By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
Like senior citizens stampeding into a restaurant for the Early Bird Special, commentators are falling all over each other in trying to declare that the Obama speech on race was the best speech since the Gettysburg Address, or at least since their Bar Mitzvah speeches, usually begun, “Today I am a fountain pen ...” or perhaps now it should read “computer.”
The speech, however, was brilliant for a different reason. He gave a speech about race when race was not the issue. It would be like President Bush addressing Congress and making a speech about crabgrass.
The issue was Obama’s nitwit pastor. His sermons – inconveniently for him (and Obama) videotaped – ran the spectrum from hateful “Goddam the United States” to the ridiculous – America caused the AIDS epidemic, to declaring that the Government was the cause of 9/11. Although Obama claimed he never actually heard the preacher say these disgusting words, it was rapidly becoming absurd for him to continue in that position, given the fact the pastor was his spiritual advisor, married him, baptized his children, counseled with him, and made these remarks to many thousands of people in his audience. The conservative press (as few as they may be), and conservative commentators were closing in. It was only a question of time before people would turn up who were sitting in the audience with him while the pastor was spewing his idiosyncrasies. He arrived at a brilliant solution – make a speech about something else before the rug is pulled out from under him and he would have to do a Spitzer.
The problem is that today race is not really a problem in America. The President of the largest entertainment conglomerate in America – Time Warner – is an African American, so is America’s leading talk show host. The highest non-elective post in America, Secretary of State, is filled by an African American who, incidentally, replaced another African American. All of this is not to mention that Obama himself has astounding popularity and has a lead in being his party’s nominee for President.
Obama has successfully, by his speech, deflected attention from a potentially lethal blow which reflects on a real issue – his judgment.
Obama seems to make a keystone issue that the major difference between he and Hillary is that he was opposed to the Iraq War from the start. So what! So was our brother-in-law. And neither he nor Obama was in the Senate at the time to vote for or against the War, and who knows what they would have done if they had all the information available to them as Senators.
Hillary says she is the candidate of experience because of her time in the White House. Experience doing what? Arranging flowers (as her recently released records revealed)? Experience being one step ahead of the Sheriff? Her just released records revealed that she was upstairs in the White House, while her husband was getting “Lewinskied” downstairs. Some person might ask the uncharitable question: How is she going to figure out what’s going on in the rest of the world, when she could not figure out what was going on downstairs in her own house?
The real question is: In a country that has so many talented people of all races and religions, in varying sizes, from giants to midgets, how did we end up with these two duds?
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Some Pieces of Our Minds
Jackie Mason and Raoul Lionel Felder
In all of the thousands of photographs of Hillary on the campaign trail she always appears wearing trousers - not even one photograph with her wearing a skirt. Not a peep on the subject from any commentator or member of the media. Yet, if on a particularly steamy day campaigning in Florida or Georgia, Senator McCain wore a skirt, it would be the major story on every media outlet. Is this fair?
There was, rightfully, outrage when an MSNBC commentator referred to Mrs. Clinton as “pimping” out her daughter. The comment was disgusting beyond disgusting, but the point attempted to be made, while foul in its expression, might be valid in its underlying concept. The exploitive use of a particular person in a way where that individual’s personae is connected to a cause when the person’s views or expertise is unilluminating or irrelevant on the issues, is worthy of note, in an appropriate manner (as opposed to what was done on MSNBC). Chelsea Clinton was paraded about not because of anything she could offer by way of sagacity in foreign or domestic affairs. Let us be frank: she was on the tour because it pointed out Hillary’s non-robotic side – that she also is a mother – something that hopefully would resonate with other mothers.
But to be fair: They all do this. The Edwards campaign exploited Mrs. Edwards’ cancer. President Bush had his half-Latino Spanish-speaking nephew working his campaign in areas where his speaking Spanish and his ethnicity would help him. Celebrity endorsements are just another – perhaps more remote – manifestation of this same sort of campaign strategy.
All of this is fair game for comment IF the commentary is couched in appropriate and non-offensive language. Worse would be a paralyzing fear that frightens us into silence – even when it involves legitimate observations.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign, is a mesmerizing speaker, and has captured the yearnings and hopes of millions of people. He has transcended, in his appeal, race, ethnicity, age and sex. But the fact is that he is experienced in running no enterprise and yet seeks to run the largest enterprise in the world. He is virtually inexperienced in government, domestic and certainly foreign policy – all of which should be at the heart of any president’s expertise – and yet the same could really be said of Lincoln, and to some degree Franklin Roosevelt. But somewhere, somehow, what Churchill referred to as “a little mouse of thought” must be considered: That is, if Obama were white, given his lack of experience, he would not be in the lead for his party’s nomination for President of the United States.
