In another twist to the bitter battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a member of Sen. Hillary Clinton's finance committee, vented her frustration with Sen. Barack Obama's campaign success in racially charged remarks.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Ferraro told a local California newspaper last week.
"And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro said.
Now, let's all calm down with racial overtones and look at what she has said. Her basic point is, would Barack Obama be as far as he is in politics if he weren't a black man? We'd all like to think so wouldn't we? We'd all like to think that we're above racism and have moved past our dark past. However, I think there might be a bit of truth there, although she obviously spit it out in a very crude manner.
For example:
For Mississippi, it's a moment to bask in the national spotlight. And for a state with images of a strictly segregated past, the Democratic primary is a chance to alter some long held stereotypes.
"We're seeing a contest where I think you're going to see a huge turnout of voters voting either for a woman or an African-American, and that gives us a chance to make a statement," said Marty Wiseman, a professor of political science at Mississippi State University.
"A chance to make a statement"? When you're voting for President, you shouldn't be making "statements" of this kind. You should be voting for the person you feel is the best candidate for the job. "Making a statement", in other words, voting for someone because of what they are, rather than who they are, is a mistake of the greatest magnitude. What's worse, is that this is from a professor of Political Science! This guy is supposed to know what he's talking about when it comes to politics, and he comes across as some kind of star struck idiot.
Obama has certainly gotten off very light for his connections to Chicago businessman Rezko. If it were any other person, they certainly would have gotten skewered in the press. But Obama hasn't. Why? Is it because reporters are starting to buy into the hype, and let's face it, it is hype.
Are they giving him a pass while Hillary is giving significantly harder questions and is under more scrutiny then Obama? It certainly appears so.
However, no one seems to notice that Obama stumbles frequently when asked tough questions, especially about Rezko.
You simply cannot have a President who can't deal with high stress environments. It's one of the most highly stressful jobs on the planet. Every decision you make can lead directly, or indirectly to the deaths of millions of people around the world.
Obama's feet do need to have his feet held to the fire like everyone else, and not be given a pass for things that need to be cleared up before the Democratic nomination. Otherwise, simply "making a statement" will prove to be a mistake that not everyone will be willing to admit to when the "phone rings at 3 am".
Democrats are loathe to admit when they've screwed up, and if Obama does turn out to be a disaster, I get the feeling they'll leave him like a rat on a sinking ship.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment