This site focuses on
one issue: racial inequality. It does not endorse or oppose any party or
This website is always under construction please
email me relevant links
related to any of the candidates or to race and racism and the election.
Anthony Asadullah Samad, PhD
The media “spin” has been absolutely incredible since Hillary Clinton’s
“comeback” wins last Tuesday in Ohio and Texas. Can somebody explain to
me how a net four (4) gains in delegates represents a comeback? Never
mind that Barack Obama is still between 110 and 150 delegates ahead (depending
on whose estimate you believe). Never mind that 45 Super-delegates have
committed to Barack since the purported Coronation day (February 5th)
while Hillary has lost six (a 51 delegate swing). Never mind that Barack
has won Wyoming and Mississippi since then and will win more delegates
than Hillary will on “Pennsylvania Day” in April. The media is determined
to make a run of the Democratic nomination despite the obvious. What is
the obvious (since the media does a damn good job of helping lose sight)?
First, that Obama is winning this nomination. Second, that Clinton cannot
catch him before the convention. Three, that Obama is the most electable
Despite the effort to convolute the obvious, never have you witnessed
so much hyperbole about a comeback in a race that was fixed from the start.
What was once an inevitable set-up to elect Clinton has turned into an
inability on the part of Barack to “put her away,” if you let the mainstream
media tell it. Three months ago, this wasn’t even supposed to be a race.
Now it’s a “dog-fight” until June. It threatens to split the convention,
and the Democrats who, once again, threaten to shoot themselves in both
feet, limp into the general election against a clearly inferior Republican
opponent, where they might lose. All because they are not willing to acknowledge
the inevitable, that a political neophyte has captured the imagination
of the nation - and the public seems willing to take a chance on him.
Just what does Barack have to do to win (besides the winning that he’s
already doing)? I can’t help but think what the conversation would be
if the shoe were on the other foot. It certainly would be much different
than the discourse now.
If the shoe were on the other foot, could you imagine Hilary winning
eleven in a row after Super Tuesday (and the whole primary season was
set up for Barack to be the Democrat’s nominee), and 29 out of 42 contests,
and the media (much less the half of the Democrat Party) suggesting that
Barack still had a chance to win the nomination (or even take the lead).
The story would most certainly be, “why is Barack dragging this out when
he knows he can’t win?” There appears to be a double standard here on
who’s dividing the party in how much string the party is willing to give
Hillary to pull herself up, versus how much time they’re willing to give
Barack to stumble. That’s appears to be the expectation. The “wait until
tomorrow” strategy has failed twice and the Democrats are still listening
to it. That wouldn’t be the case if Barack was in Hillary’s fix.
If the shoe were on the other foot, could you imagine Barack making an
issue out of his opponent’s experience when his experience is about the
same (or less - if you assess legislative experience)? Moreover, could
you imagine Barack making a case for most of his experience being tied
to his spouse’s experience without having a shred of proof that it was
truly his experience. It’s called the benefit of the doubt and someone
seems to be getting aplenty. It has framed the differences in the candidates
If the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama were losing, could you
imagine Barack being able to (credibly) change the rules in the middle
of the primaries as they relate to Michigan and Florida, after agreeing
to hold them out for moving up their primary? Moreover, could you even
imagine Hillary agreeing to it, knowing it would cut into or evaporate
her lead? The integrity of the Democrat Party hinges on how they handle
this, but clearly it’s a no-win for the party, a win-lose for Barack (he’ll
win on the party unity tip for agreeing to it, but lose a part of his
lead in the process) and a win-win for Hillary (who gets another chance
to claim one last grab at the power seat). The world would have come down
on Obama if he had ever suggested going back on his word. They’re already
banging on him on his promises at public campaign financing (not expecting
him to be a money machine) and his Iraq pullout plan. Yet, nobody seems
to care about the promise that was made to which everybody knew the Democrats
couldn’t hold. Voter disfranchisement is the cry.
Speaking of crying, if the shoe were on the other foot, would Obama have
ever been able to make a media bias claim without seeming like a whiner
(at worse) or race-baiter (at best). There is a media bias toward Obama
(as it relates to his record, his religion and his experience) but it’s
part of the game of being “black in America.” Hilary gets the news because
she makes the news, meaning she has to make things happen (make claims,
say things) to stay in the news. So when they get the first chance to
ask her about many of her controversial and unfounded statements, she
cries about always getting the first question (or the hard questions).
If Obama had never been “vetted” as Hillary claims, he never would have
gotten the lead in this campaign. It’s clear the Hillary camp didn’t find
anything on him and so they picked at what Barack did well, his speaking
and presentation. Trust me, if Hillary spoke better and appeared as authentic
as Barack, the “fancy speeches” and empty promises claims wouldn’t make
the news. When has how a candidate speaks and
their sincerity ever become negative campaign issues? Most people call
those attributes - Bill Clinton has them (charisma and [some] authenticity).
But when it comes to Barack, Hillary calls them flaws and the media calls
her criticisms of Obama legitimate. They are not but the discussion gets
ratings, so the media floats it.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama were losing, could you
imagine Barack demanding consideration for Vice President, even though
he’s the “dream” in the dream ticket scenario and hasn’t suggested it
even once. Now that it has become obvious that Texas and Ohio didn’t produce
the outcome Hillary thought it would, she’s trying to open the door for
another option. Clinton is not only bold enough to suggest that there
won’t be a ticket without her, she’s even audacious enough to suggest
that Obama should consider taking the Vice President spot even though
he’s the frontrunner. Problem is, she needs him but he doesn’t need her
and we’ve seen this scenario before. Twenty years ago, when Jesse Jackson
created a new excitement in the party, registered two million new voters
and amassed over 1,200 delegates (more than Hillary has now and slightly
less than she’s projected to get, as both are expected to split the remaining
600 delegates), Jesse claimed that he earned a place on the ticket and
Michael Dukakis (and the Democrat Party) ignored him. Yet, twenty years
later, Clinton (and the Democrat Party) find
themselves in the same situation and hoping Obama bows to media pressure.
Clinton, on the other hand, is bowing to nothing other than her own personal
interest. It’s now or never for her.
Obama is expected to save a party that won’t save itself. Finally, the
Democrat Party has a candidate that is believable, credible and can win.
Only he wasn’t the “anointed one,” so he has to defend the obvious - his
freshness, his authenticity, his winning - all things that make for a
successful candidacy. I can’t help but wonder if these winning attributes
would even be called into question and whether the issues being raised
by Clinton (experience, authenticity/credibility, winning from behind,
the Vice Presidency) would be issues if the shoe were on the other foot.
Copyright @ 2008
Vernellia Randall. All Rights Reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment,
background information, research and/or educational purposes only,
without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use"
provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be
distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright