For decades, the Democratic Party has acted as though race was of absolutely
no concern to their party or constituents - whatsoever. And in some ways, one
got the impression from their public demeanor that the party managed to become
the first bastion on the American scene to achieve racial integration. In fact,
they even managed to separate the body of the party from the loathed
'Dixiecrats', as though these outcasts of the 'Old South' were some politically
distasteful family relations in name only.
Now at last the nasty little secret is out in the open, and we have former
congresswoman and vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro to thank for
it's long due revelation. Finally, a breath of fresh air in this stifling
Democratic Primary Race without end: Ms. Ferraro's socially unpalatable
revelation, now being referred to as racist, in any other context would be
referred to as - the Truth. Ferraro's 'entire' statement made to the Daily
Breeze of Torrance California (prejudicially abbreviated in major press
accounts) was as follows:
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president
takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it
would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the
press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some
just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she
continued. "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 does not buy the notion of Obama as the great
reconciler.
"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out
there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an
end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has
worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had
partisanship - that's the way our country is."
Well I say, "Wake up Obama fanatic supporters, be you White or Black." Like
it or not, your candidate is nothing more than an Extreme Left 'concept' of
choice. And the concept translates to the 'same old politics' in a youthful new
brown wrapper: his color does - to a large degree - define the dynamic
meteoric momentum of his presidential candidacy.
Instead of being derided as a closet racist, Ms. Ferraro should be applauded
for her politically incorrect candor, and for her bravery in the face of savage
return fire as well. And I discover even greater admiration in her choice to
brave the fallout from her statements, by the open defiant determination
determination to stand by her words.
I ask you, counting the fingers of both hands, how many politicians can claim
such moral resolution? If you've made it past your first hand - admit it - your'
re lying to yourself.
This presidential primary season for the Democratic Party has been run as
though it was some sort of 'infantile', school yard, sand-box skirmish.
Everything was supposed to be 'nice-nice', which meant no kicking, biting,
scratching, name calling or the usual down and out brand of dirty politics. They
wanted the public to believe this first time ever political race between a White
female and a Black male, with record breaking amounts of money being raised and
spent by both contenders and their supporters, and record breaking voter
turnout, was going to be a clean non-political fight.
Hey good people of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), you're old enough
to know better - there simply ain' t no such thing!
The Female Imperative
Between 1620 to 1621, dependent upon historical reference, the
Mayflower settlers (the 102 survivors of the grueling 66 day trans Atlantic
voyage from England), landed in what would eventually become Plymouth
Massachusetts and formed the Plymouth Colony. Of this hardy group, at least 30
percent of them were female and, unlike the males, they were to discover they
had simply exchanged one hard life of marital servitude and societal subjugation
for another. Equal rights benefits would be a long time coming.
The men would eventually gain 'freedom of speech' and 'one man one
vote' with the American Constitution in 1787, but the women had to blaze a
protracted and painful uphill battle. It took all of 133 years for them to make
it to Women's Suffrage and the right to vote and hold public
office, granted years later in 1920 via the 19th amendment.
However, it would appear that many today continue to have great difficulty
digesting this 88 year old gain for women, and so rides the 21st century plight
of Hillary Rodham Clinton's run for the presidency of the United States.
That many Americans of both sexes should find the plausibility of
a female president, much less the probability, so daunting does not surprise me.
Incredible as it may seem, there was a hint of such opposition back in 1965:
manifested in the most unlikely of all venues - Science
Fiction.
Gene Roddenberry, producer of the ground breaking science fiction television series, "Star Trek", ran into just such unexpected resistance. In the first pilot episode for the series entitled, "The Menagerie" (reissued in the series as "The Cage"), he cast actress, Majel Barrett, as the 'Number Two' first officer to the starship captain: she took command whenever he was absent or in some way incapacitated.
Keeping in mind the series timeline was projected to 300 years
into the future, it was noted that the preview audience had great difficulty
accepting her crew status. In short, they simply could not envision a woman -
even 300 years from then - having such power and authority. Because of this
reaction, the network insisted they change the crew status of the character, and
she became the head nurse to the starships doctor.
Now can many of you fully understand what Senator Hillary Clinton
has to go up against in her run for the presidency? It's still not easy being an
accomplished and competent woman of power in this country. But understand,
Hillary Clinton is not looking to become a nurse, or even a second in command.
Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to be the Starship Captain - and she's earned the
right!
