No, this isn't about Eliot Spitzer, but I do have a quick word about him. It seems that the tv networks couldn't bring themselves to mention Spitzer's political party association after his sex scandal broke. Weird, huh ? It's funny, because when there's a Republican scandal, the fact that the guy's a Republican is ALWAYS in the lead sentence of the story. In fact, it was only recently that I learned Larry Craig's first name wasn't actually 'Republican', because the networks ALWAYS refer to him as 'Republican Larry Craig'. I thought 'Larry' was his middle name. Not that there's a liberal media or anything.
But this isn't about that.
This is about how the Democratic presidential race has devolved into ugly racial accusations.
First, for those of you who thought I was exaggerating about Obama's racist minister, Jeremiah A. Wright, in my Left Wing Lunatics post, get a load of the following video, where Obama's minister sweetly entreats his congregation in what will surely become known as his "God Damn America" speech. For any of you who want to defend Obama by calling this guilt by association, that's fine, but consider a few things first: Obama has attended this minister's church for 20 years. This minister married Obama and his wife. This minister baptized Obama's children. This minister brought Obama to christianity in the first place, according to Obama. This minister's "audacity of hope" speech became the title of Obama's book, and Obama has referred to this minister as his advisor. This minister advised and prayed with Obama prior to Obama launching his presidential bid. If this is guilt by association, well, it's a pretty darn strong association. Obama has to come up with more of a response to Jeremiah Wright's hate mongering than merely calling him a "crazy uncle".
On the other side of the Democratic identity politics mountain, former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, a Hillary supporter, also made a stupid racial statement. This one sounds tame now in comparison to Reverend Wright's nuclear blasts, but Ferraro said:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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's statement is dismissive of Obama's political talents, which is the first way she's wrong. Her comments also imply that Obama is somehow the affirmative action candidate, another falsehood that attempts to marginalize him. Besides, you could say that almost every prior president in the history of the country wouldn't have gotten to where he is if he wasn't a white male. That would be valid, so even if Obama is riding his historic wave in part because of his race (that IS what makes this historic after all), isn't it about time ? After 230 years it finally becomes a plus to be a black man in politics in america and Ferraro feels the need to complain about it ? Pretty lame, Geraldine. Ferraro attempts to defend her comments here.
Even though I don't support many of Barack Obama's political policies (or Hillary's either), which is what this Democratic primary SHOULD be about but isn't, at one time I was encouraged by the way that the Hillary vs. Obama campaign didn't seem to be about race or gender. I was encouraged by the fact that we seemed at long last to be moving past the silly identity labels that divide us. I was beginning to hope that maybe we WERE moving into post-racist america. The Democrats have made me realize how woefully naive I was to ever think any such thing. The race card has been laid and played on all sides by the Dems in this power struggle, ever since the South Carolina primary. We haven't moved past anything. It's the same as it ever was, and that makes me sad.
And to think Democrats make a big deal out of it when a conservative talk show host uses Obama's middle name.
About This Blog