``Maybe after the remaining primaries,'' which conclude June 3, Democrats should ``come together and look at who's ahead when it comes to delegates, when it comes to the popular vote, the number of states,'' Richardson said today on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I just feel the time has come to come together behind a candidate,'' said Richardson, who endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama this week.
Considering the uphill math for Clinton, there's no mistaking whom Richardson proposes "uniting" behind. Yet one has to wonder, as more and more about the less vetted Obama pops up in the media - quite after the fact - do those who voted in the previous primaries feel as confident about their early votes in the wake of the Pastor Wright bruhaha?
Richardson, himself a minority political leader, said he made up his mind based on Obama's speech on race.
"As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country... Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race."
"...specifically Hispanics.."?!? What? No concern for immigrants of other nationalities, also subject to the same rules of immigration law? Or is he just confirming his ever so subtle bias of white America, and his agenda tends to favor his own nationality and race, just as Obama's does his?
The odd thing is that for two men who say they want to transcend race, they both have based their decision making and opinions because of race. There were many things about that speech that really nagged at me. Perhaps one of the most eyebrow raising passages:
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
There is a similarity in the "victim" mentality of both Richardson and Obama. Indeed, as a ticket, they are certainly the perfected vision of the two largest minorities... leadership that epitomizes the victimized class of citizenry. It would be no surprise that the black and brown agenda will be given weight and advantage in this particular administration combo.
Yet they are examples exactly the antithesis of what Obama preaches... that white America's dreams came at the expense of the dreams of America's minority.
While specific statistics are at best, guesses, the commonly held theory is that Obama has been firing up a new generation of youthful voters. Considering that the Civil Right Act was signed into law July 1964, Johnson signed EO #11246 enforcing affirmative action for the first time 11/24/1965, and Nixon follows up with the Philadelphia Order in 1969, one can safely concur that 18 to 25 year old voter did not suffer the discrimination and lack of opportunity that drives Pastor Wright and ilk's hatred of America. They are, instead, using the past as an excuse for today's personal failings.
Which brings me back to this insistence for "unity" that permeate the "can't we all just get along" crowd. It sure sounds idyllic and benevolent in theory, but few have stopped to examine just what it would take to achieve "unity". And just how such a quest is so ironically hypocritical from a political party that likes to consider it's middle name, "diversity".
For "unity" can be summed up in one word. Acquiescence.
To get behind Obama as the DNC nominee, the Hillary supporters need to acquiesce to Obama's candidacy. Of course, the opposite is true for a Clinton candidacy.
Yet considering the close margins of votes and delegates, and how personally vicious each camp is, just how willing to "acquiesce" will either side be in order to achieve party "unity". Any majority for the winner will be, by all standards, very slim. And of course, the problems can be compounded by superdelegates should they pick against the popular delegate/primary count. Hey their rules... the DNC, in their infinite wishy-washy'ness, orchestrated their own gridlock today.
This "unity" nonsense carries over into Congress as well. For "unity" to happen on the fate of Iraq withdrawal timelines, one side needs to "acquiesce" their position to the other.
Such lockstep mentality is not the stuff this country is made of. It is not the mentality that made it great as an industrial nation and economic/military superpower. It is our differences and debates (more civil in the past than today) that contributed to our progress. It is our lack of unity that allows this nation to be a melting pot of different cultures, and on the path to ever improving conditions for all Americans equally.
This cry for "unity" aka "acquiescence" is, however, the stuff of socialism. So it's not surprising for the inspired youth vote, historically grounded in the "love the one you're with" and "financial equality for all" mentality, to be supporting a socialist candidate such as Obama.
Manifestation of such desires in our government would, however, prove disastrous over the long term. We will become a country of "equals"... or perhaps better described, outstanding or special will become a characteristic of the past. Diversity will be dashed and run out of town by the very party that purports to cherish it.