence and acceptance of gay and secular sensibilities in the culture, continued challenges to patriarchal gender roles, and an economy that is laying waste to the position of the male as breadwinner, right-wing extremists in Congress and elsewhere are churning out racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-government appeals to white working people and especially white males. Limbaugh, Hannity and other talk show hosts are howling to whoever will listen, "Take back America."

Pat Buchanan, echoing the same theme, wrote, "America was once their [white people's] country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right."

This drivel is racist, anti-working class and anti-democratic. It is an insult to every fair-minded white person, a falsification of history, and an appeal to division along the color line. It carries the foul odor of fascism.

Our country was built on the backs of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic working class and a system of slave labor that remained unchallenged for nearly three centuries. What is more, economic crises have a sharper impact on minority (and immigrant) communities. They are the first to "lose" their jobs, homes, living standards, rights, voice, and dignity.

This propaganda barrage is not new. But it is getting louder and ugly, evoking irrational and dangerous reactions from too many people. And its aim, though never stated, is to conceal the commonality of interests that organically glue together the multi-racial, multi-national, male-female, young-old, skilled-unskilled, white collar-blue collar, service-industrial, and immigrant-native born working class and its strategic allies.

I'm not suggesting that fascism is around the corner or that the majority of the American people embrace these backward sentiments. Other trends and public expressions go in the opposite direction, the most obvious example being the changes in consciousness that made possible the election of our first African American president.

What I am saying is that a progressive turn in our nation's politics requires an intensified and broader struggle against racism, male supremacy and other forms of division.

The struggles for racial and gender equality are at the core of the broader democratic struggle. A movement that is fractured along those lines will be unable to win jobs and other democratic reforms.

If unchallenged racism and male supremacy (along with other divisive ideologies and practices) will disfigure and paralyze the people's coalition. If embraced, they will push the country in a disastrous direction.

Sam Webb, swebb@cpusa.org, is national chairman of the Communist Party USA.


Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.


  • Mikhail, I got news for you; capitalism isn't a whole load of fun for most working people. Capitalism wasn't a whole load of fun for Stalin either.

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi , 12/21/2009 9:48pm (4 years ago)

  • Gary you state:

    "the logic of your argument is that no one should run for president since the job description includes that of commander in chief, as well as CEO of the capitalist class."

    Where is there this description of the presidency published anyplace; certainly not in the U.S. Constitution. Abe Lincoln warned about the power of capital controlling politics.

    My logic is that we need to challenge this by running real progressives for public office which would include Communists.

    As for Mikhail's claim that it was some kind of "people's movement" that elected Barack Obama it was nothing of the kind. People were tricked into voting for Obama because people like you and Sam Webb made him appear to be something he is not and never will be.

    As for me expressing the circumstances of my life I thought the whole idea behind Marxism is to understand how capitalism fails the working class. I am not complaining for myself. I am telling you how working people in the millions just like me are forced to live in this stinking capitalist society.

    And what is your reason for touting your father being a press secretary to Allende? Are his accomplishments your own?

    I am one obscure worker caught up like millions in this mess. I make no claim to anything else. I thought the Communist movement was for working people like me to join with fellow workers in tryng to solve our common problems together as a class. If we don't explain our circumstances how do we ever find like minded people to join together with in trying to solve our problems. You mocking me for explaining my circumstances tells me all I need to know about you.

    You piously talk about the absurdity of the "purity" of politics yet you are content not to talk about the real life circumstances working people find themselves in. Since when is it a "purity" of politics for working people to want to rise from poverty and the misery it entails through progressive reforms and the abolition of capitalism. And yes, the building of socialism not afraid to use the Soviet Union as the finest example.

    I fully understand the role of this government and corporations in the bloody overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile. All the more reason to make sure the American people fully understand what imperialism is. Are the American people gaining this understanding from Sam Webb's report to the National Committee or what they read here in the PW? If the Communist Party does not provide the American people with the type of anti-imperialist education needed to fight for peace; who will?

    As for the Trotskyists defining the voters for Barack Obama as a "people's movement" this is absurd. Since when does any "people's movement" support Wall Street's imperialist wars and anti-labor policies? If there was such a "people's movement" where is that movement right now; holding press conferences?

    There hasn't been any democracy in the CPUSA for years as is evidenced by Sam Webb's report to the National Committee. Like Communists all over the world we are now faced with the task of rebuilding the CPUSA. This lack of democracy has pushed most of us to stay on the periphery. Now we have a forum here where we can present our views and concerns and I am glad to see so many people taking advantage of this. No doubt there will be attempts at censorship down the road and a restriction of democracy as this farce of a CPUSA national convention nears.

