This Democratic primary season has been defined by nothing more than heavy media involvement. The lastest results are broken down, analyzed in unnecessary detail, spun heavier than an Ayn Rand yarn. Did you know that people over 60 who are white, uneducated, like Hershey bars, prefer Coke to Pepsi, and take showers in the morning instead of the evening tend to vote for Hillary Clinton? And that minorities with college education and a taste for grape drink tend to side with Barack Obama? But that isn't racist or anything because the demographics back it up. Right?
But it isn't the press I'm worried about. Their love for ratings fuels the excessive analysis and spin put these statistics on the air. I'm more disappointed at Senator Clinton resorting to these demographics in her dogged pursuit of the nomination. After barely pulling of a victory in Indiana and losing handily in North Carolina, the New York senator's hopes for becoming nominee have dwindled to almost nothing. As a response, her campaign has increasingly pointed out the disparity in the voting demographics. Apparently, Senator Obama can't win the old white middle class, uneducated vote. But that's not racist because the demographics back it up.
I don't think so Hillary. This is stark racism. The Clinton machine has resorted to the underhanded tactic of playing the subtle racial divide that pervades American culture. They are saying, "America won't vote for a black man as their president." What is more disappointing is that the "Obama-biased" press does nothing to report on this blatant racism. Maybe they think that playing the discrimination card will alienate even more white voters from supporting Obama in November. And that could very well be the case. But we should at least expose Hillary for what she is becoming: A desperate politician who is willing to destroy her party's chances at winning the White House for nothing more than what she views as her manifest destiny.
Is this the audacity of hopelessness that America deserves in its next president? Do we want someone who has the gall to determine that America isn't ready for a minority president? This is the same candidate who, apparently, runs on the premise that women are equally qualified to win the White House as men are. I'm not contesting this proposition. But it is interesting to note that a candidate who fights for equal recognition is simultaneously undermining another candidate trying to achieve something equally as historic.
Senator Clinton's campaign has been mired with cynicism from day one. She'll be great cynic from day one if elected. It's policies reflect the thinking of generations passed. One that divides the world into enemies and friends. One that hasn't understood the dynamics of the 21st century and has led America to lose the moral authority it once used to wield in the name of Pax Americana. It is the campaign that went from being the presumptive nominee to being the squabbling loser in a matter of months while squandering unlimited resources and establishment goodwill. Do we need another president that is efficient at losing favor and wasting resources?
It is time for the Democrats to lower the hammer. The party has been plagued for being too soft in the past. The lost the 2004 election because they didn't propose a different foreign policy that differed from the Republicans. They have traditionally been looked at as bleeding heart politicians who don't have the wits to protect this country in times of need. This squabble between candidates and refusal by party leadership to do anything about it only furthers that perception. If the Democrats can't bring their house to order, then how can we expect them to bring the United States to order? The party needs to show leadership and force Clinton to drop out. The earlier the nominee is determined, the more time the Democrats have to rebuild their coalition and establish a sense of solidarity as they make a historic push for the White House. The time for half measures and talk are at an end.
But it isn't the press I'm worried about. Their love for ratings fuels the excessive analysis and spin put these statistics on the air. I'm more disappointed at Senator Clinton resorting to these demographics in her dogged pursuit of the nomination. After barely pulling of a victory in Indiana and losing handily in North Carolina, the New York senator's hopes for becoming nominee have dwindled to almost nothing. As a response, her campaign has increasingly pointed out the disparity in the voting demographics. Apparently, Senator Obama can't win the old white middle class, uneducated vote. But that's not racist because the demographics back it up.
I don't think so Hillary. This is stark racism. The Clinton machine has resorted to the underhanded tactic of playing the subtle racial divide that pervades American culture. They are saying, "America won't vote for a black man as their president." What is more disappointing is that the "Obama-biased" press does nothing to report on this blatant racism. Maybe they think that playing the discrimination card will alienate even more white voters from supporting Obama in November. And that could very well be the case. But we should at least expose Hillary for what she is becoming: A desperate politician who is willing to destroy her party's chances at winning the White House for nothing more than what she views as her manifest destiny.
Is this the audacity of hopelessness that America deserves in its next president? Do we want someone who has the gall to determine that America isn't ready for a minority president? This is the same candidate who, apparently, runs on the premise that women are equally qualified to win the White House as men are. I'm not contesting this proposition. But it is interesting to note that a candidate who fights for equal recognition is simultaneously undermining another candidate trying to achieve something equally as historic.
Senator Clinton's campaign has been mired with cynicism from day one. She'll be great cynic from day one if elected. It's policies reflect the thinking of generations passed. One that divides the world into enemies and friends. One that hasn't understood the dynamics of the 21st century and has led America to lose the moral authority it once used to wield in the name of Pax Americana. It is the campaign that went from being the presumptive nominee to being the squabbling loser in a matter of months while squandering unlimited resources and establishment goodwill. Do we need another president that is efficient at losing favor and wasting resources?
It is time for the Democrats to lower the hammer. The party has been plagued for being too soft in the past. The lost the 2004 election because they didn't propose a different foreign policy that differed from the Republicans. They have traditionally been looked at as bleeding heart politicians who don't have the wits to protect this country in times of need. This squabble between candidates and refusal by party leadership to do anything about it only furthers that perception. If the Democrats can't bring their house to order, then how can we expect them to bring the United States to order? The party needs to show leadership and force Clinton to drop out. The earlier the nominee is determined, the more time the Democrats have to rebuild their coalition and establish a sense of solidarity as they make a historic push for the White House. The time for half measures and talk are at an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment