In the news cycle right now we hear about a comment Senator Obama said that was apparently offensive to women and an aid to Senator McCain said about a terrorist attack and the death of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.
In both of these instances, in fairness to the candidates, we really need to think about the road we are heading toward.
Sources at the Congressional Black Caucus meeting last week said that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, a Clinton supporter, expressed the desire that Obama and his campaign would reach out the millions of women still aggrieved about what happened in the campaign and still disappointed that Clinton lost.
According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, “However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I’m running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”
So now the big issue is those last three words “get over it”. This is what I’m talking about people. Any rational human being can see that Obama was not saying women should get over it. In fact, it was brought up to him that Clinton supporters were having a hard time embracing him and his response was simply that once they see the policy differences that should help them with ease over the pain.
This is the crap that is going on. Those who say they are offended must have an agenda. How can someone look at that entire statement and only see “get over it” boggles the mind. He said what everyone else is saying and what we all know. Compared to John McCain his policies which are typical Democratic party platform ideas are basically the same as Clinton’s if not the same, and once women look at the policy differences they will begin to feel better about supporting Obama even though their candidate lost.
Then we have the “controversy” surrounding Senator McCain:
A top adviser to John McCain Charlie Black, already in the spotlight for his past lobbying work, is quoted in the upcoming July 7 edition of Fortune magazine as saying a terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.” Black is also quoted as saying the “unfortunate event” of the assassination of former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 “helped us.”
Where’s the controversy? Come on people, we all know by now that the Republican Party has been running on the strong national defense/foreign policy platform for years. Given the attacks on 9/11 and since then, Americans generally have unease and prefer a leader that has the appearance of being strong and being able to protect them. Which is why war-time Presidents hardly ever if ever loose re-elections. It’s a security factor. This is the facts and on any other given day, Democrats and others not belonging to the GOP would openly comment that these things strengthen Republican chances. The polls show that when Bhutto died it helped both Senator McCain and Clinton because of their perceived strength in possibly dealing with that situation if they were President. In fact, Clinton over and over reminded us of how she knew Bhutto as first lady and pictures of the two were looped for days. No one said a word. These are the facts.
Analysts have also openly commented about the effect of another terrorist attack or peace or disturbance in Iraq and how that would effect the parties and the candidates and on any other day, no one says a word.
But we have allowed ourselves to get so sensitive to these realities and often facts that anything can be used as a political weapon. It’s almost as if bottom feeders are looking for the next headline to make something out of nothing because someone is offended.
We never have the courage to deal with the facts, only feelings. We care more about how a given topic, words, etc. make people feel, versus whether these things were true or not.
I have several questions to clear the matter:
Are the Democratic Parties stances toward women’s issues historically more in favor than the Republicans? If so, does it not make sense that women who support Clinton but not Obama will be more willing to once they see that his policies are the same as Clinton’s?
Did the assassination of Benazir Bhutto giver Senator McCain and Clinton an advantage in the New Hampshire primary?
Do terrorist attacks poll better for Republicans versus Democrats?
The answers to these questions should yield the truth and point out how we are going too far.
Lastly, now we have Don Imus in the news again. Same situation. It’s quite obvious that Imus was being sarcastic and actually making a point that on any other given day, blacks would typically support. But given the delivery, people already jumped the gun and were ready to call for his head.
The question is:
Did Don Imus truly know the color of the football player in question?
Of course he did, as such it should be obvious that he was making a point that because the athlete is black that he is catching unnecessary flak, but maybe it’s just me, judge for yourselves.
My point, let’s all take a deep breath when we hear things and see if we can evaluate the truth of the argument. If it’s true accept it, if it’s not debate it, but don’t go making false claims and creating a stir because you don’t feel good about something.