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi , 12/20/2009 1:37pm (4 years ago)

  • Mikhail,

    Progressives should be developing staunch anti-war candidate in or outside of the Democratic to vigorously oppose Obama's re-election.

    You raise Chile. In Chile there are many political parties which serve to enhance and strengthen democracy and the participation of working people and all those who would otherwise be marginalized by capitalism and imperialism.

    We should support the building of a mass people's party which reflects the sentiments and concerns of the people in the movements for peace and social justice.

    That the Tea Party people call for Obama's defeat does not mean we should not be calling for his defeat.

    In Chile do the Communists not advance their own worker centered agenda in calling for the defeat of the same candidates the right also often oppose?

    If we look at Canada, does the Communist Party often call for the defeat of the Liberals even when the Conservatives too call for defeating the Liberals?

    Communists center politics around a strong pro-worker, pro-peace, anti-racist progressive agenda putting people before profits.

    Even Cornell West, one of Barack Obama's major supporters now, finally, acknowledges what we all know: Obama is pushing a neo-liberal agenda.

    Barack Obama and the Democrats have not broken us away from the neo-liberal agenda advanced by Ronald Reagan; Obama and the Democrats who refused to fight Reagan and brought forward Clinton and refused to fight Bush I and Bush II have now delivered for Wall Street Barack Obama who provides seamless continuity for Wall Street's neo-liberal agenda are now in the process of further driving down the standard of living of the working class by making working people pay for these horrible wars in many ways including depriving working people and everyone of something so basic a requirement as socialized healthcare.

    There is a huge gap between the change people hoped Barack Obama would bring and what he and the Democrats have done. There isn't even any correlation between the hoped for change and what has taken place.

    Obama is dishonest. Progressives have no business supporting such a dishonest politician who used the aspirations of the people for peace and a better life to get himself and the Democrats elected only to bring more misery all the way around.

    For me this is not about being "Leninist" enough; for me this is about me working 28 hours a week at Wal-mart and 24 hours a week at an auto parts store trying to support two children as a single mom.

    Most of the people I work with in both places are living the same way.

    I am not looking for any kind of "purity" in politics. What I am looking for is a politics that will provide me and my children and millions of other working people in similar circumstances a better life.

    When my children sneeze there goes over $100.00 for a visit to the doctor and another $40.00 in medication.

    I have over $30,000.00 on credit cards all spent on food and clothing for my kids.

    I don't make enough at Wal-mart to pay for the groceries I purchase there.

    We live with my mother who can't work because she fell down the steps. She gets SSI; about $900.00 a month and some food stamps.

    I know there are people worse off then me and my family.

    Where do the conditions of working people like me fit into the "reports" and "analysis" prepared by those like Sam Webb and Jarvis Tyner who weep with joy over the election of Barack Obama?

    I cry myself to sleep almost every night wondering what is in store down the road for me and my kids and my mother.

    Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night because my pillow is so wet and cold from the tears. Believe me when I tell you my tears are not tears of joy over Barack Obama's election.

    Just what I need, one more health insurance bill. Will I be able to pay the bill on my credit card?

    I don't wish my life on anyone but I do wish that Obama and these Democrats had to experience life as I do then we might see some real change. This isn't going to happen so working people need to look within themselves for the change we need.

    When I go to Democratic Party meetings most people at these meetings don't even want to hear about my problems which are the problems of so many working people. When I read the PWW/PW I don't read about working people like me. I read about Obama, Obama, Obama.

    My kids can't fill their bellies on Obama's "hope."

    My hope for a better life for my children is dying in the mountains of Afghanistan and the desert of Iraq right along with the mothers and their children in these countries as Barack Obama orders an ewscalation of the war in Afghanistan.

    I read about the "tears of joy" being shed over the election of Barack Obama in the PWW/PW but where is there any mention of tears of sorrow for the suffering children and working class families who must endure hardships so Obama can fight these imperialist wars?

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi , 12/18/2009 11:32am (4 years ago)

  • Gary,

    Nice to make your acquaintance.

    Would you mind briefly stating those other eleven accomplishments of Obama so we can intelligently discuss this?

    I never said anything about "a left that is reticent on criticizing persons of color when they do wrong." I was speaking about the basis for support of Obama being that he is black.

    To suggest that any politician should be supported on the basis that he is black smacks of the most disgusting form of racist patronizing. As Communists it is not our objective to push forward any politician working for big business interests.

    Our position as Communists should be to support Obama when he is right and vigorously oppose him when he is wrong. To defeat him for expanding and escalating these imperialist wars instead of halting them.

    I see no reason to support anyone simply because of the color of their skin when everything- except for one thing- they do is wrong.

