A very strange article recently appeared on Gather.
Â The author asked why JesseÂ Jackson andÂ Al Sharpton had not been besieged by the media toÂ make an endorsement in the Democratic primary contest.Â She suggested that there was something devious and mysterious about this.
The first few readers expressed opinions related to the limited appeal of an endorsement by Jackson or Sharpton, and the authorÂ chortled along with LOLs.
Â But, within the first dozen comments, the author and another commenter began to discuss a "media conspiracy" to keep the spotlight on Obama and to keep attention away from figures like Jackson and Sharpton.
Â When Sam C. suggested that divisive figures form the right, like Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott have not been very visible in the Republican campaign, the author bristled, and said that these characters could not be compared because Jackson and Sharpton addressed racial issues and the Republican figures did not.
Sandy Knauer later made a poignant remark about this theme.
Â IÂ commented after Sam to suggest that Jackson and Sharpton were superfluous to this campaign because the Democratic front-runners were working so closely with African-American elected officials.Â
I referenced Charlie Rangel from New York, and John Conyers from Michigan, both of whom have been very active in the Democratic Party primaries, and the Black Congressional caucuses form California and other states who have discussed issuing endorsements.
Here is the comment:
Sam's point is well-taken.
The goofy Republican theorists with very high negatives, like Newt Gingrich, have not weighed into this campaign either.
One of the reasons Jackson and Sharpton are not involved in the campaigns is that African-American political leaders are very close to both campaigns.
You don't need Sharpton if Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, and the entire black Congressional delegations are negotiating with the candidates -as they did in California and other places.
With African-Americans at the centers of the campaigns, there is no opening for a perpetual "otsider" like Sharpton to fill.Â
The author responded by demanding that I produce evidence that Sharpton or Jackson was involved with the Clinton campaign.
Since I hadÂ not asserted this, I did not respond to it.
Sam posted aÂ quizzical response about the author's contradictory assertions:
The media loves Obama and is protecting him?
The media have created Sharpton and Jackson andÂ have created the constituency for them?Â
If the media was fair, they would be pressuringÂ Sharpton and Jackson for an endorsement?
SamÂ seemed to nail it when he added:
"...Your post appears to be a hatchett job on Obama via Sharpton and Jackson. Dosen't quite work. Despite their qualities or lack of them their endorsement or lack of it is immaterial to Obama..."
The remainder of the comment thread,Â with the exception of aÂ very pointed dissection of Republican scandals and Republican race-baiting byÂ Kathy W,Â was an Obama-bashing fest between the author and two other right-wing ideologues.
I had not encountered this author before, so I checked earlierÂ articles by her.
Every article listed on her home page was a little-read discussion of astrology, especially astrology and private finances.
I thinkÂ that this is relevant, as there isÂ a strong anti-intellectual and obseesive quality about herÂ arguments.
So, I wrote:
"I just learned that the author of this incoherent article is the same "visionary" who offers financial advice through horoscopes.
That explains the confusion about the non-points she fails to make."
The author removed the comment.Â She announced it in a comment that suggested I had consulted her "profile" in a way that was "creepy".
I resent having any comments removed.
And, I am calling the author on her cowardly snarkiness.