Bookworm Room

God bless Geraldine Ferraro for pointing out the obvious, which is that a slightly corrupt, vapid (albeit intelligent) neophyte could never have risen as fast and as quickly as he did in politics if it hadn’t been for the fact that he has the skin color the media is looking for in a presidential candidate. Okay, that’s not quite right, because Bobby Jindal has almost precisely the same color, but was ignored to death by the media (something the voters, fortunately, themselves ignored). It’s not just skin color; it’s the correct racial pedigree, and Obama has it.

And thank you to the Wall Street Journal for pointing out that, while Obama claims to be a healer and a unifier, he has spent much of the campaign making his own race an issue, but refusing to let anyone else speak of it — itself a divisive act:

Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents?

In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that, “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.”

Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama’s skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy.

Back in January, the Obama campaign was on similarly shaky ground when it accused Mrs. Clinton of belittling Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that “it took a President” to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mrs. Clinton was stating a fact, not slighting King, and the context in which she uttered the statement made that perfectly clear.

We’re not suggesting that the Obama campaign has never been justified in crying foul over racially tinged remarks out of the Clinton camp. When Bill Clinton gratuitously invoked Jesse Jackson after Mr. Obama won the South Carolina primary, he was clearly trying to define the Senator’s victory in narrowly racial terms.

But for all of Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric about the nation’s need for a post-racial politics that “brings the American people together,” his campaign at times has seemed overly sensitive about race. It also seems to want it both ways. Mr. Obama claims that his brand of politics transcends race, but at the same time he’s using race as a shield to shut down important and legitimate arguments.

As for me, I’d have no problem with a President of any race, color or creed, provided that he (or she) satisfy my requirements for a president:  experienced; not corrupt; conservative; and able to recognize that, whether it is engaged in War with Jews, Christians or the West generally, Islam is a dangerous religion that needs to be taken seriously and tamed.   I do not want to have foisted upon me a President who is inexperienced, corrupt and ridiculous liberal (with everything that implies), not because people are voting for those qualities, but because people have been flim-flammed into believing that, if they don’t vote for such a man, they will be racists.

Tags: African-Americans, Barack Obama, Racism

Trackback URI | Comments RSS