    Our concern should be the politics and world outlook of any president. As a president (same goes for any other public official from dog-catcher or drain commissioner right on up) we should judge that person on the basis of what he does while in office.

    You apparently are willing to overlook some really terrible things like war from Obama in exchange for a few things that impact positively a few people.

    Just what is it worth to you to allow Obama to wage war on people? Is it worth full employment? Is it worth socialized healthcare? Is a war in exchange for a good home for every family worth it?

    Obviously Obama and the Democrats can't deliver universal programs that will satisfy the needs of everyone. I use these examples for the sake of making a point. The point being that Obama will toss out some bones to try to keep people divided but he never solves problems in a universal way; healthcare being a fine example of this. Should we fight over these bones? Should we be satisfied that Obama delivers some relief here and there to a few people to try to shut them up?

    In fact, anything that makes life materially better on a universal basis requires some major funding: healthcare, education, housing, job creation, environmental quality, affirmative action in hiring. None of this can be funded as long as unjust, immoral, illegal imperialist wars are being fought and Wall Street is dictating the policies of this country which include U.S. military bases in over 160 countries around the world.

    Your claim is that Barack Obama is a dead man if he challenges Wall Street's domination or hesitates in carrying out Wall Street dictate. You could very well be right in this regard since capitalism is corrupt and thoroughly rotten to its very core. So what? Because Obama might be killed if he doesn't escalate the war in Afghanistan is that justification for him ordering the slaughter and suffering of tens of thousands of innocent human beings including mothers and their children?

    If Barack Obama adhered to a progressive or even liberal world outlook he would not be president today.

    Our task is to elect anti-racist, pro-labor, pro-people progressive candidates to public office who will put people before profits. Obama does not qualify on any of these points. Nor do most Democrats; we don't have to even consider Republicans in this discussion.

    If you think it fair to list 13 good things Obama has done while in office, only two of which you mention and the stimulus spending is very dubious no matter the amount if spent the wrong way with the funds ending up in the wrong pockets for which a very good case can be made that this was done. We would also need to list all of the bad and wrong things Obama has done while in office and the many things he should and could do but has chosen not to do.

    Perhaps if we actually compiled such lists and created some flow charts we might all be better able to understand Barack Obama. More importantly, we would be able to understand what his agenda is and what class he represents.

    Sam Webb and the leadership of the Communist Party and our press, such as it is, have done a very poor job educating working people as to the class nature of Barack Obama. This has proven to be detrimental to the class struggle as far as the working class is concerned.

    What has happened to "Black and white; unite and fight for peace, jobs, healthcare, housing, education, justice and equality?"

    Are working people supposed to suffer so Barack Obama can remain in office? Are people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the Gaza Strip supposed to suffer and die so Barack Obama can remain the President?

    Clearly the left has refused to engage in serious struggle in opposition to Barack Obama and the Democrats under the false assumption that Obama is a "lesser evil" compared to Republicans.

    Doesn't the left have an obligation to push forward a progressive anti-war candidate in opposition to Barack Obama who justly deserves to be driven out of office.

    I notice even the "Progressives for Obama" have had to admit that Obama is not progressive and they have been forced to change their name based upon this reality.

    According to some blogs I have been reading, forty leaders of the Communist Party met to decide if the war in Afghanistan is an imperialist war. Depending on what blogs and e-mails one reads, only two or three leaders of the CPUSA are prepared to call this an imperialist war. If not an imperialist war, what kind of war is this?

    I trust you understand my position even though you disagree with it.

    Maybe we should talk about a progressive woman of color running against Barack Obama? Is it possible for a real progressive to be elected president of the United States of America? If so, what will it take? Barack Obama has to go.

    George McGovern is too old and Dennis Kucinich is too goofy.

    Out of the struggles of the people for peace and social justice can we find and push forward a real progressive candidate for president?

    For sure all of the Congressmen and Senators who complain about the costs involved in healthcare reform but vote to fund these imperialist wars should be challenged in their own Democratic Party primaries and if need be in the general election.

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi , 12/18/2009 4:13am (4 years ago)

  • I appreciate the response to my comments even though provided anonymously.

    However, as a Communist, too, I do think it is important that we have a very concise and clear class analysis of Barack Obama which you and Sam Webb continue to evade.

    From the point of view of working people Barack Obama has been wrong on every single issue.

    When have O.J. Simpson or Tiger Woods ever demonstrated any concern or compassion for working people?

    No doubt you, my anonymous communist friend, supported Bill Clinton too just like Sam Webb.

