Ok, I need to get this off my chest.
Geraldine Ferraro was right.
I can't believe the furor her comments have generated. She was right, and the freak out about her comments proves it.
She never said Barak Obama wasn't qualified. She never said he wouldn't be a good president. She simply pointed out, that just like herself, he is being held up for office simply because of his race, or in her case, gender. The only reason she was a VP candidate was because of her gender. Did that mean she wasn't qualified? No. The timing was right and the mood of the country was rife to choose a non traditional candidate. The same thing here. If he had run eight, or even four years ago, would there have been the same support? If he ran this time, and Hillary hadn't, would he have had a chance?
The huge movement behind Barak Obama seems to me to be fueled on reverse racism. See how progressive we are? Aren't we proud, pat ourselves on the back, we can support a BaaaLack Man for President! Whoo hoo, ain't we terrific? And heaven forbid anyone criticize Saint Obama; they must be racist!
Don't get me wrong; I feel the same about Hillary. If she wasn't a woman, I'm not sure she'd be all that right now either. I think the country is so anti-politician right now that we're looking for the direct opposite of George W, and we just can't decide if that's a white woman, or a black man.
Either Barak or Hillary have the potential to be good presidents. They're both smart, thoughtful, reasonably liberal people. We were blessed this cycle to have MANY excellent candidates from all walks of life to choose from, though the media forced out my own personal first choices. I have yet to make up my mind, since Edwards and Kucinich were trashed. Personally, I loathe the fact that Hillary has decided to take the low road in campaigning. It's completely turning me off and making me lean towards Obama. But for heaven's sake people; are we really so relieved that there's a candidate that can put two words together in a facsimile of a gramatical sentence that all else is forgotten? Does the fact that he's black mean that nothing he says or does can be questioned? Both of them still have a lot to prove to me.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Open Mouth, Insert Foot - Politics Rant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Um, WHAT?
I don't think the folks in Wyoming and Missouri and other states patted themselves on the back for supporting a "black" candidate. It seems to me that some of these folks were fine with Obama when he didn't seem "black". (I had a conservative colleague" tell me "He's NOT really African-American" meaning (I think) that in his mind Obama doesn't fit into the cultural stereotype) Once these people were able to connect Obama with Rev. Wright, someone who fits the stereotype a bit better, they jumped ship in a hurry.
I was very lukewarm on Obama initially. But after I read his first book (Written without much political ambition) and saw the complexity and depth he brings to issues first hand, I became more of a supporter. When I started watching the primaries and saw the amazing potential he has to motivate people with his words, I was even more enthused. After the speech on race, I am 100% there. It's so rare and refreshing politicians to risk talking to people like grown-ups and with depth and complexity.
I could support Clinton: If, by some miracle, she won the general election, we'd have 4 years of US vs THEM politics, Republican demonizing and Democratic finger pointing and not much else. I mean, Can anyone galvanize Republican opposition like Hillary Clinton?
Or I could take a leap of faith and hope-- slim as that possibility might be-- that Barrack Obama might just change the tone enough to pull Washington out of the power games enough to DO something. It's not likely but I'd rather give him a chance than accept nastiness and fingerpointing as the status quo.
If Obama were a white guy with the same amazing speaking skills and intelligence and message, he'd have sown up Ohio and Texas and everywhere else. (The trouble with Edwards and Kucinich wasn't their RACE or their MESSAGE but the tone and delivery of that message.)
I have to agree lately with parts of your comment. I'm really leaning towards Obama now. I did think his "race" speech was brilliant, and Hillary's tactics are getting meaner and nastier and more Republican! And her corporate support really concerns me.
Kucinich and Edwards were forced out not so much for their tone, I think, as for their message. They're so anti-corporate and anti-media that the MSM couldn't let them succeed. Kucinich in particular told too much truth. Can't tell the truth unless you make it really funny...
I voted for Kucinich last primary (The one with Kerry) And yes, I think he does speak truth. But I couldn't see him being able to DO anything even if he was elected. He couldn't rally folks enough to force any change. People MUST be up in arms about all this stuff if it is ever going to change, and I don't think Kucinich could get that kind response. A president can only combat these entrenched corporate interests with the power of the a very vocal public-- Congresspeople won't risk much unless they have to.
Thanks for your kind comments on my blog. We aren't all the way there with the sustainable lifestyle, but we are learning a lot in the process. (And we moved from the South Shore too: Weymouth!)
Perri
Post a Comment