The Affirmative Action Candidate
Let's not attempt the ridiculous by trying to fool ourselves in
thinking that Barack Obama is anything more that just that: he is without doubt
- The Affirmative Action Candidate. For even as a Black
congressman of no mean accomplishment to date, he doesn't possess anywhere near
the credentials necessary for the position he is seeking. Adding to that fact,
Geraldine Ferraro was absolutely correct in her remarks. Were it not for his
race, Obama wouldn't be a serious contender at the level he's achieved in this
very important and incredibly tight presidential race. The situation is not
unique, it happened once before, and then too was the result of actions by the
politically active Liberal Left.
Back in 1963 the powerful motion picture "HUD", which starred a
host of fine actors including Paul Newman as the lead actor, was nominated for a
number of Academy Awards. The film went on to garner 11 nominations and to win
three of the coveted awards; best leading actress, best supporting actor and
best cinematography.
Though nominated for best leading actor in a film virtually
defined and dominated by his performance, Newman did not win. That 'privilege'
was reserved for actor Sidney Poitier for his role in the film "Lilies of the
Field." Poitier is without doubt a fine actor, and one whose performing
capability on the screen I would be the last person to question or deride. But
the film he won the Academy Award for was nowhere near the best film or film
work he'd ever done. Nor was it by any stretch of the imagination comparable to
the raw human power of the Newman vehicle, "HUD."
Unfortunately for Newman it was the year the Liberal Left
Hollywood crowd decided that, even though Newman was a Left leaner and one of
their own, the times dictated a 'Negro' should win the Oscar. One can only
imagine the driving force behind their choice was the backdrop of the Civil
Rights Movement, and Paul Newman's performance in an unquestionably superior
film and role was chosen as the sacrificial lamb.
Now it is 2008 - and here we go again. This time, however, the
superior actor and opposition Democratic Party candidate is a female who has
paid her dues, and demands her time and turn. Her candidacy states - 'it's time
to give a woman a chance at the top seat' and, so far, she has refused to back
down. And if we go by the voting breakdown of the primaries to date, she has the
older women of America behind her.
Obama's Powerful Foot-Soldiers: The
Press
In this category, more than any other factor, count the
'mainstream press' as the Black candidate's main corps, for no other factor has
weighed so heavily in favor of Sen. Barack Obama and so prejudicially against
Sen. Hillary Clinton. The fairness doctrine so highly touted by the American
press for centuries, has been shattered by their crass behavior during the
Democratic Party's run for the White House.
Black journalists Clarence Page, Gwen Ifil, Michele Norris, Cynthia Tucker, Eugene Robinson and Democratic Strategist Donna Brazil, to name a few, were so clearly pro Obama that all pretensions of subjectivity on their part failed to camouflage their 'racial' partisanship. Inexcusable as this barely hidden display of enthusiasm may be, at least it could be attributed to a 'Black Pride' thing. But what about the shameful behavior of the likes of White reporters like Chris Matthews? He was so excited by the Obama candidacy, that on one of his broadcasts he made the remark that he got a - 'tingle up his leg.'
All should take note that the White press makes it an obvious
point to tip-toe around Black sensitivities when reporting on Obama's campaign,
and the activities of those heavily involved in it.In reporting on Obama, the
politically-correct reporter's handbook becomes the strict guide. But take note
they evidence no such care or caution of the sensitivities of women,
particularly as a minority, when they cock their press guns and go after Hillary
Clinton. She does, indeed, get the first nasty powder-packed, politically loaded
questions in debates, and the first shot across the bow when anything in her
campaign goes astray.
That's right! We as a people can no longer trust the press for
either the truth or fairness in reporting events. In the race for ratings and
editorial glory, they have become as politically biased and shock-obsessed as
the rest of us - and that includes the Fox News Channel.
The Iraq War: A Blurred Line in the Sand
Barack Obama's one claim to fame and presidential worthiness is
that he voted against the Iraq War. Big deal I say, so what! It should also be
mentioned that his one effective claim against Hillary Clinton is that - she
voted for the Iraq War. Again I say, so what? Listening to Sen. Obama one would
think Hillary Clinton was the sole member of congress who voted for the war. She
wasn't!
Congressional voting on major issues - either for or against,
especially on matters relating to committing a nation to war, is generally based
upon three factors: Morally Right, Morally Wrong and Political
Risk.
The order in which these elements of decision are lined up, one to
three, are a key factor in determining the character of the decider. Before
decision making, however, one is compelled to think through the matter, and to
base one's decision on a multitude of factors and presented incoming data that
may or may not be reliable. Does that process sound familiar to you, Sen. Obama?
It really should! It is the decision making process that one is expected to
employ as Chief Executive Officer of the United States: in
other words - the President.
We now know that the present administration wanted to go to war in
Iraq - period. What we don't know with certainty as yet, is the reason they
wanted to go down this brutal military passageway to 4000 American and well over
100,000 Iraqi deaths. All we have to go by are unsubstantiated suspicions that
it all had to do with - Iraq's vast and virtually untapped oil
reserves.