    You are dead wrong about those on the right not needing any help from the left by way of explaining the truth about Barack Obama. Most of these people on the right are there because they lack education from a working class perspective so they are easily mislead and manipulated.

    Communists have a very special role to play in winning working people to progressive politics rather than letting people fall victim to the Rush Limbaughs and defending Barack Obama when no such defence is merited or deserved only adds to the confusion.

    If Barack Obama, O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods are being attacked because they are black the attack has to center on racism not defending them or their actions.

    If Barack Obama was being attacked because he is black because he was involved in helping working class families save their homes from foreclosure and evictions then the proper thing to do would be to defend Barack Obama from racist attacks.

    You make a strong argument for condemning racist court systems and the racist media. Because Barack Obama, O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods are attacked by a racist media and the rightwing uses them for its own bigoted and racially biased agenda does not mean what they have done wrong makes them in any way off limits to being attacked by the left for what they do wrong.

    I couldn't care less what Tiger Woods does with his personal life. He can have a different girlfriend every day of the year for all I care. I'm not going to waste my breath defending the right of this guy to such a life-style when millions of people are trying to figure out how to feed their families every day. I spend my time working for peace and social justice. Tiger Woods spends his time chasing women instead of speaking up against wars and injustices although he did manage to squeeze in considerable time between his trysts to support Barack Obama.

    As for O.J. Simpson; yes, a jury found him innocent of killing. I have always believed he was innocent of that. But has O.J. Simpson ever demonstrated any concern for the thousands upon thousands of the victims of racism who fill the prisons only because they are black and poor? All victims of the same unjust racist system millions of people of color go through everyday.

    Both O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods had the ability and means to stand up and oppose injustices. They chose not to. I think your comparison with them to Bill Clinton is very accurate. Bill Clinton has never cared about anyone except for himself. He sacrificed healthcare reform to get a few blowjobs.

    I fail to see how Barack Obama deserves our support anymore than do Tiger Woods, O.J. Simpson or Bill Clinton.

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi , 12/17/2009 5:14pm (4 years ago)

  • Here is another view from the left:

    By Glen Ford
    Created 12/15/2009
    A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

    It has taken almost a year for “Progressives for Obama” to make a partial break with their former object of adulation, proof that groupie-love is a powerful emotion. “Two of the founding members, Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden, are making uncharacteristically loud anti-Obama noises and acting as if they played no role in convincing Obama that he could make war and serve corporate interests to his heart’s content, without fear of any trouble from the Left.”

    The organization formerly known as “Progressives for Obama” has changed its name. After almost a year of President Obama’s massive transfers of the people’s wealth to Wall Street, his escalation of U.S. wars in South Asia, his shameless alliance with insurance and drug corporations, and his callous disregard for Depression-level Black unemployment, even the president’s most loyal sycophants on the Left are running for cover. It’s not a pretty sight.

    “Progressives for Obama” are now calling themselves “Progressive America Rising.” Two of the founding members, Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden, are making uncharacteristicall y loud anti-Obama noises and acting as if they played no role in convincing Obama that he could make war and serve corporate interests to his heart’s content, without fear of any trouble from the Left. They had his back.

    The left-wing Obamites were the nastiest of all. They viciously libeled anyone that advanced a Left critique of their hero, calling them enemies of a new “people’s movement,” when in fact it was they who were shutting the movement down in favor of a fan club and cheering section for Obama. Amiri Baraka spit poison at all who failed to pledge allegiance to the Great Obama, calling us infantile ultra-leftists and just plain “rascals.” Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden stuck with Obama like little sorcerer’s apprentices as the president methodically savaged virtually every item on the progressive agenda. What else could they do? To break with Obama would amount to an admission that they were wrong about the progressive “potential” of their candidate; that he had always been a thoroughly corporate politician who would lurch to the Right as soon as he took office; and that, by failing to criticize Obama early in the campaign, they were guaranteeing that he would disrespect and ignore Blacks and progressives, once in office.


    Tom Hayden now declares it's finally “time to strip the Obama sticker” off his car. Well, whoopee. Back in the day, Hayden would have been expected to engage in some serious self-criticism for misleading so many people about Obama. The same goes for Bill Fletcher, who appeared on a Pacifica radio show last week sounding like he'd never been an Obama fan. Fletcher said it was inappropriate for the Nobel committee to award Obama the Peace Prize when the president had done nothing to cause a “fundamental shift” in U.S. foreign policy. You can't influence a president of the United States to do the right thing, Fletcher said, by giving him awards in hopes that he will earn them. But that's exactly what Fletcher and his fellow Obama fanatics tried to pull off when they endorsed candidate Obama on a wish and a prayer when there was no reason to believe he would undertake any “fundamental shift” in U.S. foreign or domestic policy. As a result, the Left played no role whatsoever in the 2008 election. They just blew kisses at Obama, hoping he'd kiss them back after the inauguration.

