Sunday, January 13, 2008
Are the ‘Racial Gloves’ off in the Presidential Campaign?
Stirring speeches are being given, rousing debates are being held, well-timed tears are being shed (to show a candidate’s “human” side). Sounds good, but…
Have the Clintons misstepped on the racial front? They’re walking a fine line in their campaign for the Democratic nomination against Obama. How do they point out his failings as a contender without offending their base of black voters?
Not very well, judging by recent headlines like this one on Drudge (12 January 2008):
Clinton camp hits Obama Attacks 'painful' for black voters...
The real dilemma? According to the above article, it’s this: Do black voters who have supported the Clintons through two terms as President now get “drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency”? It seems to depend on the age of the voter, with younger black voters going to Obama and older black voters hanging in there with the Clintons, generally speaking.
Actually, the dilemma is: Why are we looking at a candidate’s “group identity” (female, black, southern, Irish descent, young, old, cute, well-groomed, bad hair, etc.) or anything similar?
When did we stop looking at who can sit across the table from people like Vladimir Putin, who was (and possibly still is) part of the old regime in the now-collapsed USSR? (Remember them? The Cold War? Atomic Bomb scares?) What about facing down Ahmadinejad-the-pipsqueak-Iranian, the nation of Pakistan, and Islamic terrorists? (Nuclear threat in the hands of people who call us “infidels” who should be wiped off the face of the earth.) Giuliani certainly stood firm when New York City was ground zero for an attack on this country. Thompson comes across as a tough “hombre” who wouldn’t shrink from responding where appropriate. Even Huckabee showed backbone with his “be prepared to see the gates of Hell” remark during the South Carolina debate on FoxNews. While Clinton and Obama have both said they will yank our troops out of the Middle East virtually after taking the oath of office.
What about saying “No” loud and clear to the “gimme” crowd (“free” healthcare, government-run schools, welfare, amnesty for illegals invading this country, and on and on)? That same debate showed only one candidate who had that kind of backbone: Ron Paul. (Of course, he’s also no slouch on defending us against aggressors.) While Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are promising healthcare “free” for all (except for that pesky little matter of higher taxes to pay for it and the virtual enslavement of every healthcare provider in this country to anyone with a hangnail).
Who cares if a candidate is male, female, old, young, yada…yada…yada…? Let’s not get distracted from what is really important to this country and which Presidential candidate will be able to stand tall (figuratively speaking) in the White House and to the world. We don’t need more hijab-wearing, Islamic pandering politicians. Pelosi is enough.
Now, who has the best wardrobe…that’s important! Pantsuit, anyone?
Copyright © 2008 A.C. Cargill
Have the Clintons misstepped on the racial front? They’re walking a fine line in their campaign for the Democratic nomination against Obama. How do they point out his failings as a contender without offending their base of black voters?
Not very well, judging by recent headlines like this one on Drudge (12 January 2008):
Clinton camp hits Obama Attacks 'painful' for black voters...
The real dilemma? According to the above article, it’s this: Do black voters who have supported the Clintons through two terms as President now get “drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency”? It seems to depend on the age of the voter, with younger black voters going to Obama and older black voters hanging in there with the Clintons, generally speaking.
Actually, the dilemma is: Why are we looking at a candidate’s “group identity” (female, black, southern, Irish descent, young, old, cute, well-groomed, bad hair, etc.) or anything similar?
When did we stop looking at who can sit across the table from people like Vladimir Putin, who was (and possibly still is) part of the old regime in the now-collapsed USSR? (Remember them? The Cold War? Atomic Bomb scares?) What about facing down Ahmadinejad-the-pipsqueak-Iranian, the nation of Pakistan, and Islamic terrorists? (Nuclear threat in the hands of people who call us “infidels” who should be wiped off the face of the earth.) Giuliani certainly stood firm when New York City was ground zero for an attack on this country. Thompson comes across as a tough “hombre” who wouldn’t shrink from responding where appropriate. Even Huckabee showed backbone with his “be prepared to see the gates of Hell” remark during the South Carolina debate on FoxNews. While Clinton and Obama have both said they will yank our troops out of the Middle East virtually after taking the oath of office.
What about saying “No” loud and clear to the “gimme” crowd (“free” healthcare, government-run schools, welfare, amnesty for illegals invading this country, and on and on)? That same debate showed only one candidate who had that kind of backbone: Ron Paul. (Of course, he’s also no slouch on defending us against aggressors.) While Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are promising healthcare “free” for all (except for that pesky little matter of higher taxes to pay for it and the virtual enslavement of every healthcare provider in this country to anyone with a hangnail).
Who cares if a candidate is male, female, old, young, yada…yada…yada…? Let’s not get distracted from what is really important to this country and which Presidential candidate will be able to stand tall (figuratively speaking) in the White House and to the world. We don’t need more hijab-wearing, Islamic pandering politicians. Pelosi is enough.
Now, who has the best wardrobe…that’s important! Pantsuit, anyone?
Copyright © 2008 A.C. Cargill
Labels: campaign, clinton, giuliani, obama, presidential, ron paul, thompson
