Oration & Public Discourse on 'Race'

Part II. 'Race' Within the Political Sphere

The topic of Obama, his pastor and Obama’s speech on 'race', in the media had quieted. That is until Hillary took the opportunity at a Pittsburgh news conference - she had stayed silent on the touchy subject, however, when the question was posed she addressed it rather than saying it is unfortunate, and then move on. Later, she replied at a news conference reading from prepared notes.

I have already raised two questions here. First, why should Hillary Clinton avoid discussing the issue (especially when I just espoused, why we need to talk about it more.)? Secondly, what is at risk when a politician “takes sides” on a matter that reaches beyond the surface of a “what is right and what is wrong debate”?

The foremost reason why Hillary should stay off the subject is her motives. She suffers from “campaign convolution”. Her motive is to spell political disaster for Obama. "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor…” says Hillary, her remarks almost sound childish, too impish to be dealing with a subject that bares the weight of the conscience of American people. She should have resisted the temptation to use this to her political advantage, instead she would forsake a serious matter in order to grab votes.

The politics of tactics should never be the tactics of politics,

it is morally and civilly wrong. Had she denied to comment on the situation - her silence acknowledging that further antagonistic commentary could prove to be unsound political tactics for an America that desperately needs to come together - Hillary may have garnered much more respect in that form. Her objective is not to understand the situation, but to scheme away to use it to her advantage. Once again Hillary Clinton has given us another shining example of her polarizing practices.

The votes she would gain in this particular situation are the votes of white people who are on the line about actually voting for a black man. She might just as well say, “Don’t vote for a black man, because deep down he doesn’t like you, just listen to what his Pastor preached.” Her comparison of Imus' remarks and the sermon clips of Wright only further helped to misinterpret the situation. The portrayal of Wright as this hate mongering black religious-militant harks back to the fear imbuing rhetoric of the Jim Crow Era.
Clinton's proselytistic design is to divide and conquer for her own personal success, rather than the success of society. She is jaded with desperation in her pursuit to win the democratic nomination - this is her campaign convolution. She is thick headed with lust for control.

Hillary is only addressing the outer layer of the subject. The matter, which lay beneath, is the issue of 'race' - not only the history or the Pastor Wright’s words, but the reality of how American’s feel about different 'races'. It is an issue that we stay away from because it is too hot to hold. Or we ice it for daily unity but the ice melts away and reveals the hotness. The debate; the reality that we have yet to put out the fire that heats the topic of “Race”. We haven’t dealt with the lasting influence, the enduring feelings, and as we stand under one flag and sit at the same counter, and pray with and marry at the same church, we are still divided. We are divided deep within. We are tolerant but not understanding. We are aware of the issue and entwined with avoidance. This is the American way; we are passive aggressive to a fault and this is what Hillary forsakes.

Obama has opened the door, America has the opportunity to begin anew in an open public discourse in which our politicians are actively involved, functioning as they should – as leaders of our foray into the realm of the public “mind”. One candidate is looking for the opportunity to partition, while the other is searching for a path to unity.