    Fletcher and Hayden now say it's time to crank up the people's Movement machine and get back to the business of speaking Truth to Power. Which is all perfectly true. However, Tom Hayden and Bill Fletcher and the rest of the “Progressives for Obama” clique should first demonstrate that they have recovered their faculties before assuming any leadership role in a revived Movement. The last time they were near a Movement, they shut it down, and went to the Obama party, instead.

    For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.

    Ruth Anne Jerrold
    Parma, Ohio
    A Dennis Kucinich fan.

    Posted by Ruth Anne Jerrold, 12/17/2009 4:02pm (4 years ago)

  • [Gina: my replies in brackets]

    It looks to me like Barack Obama is just as backward in his thinking as those opposing him. Can you comment on this aspect of American politics?
    [Hopefully you're not including yourself in that category"backward". Because you certainly oppose Obama. But I don't think that everyone who opposes President Obama is backward any more than I think that everyone supports him out of being intelligent. It allepends on the issue and the stance taken.]

    Is it possible there is this opposition to Obama from the right because the left hasn't clearly explained Obama being tethered to big business?
    [I think that the right wing needs no help from the left on clearly explaining anything on this matter. I think that the left needs to figure out, in many cases, exactly what it stands for. The lack of this clarity is what feeds the right, tho' it appears that the right is not politically starving on the account of the left's lack of food. But then again, why should the left provide the right with "evidence"?]

    You almost seem to be suggesting there are two primary reasons to support Barack Obama.

    One he is being attacked by the right. Two he is black.
    I don't see how either of these two reasons provide justification for further support of Barack Obama.

    [Of course I as a communist think that a black president should be defended from right wingers, becauuse they have an agenda that advocates going back to the previous mostly-30 years of Republican rule--in many cases with Democratic help. Beyond that though, President Obama like any other president must be expected to come through on promises made, expectations raised which brought him to office. If you have specific reasons and issues that would cause you to either support or criticize the President, or a mixture of both, then this is the political reality with which you have to deal as you see fit.]

    Who do we support next on this basis?

    O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods?
    [Why yes! We will support those under racist attack, even as we insist upon clear deliberation to get to the bottom of real issues. What's wrong with that? OJ was found not guilty in the criminal murder trial of his spouse and Ron Goldman--- for the simple reason that the evidence and arguments based on the evidence did not convince the jury. That a highly-pressured jury came to this conclusion in the racist atmosphere generated during the trial is a trumph of the common sense and decency of the people, not nearly as appreciiated as it should be. When a subsequent CIVIL trial found him accountable fo the wrongful death of these two people, many people of all walks of life felt that the civil suit was a reflection of the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman being sore losers as regards the outcome of the criminal trial. Many other people feel that the years of harassment suffered by Simpson since those trials, including the attempts to put him away in Nevada for alleged armed robbery, would never have been suffered by anyone who was white.

    As to Tiger Woods, the golf champion who has suddenly fallen from grace thanks more to the press than clarity of exactly what happened ----- not much can be accurately said at this point. I just want to know: is he being called out for adulterous behavior? Or is he being accused of out-doing a former US president whose career or his income or his library are not endangered for such behavior.

    Please note that in the cases of Obama, Simpson and Woods, their racial background has seldom been displayed by them. It has been largely folks with a racial axe to grind who have brought this to them, in the form of innuendoes and outright aggression. In a just society, issues concerning a person's connection to murder, wrongful death, adultery would have been addressed to the persons concerned regardless of race. But hey!------- this is the United States and, contrary to certain myths being pushed, the election of a black president was not accompanied by a magic wand to banish racism.]

    In view of Obama being on the wrong side of every issue is your continued support for Barack Obama "rational"?
    [I guess from the logic behind that question, President Obama could only be right on all of the issues if he were a Republican. In these times such a possibility could only be left to the Chance Triplets: Fat, Slim, and No. Whatever can be said of the Democratic Party, there are good historic reasons why a majority of black voters migrated to that party from the GOP in the 1930s to the 1960s, and have seldom voted in large numbers for that party since.]

    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA
    [Gina, thanks for your honest thoughts on these matters.]

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi, 16/12/2009 10:06pm (11 hours ago)


    Posted by , 12/17/2009 10:29am (4 years ago)






    Who do we support next on this basis?

    O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods?


    Gina Gianlorenzi
    Pittsburgh PA

    Posted by Gina Gianlorenzi, 12/16/2009 10:06pm (4 years ago)
