Newsflash: Obama Says Issues Will Decide
Posted:
03/12/08
In a move that caught most of his more fervent supporters completely off guard, Obama declared today that substantive issues will decide the primary battle with Hillary Clinton:
Obama's retort was, of course, in response to the outrage surrounding Geraldine Ferraro's statement that Obama would not even be a serious candidate for the presidency if he were white. Does this comment make Geraldine Ferraro a racist? Oh my goodness, what a weird world we live in, when we have to cloak transparent verities to avoid becoming the victims of race-bating demagoguery. I'm not saying that it was smart for Gerry to say that as a Clinton surrogate. But purely on the merits, is the question disputable?
When they talk of Obama's ability to heal and bridge differences, is this anything other than code language for a black man who straddles the racial divide? I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing at all. I think it would be a very healthy thing -- all other things being equal -- to have a black president. It would be a healthy thing -- all else held equal -- to have a woman president.
Of course, all else is rarely truly held equal. And in this case, Obama's resume is so thin that only someone with the arrogance of, say, John Edwards, would presume to the presidency based upon it. Nor is Hillary's resume so impressive either. In fact, to be honest, Gerry should have picked up the other end of the stick, and admitted that she would not be a Hillary partisan herself if Hillary were not ... a woman. No mystery there either.
In any case, it's refreshing to hear Obama's commitment to running on substantive issues. Very much looking forward to the change.
UPDATE: Now I know why people are so reluctant to talk openly about this kind of thing. Many of the comments below from latter-day Archie Bunkers make me cringe and blanch. I do not endorse them, just for the record. but that doesn't change the fact that Ferraro was right, if tactless.
UPDATE II: Pete below makes a very well-reasoned comment suggesting that Obama does have policy substance on his web page. I expect he does. I think it has been a strategic decision to obscure his policy views, because they are so far out of the mainstream. You don't get rated the most liberal senator lightly, and you don't get elected if people know that you are. So while you, Pete, might be very comfortable with his substance, I don't think it is a coincidence that one must look for it to find it.
Democrat Barack Obama expressed frustration Wednesday that racial issues keep rising to the top of his presidential battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but he said the great majority of voters will base their decisions on substantive issues.Coming from a man whose sole substantive contribution to political discourse over the past year has been to remind us over and over and over that the did not vote for the Iraq war, this presents something of a challenge. Aides are, I expect, scrambling to define a substantive component for his campaign. Meanwhile, I expect that those who have come to rely on the warm fuzzies they get from his soaring rhetoric probably have little to fear. It will not be too difficult to work a little substance in amongst the "yes we can" chants and recitations of the Gettysburg address and the Declaration of Independence.
Obama's retort was, of course, in response to the outrage surrounding Geraldine Ferraro's statement that Obama would not even be a serious candidate for the presidency if he were white. Does this comment make Geraldine Ferraro a racist? Oh my goodness, what a weird world we live in, when we have to cloak transparent verities to avoid becoming the victims of race-bating demagoguery. I'm not saying that it was smart for Gerry to say that as a Clinton surrogate. But purely on the merits, is the question disputable?
When they talk of Obama's ability to heal and bridge differences, is this anything other than code language for a black man who straddles the racial divide? I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing at all. I think it would be a very healthy thing -- all other things being equal -- to have a black president. It would be a healthy thing -- all else held equal -- to have a woman president.
Of course, all else is rarely truly held equal. And in this case, Obama's resume is so thin that only someone with the arrogance of, say, John Edwards, would presume to the presidency based upon it. Nor is Hillary's resume so impressive either. In fact, to be honest, Gerry should have picked up the other end of the stick, and admitted that she would not be a Hillary partisan herself if Hillary were not ... a woman. No mystery there either.
In any case, it's refreshing to hear Obama's commitment to running on substantive issues. Very much looking forward to the change.
UPDATE: Now I know why people are so reluctant to talk openly about this kind of thing. Many of the comments below from latter-day Archie Bunkers make me cringe and blanch. I do not endorse them, just for the record. but that doesn't change the fact that Ferraro was right, if tactless.
UPDATE II: Pete below makes a very well-reasoned comment suggesting that Obama does have policy substance on his web page. I expect he does. I think it has been a strategic decision to obscure his policy views, because they are so far out of the mainstream. You don't get rated the most liberal senator lightly, and you don't get elected if people know that you are. So while you, Pete, might be very comfortable with his substance, I don't think it is a coincidence that one must look for it to find it.