Ebony sends this, an interesting Salon essay about the dangers of color blindness among popular progressive politicians.
Presidential candidate and Vt. Sen. Bernie Sanders is saying a lot of good and meaningful stuff in relation to wealth and income inequality, but this Vox piece suggests he might be a 1930s radical (not so concerned with race — not at all) than a 1960s one. And though Mass. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is hitting all the progressive marks on important topics, as well (so much so that people are trying to draft her to run for president, though she doesn’t appear to be interested), there’s not much talk about race in her speeches, either.
Dating Jesus 
Disclaimer: Look at Bernie’s record. He’s never been a radical anything. If he was, he wouldn’t have survived the last 24 years in Congress. Bernie’s a bourgeois reformist, (and not a particularly radical one at that), a Democratic Party wrangler, (like Warren), and a fair-to-middling bullshit artist who’s only true talent is folding like a cheap suit.
So….cutting through the 600 or so words I could plug in here on what passes for “progressivism” and “The Left” in the American secular clergy pulpit these days…
Did you notice how both Lind and Walsh used race to effectively render impotent any consideration of economic class as relevant to social justice. The message is an oldie but a goodie. A Bourgeois Reformist All-Time Top of the Pops: Keep doing the same thing…the same divisive rhetoric…the same hollow promises…the same tokenism…over and over and over again, despite consistent failure, because to even consider any alternative is myopic…lacking imagination or intellectual foresight…or racist.
At least Walsh had the guts to say “socialist” instead of “1930s radical.”
But…puh…lease….