What goes around certainly does come around. The first black president’s wife isn’t black enough to be immune from charges of bigotry.
Isn’t it delicious?
I am, of course, speaking of the recent Democrat race war.
Now, let’s be fair. When Hillary Clinton praised Lyndon Johnson for signing the Civil Rights Act, she wasn’t subordinating Martin Luther King to him, nor do her husband’s initials suddenly stand for Bull Connor because he likened Obama’s policies to a fairytale (what was the big deal? Was he questioning Obama’s sexuality?). There were no racial overtones.
That’s the beauty of it.
The Clintons have long been proud members of the politically-correct thought police, playing the race card, dividing one American against another, seizing upon opportunities to cast opponents as bigots. Their ilk never shy away from playing pin the racial tale on the honky, claiming that traditionalist criticism of black figures, even when legitimate, is racism. It’s a good way to silence opponents who you can’t actually beat in debates.
Hillary also didn’t shrink from playing the sexism card in this campaign, talking about the “all-boys club” after she came under scrutiny in that Democrat debate a while back. It sure was convenient then.
Because of such people, many Americans walk on eggs, knowing that breaking one means the Imus treatment is nigh. Because of such people, many other Americans – mainly black folks – have become paranoid, believing that you’ll know when a white person is being racist because his lips will be moving.
This atmosphere has claimed many victims, such as scientist James Watson, sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, Rush Limbaugh (Jim McNabb comment), and Washington, D.C., official David Howard (used the word “niggardly”). But, just occasionally, this miasma extracts tribute from those who helped spew it. Bill Clinton was the first black president; now he’s as white as a sheet overnight. It’s poetic.
But, in this presidential race, the person most hurt by this political correctness isn’t Madame Clinton. Rather, it’s John Edwards, Little Boy Sue himself.
While many talk about how his presidential aspirations are in vain, no one explains why. After all, he has greater “experience” than Clinton, the youthful bearing and oratory of Obama, and believability as an agent of change. Not only that, he was within a hair’s breadth of the vice-presidency four years ago. So why is he almost just an asterisk in this campaign?
It’s because his resume lacks a prerequisite: Sufficient melanin content or an XX chromosome configuration.
Our nation in general and the Democrat constituency in particular has an affirmative-action mentality. This is why we’re in the midst of a frenzy over two very empty vessels. The media won’t talk about it much, but millions of citizens would love to be part of history in electing the first woman or “black” president. Most of these people don’t really understand what policies are advocated by these two politicians, and they don’t care. The packaging – female or multiracial – is pleasing enough to the politically-correct eye to blind them to other concerns. Thoroughly imbued with a fashionable prejudice, they just believe that somehow, some way, having a member of a certain group in office will make America a land of sweetness and light.
So that’s our state in 2008. Clinton can’t criticize Obama because political correctness makes it perilous to attack blacks; he can’t criticize her because political correctness makes it risky to hit girls. Neither will criticize John Edwards because political correctness has made him irrelevant. They’ve created a monster they can’t control. I only wish it could consume them all.Powered by Sidelines