Oh I know the stock answer, that being that he is the first black presidential candidate.  Well half black anyway. 

So yea, I get the point that he has done what no one else has done.  But so did Hillary.  We had history on either hand.   

A friend of mine (call him Alpha), wondered about this, and posed this challenge:

Here’s a thought experiment for those who want to debate the question of “media bias” — and I’m not saying anyone should, but anyhoo.

For all the headlines that say “Obama makes history” and the like, would we have seen an equal number of headlines that said “Clinton makes history” if a few hundred delegates had gone the other way?

My instinct?  No.  I think the hype over the Obamassiah has been much more geared and glorified by his race.

First black presidential nominee, first female presidential nominee — they’re equally historic, are they not?

I personally think they are.  In fact Hillary herself made that point in a speech a while back.  I find it interesting that she recognizes the accomplishment of her rival but gets no return recognition.

Then again, in fairness, one could always say that a woman *has* been nominated for the *vice*-presidency before, way back in 1984.

But then again again, one could always argue that Obama, like Halle Berry etc., is only *half*-black — or less, in his case, if we define “black” as something other than skin colour, e.g. if we defined it as being descended from a certain segment of the American population; it was, indeed, Obama’s insecurities about not being “black enough” that drove him to associate with the extremist types at Trinity United in the first place, was it not?  Clinton, on the other hand, is all woman.

Anyway.  History has been made, as we knew it would, one way or the other.

I think that is not the same.  First, she was picked and essentially handed the nomination.  Say what you like about Hillary, but she fought long and hard for her campaign.

Another friend of mine we shall call Beta posted this in response:

Been thinking about this, and I’m inclined to say they are not equally historic.   I think perhaps it might be *more* historic if a woman were nominated.  Female’s after all are not a minority.   That indicates to me that we should have nominated one earlier.    The fact that we nominated a black (a minority) before a woman (not a minority, in fact a majority) might actually say something about us.

Food for thought.

Alpha followed up with:

 Ooooooh, interesting point.

And of course, there are probably still women alive today who can remember when women didn’t have the vote (the 19th Amendment, which gave women the vote, was passed 88 years ago), whereas there is no one alive today who remembers when racial minorities didn’t have the vote (the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was passed 143 years ago, and the 15th Amendment,  which guaranteed the right to vote, was passed 138 years ago).

Jim Crow laws in parts  of the country notwithstanding, of course.

More food for thought.

My take on the Ferraro aspect, is that Ferraro is openly admitting of the fact that she was indeed picked for her gender, and essentially she was a convenient tool to try and gain some traction in what they saw as a hopeless election.

One might be more accurate to note that placing her in such a lopsided situation was essentially using her as cannon fodder in a winless fight.  She was never really given a chance.

Alpha ended with this:

Can we move on now, and get back to judging candidates — and people in general — by their character, their words, and their deeds?

One would hope.  But the Obama campaign, perhaps not the man, but his followers, staffers and workers, seem intent on shielding him with the race card.

Put simply, anything we do criticize about his character, words, and deeds will be filtered through racial glasses, and not only dismissed, but the critic castigated as a racist for even suggesting it.

Don’t believe me?  Here are two recent examples.

The first is from a local liberal blog:

Reichert: Obama “will steal money out of your wallets”

Last week’s performance at the Washington State Republican Convention wasn’t the first time Rep. Dave Reichert laughed at the thought of Hillary Clinton plummeting to her death from an airplane; as the TNT’s Niki Sullivan reported back in March, he delivered the same “joke” before the Pierce County Republicans at their annual Lincoln Day Breakfast in Tacoma. But that wasn’t the congressman’s only questionable quip of the day:

At one point in the speech, he reminded people that Barack Obama may seem friendly and electable, but he’s a liberal, “and he will steal money out of your wallets and purses.”

The crowd was silent.

So… a famously former sheriff warns the crowd that a black man is going to steal their wallets? Yeah, I can imagine the stunned silence. (Though personally, I always cross the street whenever I see Barack Obama coming toward me on a sidewalk. You can never be too careful.)

So in his post, Goldy has italicized the word Black for special emphasis:  So… a famously former sheriff warns the crowd that a black man is going to steal their wallets?

The clear implication is that Goldy is claiming Reichert said that because Obama is black and only for that reason.  Not because he is a tax and spend liberal, which he is.

The real problem here is Goldy viewing this through racial glasses, and the criticism was made racist for convenience, rather then fight the assertion of liberalism

My second example is this one:

Florida GOP Circulates Mock-Up of Castro Touting Obama

“(Miami, FL) A Doctored photo of Fidel Castro holding a Barack Obama poster, stating “I love this guy”, is being circulated by the Republican party of Florida, opening old wounds of racial tension in our state.”

Considering Castro partially endorsed him, it isn’t even all that outrageous, but there again we see the racial aspect coming front and center, though this time the implication may be that Cubans or Hispanics and Obama may be the target.

Perhaps it is.  The point that Castro endorsed Obama is lost behind the accusation.

This has been the near constant tactic of his campaign.  Challenge his economic policy?  Well it must be because you don’t think a black man can understand higher economics.  Etc ad naseum.

Obama’s campaign has long rejected the notion brought up by Ferraro that his race is a serious factor to his nomination.  Yet every time he is criticized, they seem to find his race to be a way to deflect it.

You can’t have it both ways.  If he got the nomination because of his strength of character and his qualifications, then you must allow those to be the basis on which he is challenged.

Trackposted to ST, The Pink Flamingo, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, , Democrat=Socialist, Woman Honor Thyself, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS