Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama, Ferraro, Race & the Democrats

Last week, Geraldine Ferraro chose to resign from the Clinton campaign after she made these remarks in an interview with the Daily Breeze:

"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."

The outrage from the Obama campaign and his supporters was deafening, so Ferraro retreated.

Now, let's contrast that with what Obama has said about himself. From a 2005 Chicago Tribune article that appears on Obama's senate site:

Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

Compare and contrast.


Have a look at what Obama supporters John Kerry and Clair McCaskill have to say about Obama being a black candidate. Will they be thrown off the train next? Of course not.
(h/t marisacat)

The extreme hyperbole, hysteria and candidate protectionism in this Democratic nomination race has reached epic proportions on the left that I thought I'd only ever see from the right. I was wrong.

While the media have pondered whether America is ready for a black or female president, the real question they should be asking is whether Democrats are ready for either one of those possibilities. From the vile behaviour I've seen in the so-called "progressive" blog community (and the MSM), which too often consists of lies, distortions, personal attacks, and assumptions in order to prop up one candidate over another, my conclusion is that the answer to that question is "no".

It seems that "progressives", who have long been grumbling about the right's dirty tricks a la Karl Rove, have absolutely no qualms about adopting those same tactics against their own. The one reality they seem to miss is that the Republicans are light years ahead of them when it comes to unity based on discipline. Without question, we've all seen how the right has taken that belief to the extreme, but there's no denying that this strategy has worked for them. Meanwhile, Democrats are tearing their party apart - in the name of what, exactly? Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as the saying goes? That's what it looks like from here.

But, I'm not a Democrat (I'm a small "L", independent Canadian liberal) and I don't support any of the remaining candidates, so I'll just continue to bang my head against the wall as I cringe at the display of simple principles like truth and logic being thrown out the window by the so-called American left which is supporting two centrist candidates while they promise that everything will be better tomorrow, or next month or next year.

Whatever happened to MLK's "fierce urgency of now"?

Democrats have the "fierce" part down pat. What they're missing is the action required "now".

Democrats may win in spite of themselves but, what then?

No comments:

Post a Comment