yeah, he probably shouldn't address it directly.
i don't know if i agree with the New Yorker magazine though, because in this environment, and with people so ready to believe anything...
oh well.
i agree with your bolded statement too, very inexcusable.
the other day, i was having a discussion about listening to NPR with one of my colleagues, and he said "oh, you're a democrat" and i had to do a double take...i'm automatically a democrat because i listen to NPR?
and before i could make any comment, he said "you're an obama lover"
i swear, i almost said "obama for ya mama".
while we were discussing, he said one of his problems with obama (other than the fact that he is not a republican) is that he has no experience.
i said "well he certainly seems to have more brains than george bush".
i think he got upset because he said he had to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidney
I don't think he should address it directly. If he is so inclined he can address the nature of false accusations and fear as a proponent of the election process in the US. But I don't think he should address the actual cover. Especially since the New Yorker magazine was actually trying to show how ridiculous the perceptions are.
The sad thing is that he has already addressed these issues. He has an autobiography that was written before he ran for any office! And in this heightened post 9/11 USA, anything, even a blip in his past, would have been discovered...
But my sista, would you believe that there are pro-Obama supporters that actual believe that, deep down, he is a Muslim? I have spoken to avid Obama supporters, who happened to be African Muslims, and they universally felt that he was actually a Muslim deep down.
I was shocked!
It is inexcusable, with all the information available in today's world, that people can allow themselves to be so misinformed.
|