Skip to main content

View Diary: Donna Brazile (399 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To analyze this letter correctly (3.50)
    We need to know whether or not it's true.  If there are "untouchable" staffers who are doing anything but can't be fired because they are black or protected by Brazile, then this is bad.  If it's bullshit, than it's racist howling.
    •  He clearly (none)
      relates "untouchables" to Black people
      •  Yes (none)
          Because, according to him, ONLY BLACK PEOPLE WERE PROTECTED.

          A statement of fact cannot be racist. If he's lying then he may or may not be racist (ignorance is always a possibility), but if Donna protected ONLY BLACK PEOPLE than pointing that out can't be racist, since it's a fucking true statement.

    •  Exactly (none)
      This really is the heart of the matter.

      Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

      by cerebrocrat on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:41:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Analysis (none)
      Whether the charges are true or not may be a matter of perception.  I get the distinct impression that there is no shortage of dead wood at the DNC.

      A more important point for analysis is: what is the writer trying to accomplish?

      If the charges are true, was it really a good idea to take it public?  Did the writer feel it necessary to go public for fear it would not be addressed by the incoming management?

      Even if the writer were to identify him/herself, it would be a bad idea to put the "DNC coddles shiftless black employees" story into the public domain.  The fact that it is anonymous makes it a very bad idea.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site