Commentators should have the intellectual honesty to note this, as well as the fact that it might be, in effect, a good thing. His candidacy, with all of his lack of experience stands as a stark contrast and home for those people who are fed up, or, to be charitable, disenchanted with Washington’s business-as-usual, and the usual group of subjects simply playing musical chairs in the running of this country. Credit must also be given him for not claiming experience when it does not really exist – which is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done. Her experience basically has been to sleep with the President (hardly a unique claim – at least for females under eighty years of age in the Washington area), become an enabler for the President to carry on with his extra-marital activities and, as all first ladies, arrange for the catering of State dinners – hardly fitting the job description for a President.
Nobody mentions the fact that senators, of both parties run for president and ask us for our support, money, effort and loyalty. But yet these same senators do not have enough faith in their own cause to quit their day job and leave the senate. Putting aside the fact that if they are running for president, they cannot put in full time to do their jobs in the Senate (for which we pay them), why should we have faith in them and give them our money when they hedge their bets? Would it not make more sense to say to them, “When you show me you believe in yourself and your cause to the extent you give up your other job, then we will support you”? Is there any business where you can say to your boss, “Keep paying me my full salary for two years while I spend my time looking for another job”?
In all of the thousands of photographs of Hillary on the campaign trail she always appears wearing trousers - not even one photograph with her wearing a skirt. Not a peep on the subject from any commentator or member of the media. Yet, if on a particularly steamy day campaigning in Florida or Georgia, Senator McCain wore a skirt, it would be the major story on every media outlet. Is this fair?
There was, rightfully, outrage when an MSNBC commentator referred to Mrs. Clinton as “pimping” out her daughter. The comment was disgusting beyond disgusting, but the point attempted to be made, while foul in its expression, might be valid in its underlying concept. The exploitive use of a particular person in a way where that individual’s personae is connected to a cause when the person’s views or expertise is unilluminating or irrelevant on the issues, is worthy of note, in an appropriate manner (as opposed to what was done on MSNBC). Chelsea Clinton was paraded about not because of anything she could offer by way of sagacity in foreign or domestic affairs. Let us be frank: she was on the tour because it pointed out Hillary’s non-robotic side – that she also is a mother – something that hopefully would resonate with other mothers.
But to be fair: They all do this. The Edwards campaign exploited Mrs. Edwards’ cancer. President Bush had his half-Latino Spanish-speaking nephew working his campaign in areas where his speaking Spanish and his ethnicity would help him. Celebrity endorsements are just another – perhaps more remote – manifestation of this same sort of campaign strategy.
All of this is fair game for comment IF the commentary is couched in appropriate and non-offensive language. Worse would be a paralyzing fear that frightens us into silence – even when it involves legitimate observations.
Obama has run a brilliant campaign, is a mesmerizing speaker, and has captured the yearnings and hopes of millions of people. He has transcended, in his appeal, race, ethnicity, age and sex. But the fact is that he is experienced in running no enterprise and yet seeks to run the largest enterprise in the world. He is virtually inexperienced in government, domestic and certainly foreign policy – all of which should be at the heart of any president’s expertise – and yet the same could really be said of Lincoln, and to some degree Franklin Roosevelt. But somewhere, somehow, what Churchill referred to as “a little mouse of thought” must be considered: That is, if Obama were white, given his lack of experience, he would not be in the lead for his party’s nomination for President of the United States.
Commentators should have the intellectual honesty to note this, as well as the fact that it might be, in effect, a good thing. His candidacy, with all of his lack of experience stands as a stark contrast and home for those people who are fed up, or, to be charitable, disenchanted with Washington’s business-as-usual, and the usual group of subjects simply playing musical chairs in the running of this country. Credit must also be given him for not claiming experience when it does not really exist – which is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done. Her experience basically has been to sleep with the President (hardly a unique claim – at least for females under eighty years of age in the Washington area), become an enabler for the President to carry on with his extra-marital activities and, as all first ladies, arrange for the catering of State dinners – hardly fitting the job description for a President.
Nobody mentions the fact that senators, of both parties run for president and ask us for our support, money, effort and loyalty. But yet these same senators do not have enough faith in their own cause to quit their day job and leave the senate. Putting aside the fact that if they are running for president, they cannot put in full time to do their jobs in the Senate (for which we pay them), why should we have faith in them and give them our money when they hedge their bets? Would it not make more sense to say to them, “When you show me you believe in yourself and your cause to the extent you give up your other job, then we will support you”? Is there any business where you can say to your boss, “Keep paying me my full salary for two years while I spend my time looking for another job”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)