What we do know is that the Bush administration went out of it's
way to 'cherry-pick' incoming intelligence data, to present to the congress as
proof positive that the Saddam Hussein government still retained, in defiance of
a UN edict, a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capability. And in the shadow of
the 9-11 terror attacks, their possession of these purported weapons posed a
grave threat to the American people and their allies.
Senator Hillary Clinton as a member of congress thought it over
and weighed the pros and cons of a possible first time ever 'preemptive' attack
by the United States of America, against a sovereign country that we were not
'technically' or legally at war with. And based upon the evidence then presented
by the Bush administration given, most of which we now know to have been false
or corrupted, she and members of congress (in a 77-23 Senate/ 296-133 House of
Rep vote) voted to give the president permission to go to war with Iraq - if it became necessary.
That's right Sen. Obama, the vote was not to go to war, but to go
to war - if necessary. And of course, we all know how the Bush
administration read that vote - and ran with it to war. Before the UN teams
could complete their WMD search, we attacked and invaded..
So reading the facts correctly, Sen. Clinton did not vote solely
on going to war with Iraq. But if we were to buy Sen. Obama's logic - that one
decision should forever define her capabilities to hold administrative residence
in the Oval Office.
There is, however, a far greater and more strategically critical
unanswered question floating out there in the political ether: one that as yet
has not been either asked, answered or openly alluded to by the Obama support
camp. "Sen. Obama, just how did you come about your decision not to
approve the Iraq War Resolution?"
We have as yet to hear you explain, in detail, just how you came
up with the decision to vote 'against' this resolution. We have to ask this very
important question of a 'pretender to the throne' because of one salient fact:
at the time of the vote, no one in congress was aware that the intelligence data
presented to justify the war was corrupted and false.Even the revered Gen. Colin
Powell was duped, by his own admission, into using this evidence in his
presentation to the United nations - on television for all the world to see.
Therefore, Sen. Obama, just what data did you employ to make your
touted decision? And most of all, why didn't you share said data with the others
in congress - including Gen. Powell and Senator Clinton?
As I view it, Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton went through the proper
decision making process even though, in the end, it yielded for her and 372
other members of congress a poor and unwise decision. Nor should we forget the
eventual embarrassment of General Powell before the entire world. The point is,
at least they thought about it before taking action. You on the other hand,
appear to have simply made, at best, a - lucky guess! If you should take office,
senator, is that the decision making philosophy you intend to apply, should you
be called upon to answer the Red Tel phone at 3:00 AM in the White House?
During the two presidential terms of her husband, Hillary Clinton
went through the agony of being the main architect of a health plan, that even
she now admits was far too cumbersome. And rightly so, it was shot down by the
Congress. But she has had over 15 years of working experience to learn and
improve from. She has gone up a learning curve that has allowed her to be better
prepared to attack such vital national issues. To wit, she over the many years
of her political experience is on a first name relation with many foreign
leaders and officials; in times of strife, when minutes and hours count, this
factor is very important.
Like her or hate her, Sen. Hillary Clinton has proved that she has
the 'right stuff' to occupy the Oval Office. She truly is as her campaign
slogans - is ready on day one! On the other hand, you Sen. Obama - you
are not!
Whomever Wins - American Society Loses
This presidential primary season has gone on far too long, but
under the circumstances underlying it's extension, it was necessary. Racial
makeup or gender should not dictate a winner. Nor should Hollywood like star
power or popularity. Unfortunately, this election has brought together two long
denied minorities, women and Blacks.
To quote a long held physics axiom - 'two objects can not occupy
the same space in time.' For those of you not that familiar with the science of
physics, what were talking about is akin to a game of 'musical chairs.' In other
words, when the primary music finally stops, someone will have lost their seat
at the table and in this case, an entire minority group will take that loss as
an abject betrayal.
I have never been in the business of making predictions, and I will not stray
from that policy now. But the situation before us will not allow me to 'straddle
the fence' so to speak. Therefore, I will end with a simple observation from
many years lived in this country.
The past does not die until the people who lived it die. And it is my opinion
there's a lot of vestigial racial hatred, dislike, distrust and general all
around suspicion still resident deep in the minds of many potential older voters
in this country. They are both Black and White, - and they're not all in the
deep South.
So no matter the outcome of this primary season, that hidden and buried
resentment may be registered within the anonymity of the voting booth this
coming November - like it or not. Some may refer to the possible reaction as -
getting even. The rest of us prefer to view the backfire reaction in more
realistic terms, such as - the biased will of the people: commonly
referred to as - Democracy in Action. |