My esteemed editor is absolutely correct:  the poison tossed on Condoleezza Rice and  previously Clarence Thomas is disgusting——the tossers should be exposed as the bigots they really are.
 
But not all the opposition to Rice comes from white liberals and not all of it is hateful.  Some blacks who think they know their community, who have taken on, or have been annointed, to explain  African—American society to the wider world, are also confused.  
 
In a column published prior to the election black columnist Clarence Page was amazed, simply amazed, that pre election polls indicated blacks were also increasingly willing to vote for Bush.  Reflecting national trends, socially conservative church—going older blacks preferred Bush as did socially conservative, church—going whites. That's somewhat explainable to him.
 
But Page, groping for more reasons, decides that blacks are turning to Bush because he appointed Powell and Rice to high profile positions.  "A little symbolism goes a long way," he concludes, thus demeaning Powell and Rice in addition to Bush.  Symbolism?  Symbolism?  Bush names talented, highly qualified individuals to two of the most important jobs in government  who are black but all Page sees are symbols.  Tokens.
 
He correctly concludes that the Democratic Party shouldn't take the African—American vote for granted.  Why then doesn't he extend this by adding that Republicans should reach out more to blacks?  And that blacks, like other groups, should vote for whomever they think would help them the most. Competition would benefit all.

Ethel C. Fenig  11 31 04