Hilary “Misspeaks”

                                          

          Candidates running for presidential office strive, even if only a farce, to build credibility for themselves. Every move they make, and every word they utter can and will be used against them. If a nominee deems it necessary to lie, he or she must first ask the question: how will a deliberate act of deceiving taint my integrity in the public’s eyes. Hilary Clinton seems have forgotten to ask herself this one simple question before she blatantly lied to the very people she is hoping to woo.

          Mrs. Clinton found her way onto the front pages of all newspapers when she “misspoke” of her trip to a military base in Bosnia in 1996, as first lady of the United States of America. Opposition in the media and political spectrum has justly used this as yet another weapon with which they can wage war against by far the most influential woman of our country’s era. How can it be, they argue, that the former first lady can make such a blunder? Shaking hands with people and greeting an eight year old pale in comparison to running and taking cover from snipers. How does one make such a ludicrous mix-up, without having done so deliberately? It is hard to believe that someone could confuse a placid walk among friendly bystanders, with a life changing homicide attempt. Hilary has some explaining to do…

           It is now her duty and responsibility to prove that she was not intentionally trying to mislead Americans to believe that she had fended for her life. In her attempt to do so, Mrs. Clinton has stated: “I say millions of words every week, and there’s a lot more room for error when you’re talking as much as I’m talking.” She has played the slip up card, along with the fact that the secret service and military had instilled in her the notion that she was going to arrive at a war zone (the military base in Bosnia). Even so, Hilary cannot escape the accusations of making up a farfetched story to embellish her reputation in the eyes of the undecided voters. The truth is self evident; she has to fess up and move on, otherwise everything coming out of her mouth from now on will seem like nothing more than futile attempts of gaining the admiration of voters.

          Hilary Clinton, like Obama who has been under close eye of the public, cannot take such ill-advised courses of action. She must not forget what is at stake and never lose sight of what is crucially needed to win: charisma, efficient plans, and most importantly credibility. It is do or die for Hilary; will she fall or will she stand tall?

Barack Obama:The Epitome of our next Commander-in-chief??

                          

          Barack Obama, presently set as the front runner in the democratic primaries, has managed, yet again, to bring controversy to his doorstep. By associating himself with an over-the-top pastor, who has no wish to keep his disdainful tirades of ire and dissent for “White America” clandestine, Obama has subjected himself to rightfully deserved scrutiny. Is this man who advocates “change” and reaching out to all Americans, no matter how small, just another inexperienced politician with no spine to repudiate the abominable assessments catering to a hateful ideology?

          The lambasting of Mr. Obama is not a result of his seemingly steadfast support of a long time friendship with Reverend Wright, or his religious and spiritual roots embedded in the Trinity Church for two decades. Rather, the disconcerting issue is the inconsistency that he demonstrates to the American public whenever put under the magnifying class. One of the first clear indicators of Mr. Obama’s reluctance to act from conviction came up at one of the three democratic debates with Senator Clinton. In it, he stonewalled the “rejection” of Louis Farukan, a pastor who had consistently made disparaging, anti-Semitic remarks. When asked by the moderator whether he would accept or reject the endorsement of a pastor who was openly anti-Semitic, Mr. Obama sheepishly responded, “I denounce it.”  Senator Clinton cleverly put pressure on him during one of his most halting moments, thereby compelling him to state: “I have denounced mister Farukan, but if Mrs. Clinton feels that the word reject is a stronger word than denounce, then I both reject and denounce him.” Another blaring blast from the past comes to mind: Mr. Obama criticized Don Imus for his seemingly racist remarks and called for his immediate removal from the air. So with these prior precedents, why on earth would he fail to both denounce and reject a pastor, who has maliciously revved up the lingering resentment of the African American race? What makes this case any different?

          It is understandable to a certain degree that Mr. Obama not want to condemn or ostracize Reverend Wright after decades of friendship. However, it is detestable that he intends to continue running for President of The United States of America, while still remaining member of this congregation. To the bewilderment of many, Trinity Church has been inculcated by racist, parsimonious preachers to embrace doctrines of hate and resentment, as opposed to love and forgiveness. Defenders of Reverend Wright have stated on repeated occasions that the rest of “White America” is only now becoming aware of what goes on in their parishes. They maintain that after years of oppression and deplorable treatment of the colored race, we have no right to rebuke their “customs” for we are in more ways than one guilty of all that has happened. But is this truly the ridiculous, stifling mentality that the rest of America should condone? Isn’t this the first time in the history of our “racist, white nation” that a man of color has, not the right, but the privilege of attaining the highest position in the land: President of The United States of America. Who is it really that has failed to move on from the blunders of old and embrace a new era?

          Aside from showing major inconsistencies, Mr. Obama has also turned to deceit. In his most recent statements, he has attempted to instill the folly that he had never once heard or been aware of Reverend Wright’s audacious statements. So let’s get this straight, he expects us to believe that in 20 years of attending this church he never once heard an Anti-American cry? Does he truly believe that we are so irrational to be swayed by his feeble attempt to purge himself of all guilt? Everyone knows that Wright’s successor has defended the retired pastor’s message and shown no indication of stopping similar rhetoric from being spewed from the pulpit at “Church.” Reasoning, as a result, clearly shows us that Obama has boldly chosen to remain a member of this hate spreading institution, which breeds and feeds the logo “God Dam America.” We might be unreasonable, but certainly not stupid

          If Barack Obama is to win back the credibility and respect, which he deliberately relinquished when he refused to rescind from The Trinity Church, he must demonstrate to the American Public that his job as president would truly be to unite all race, color and creed under one tolerant administration. The longer he takes to acknowledge the detrimental nature of brainwashing generations of people to hate one another, the longer it will take for the country to realize the dream of an extraordinary man: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

“The Journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

Will you take that first step Mister Obama?

Elliot Spitzer: Judge the sin, not the sinner

                                            

          Elliot Spitzer has been the center of attention for a week due to the recent discovery of his connection with a prostitution ring. The media has had a field day with the moral catastrophe of the self proclaimed “righteous” governor. He was after all the one that as District Attorney relentlessly combated evils like drugs and prostitution with an iron fist. The people are furious at his blatant hypocrisy and as a result they conveniently find it acceptable to rip him apart. But are they justified in judging who he is rather than his actions?

          Every time a scandal exemplifying a politician with human weaknesses washes ashore the general public seems to acquire a new sense of morality. They turn into pristine individuals, who are by their own judgment free of sin and can thus disparage the lives of others. The Spitzer scandal was not to be the transfixing exception. People have criticized the governor more for not having practiced what he preached rather than the list of legal infractions he committed. He has several charges heaped against him, not just for soliciting a prostitute. But this seems to be superfluous when you can simply stone a man’s character and integrity with nothing more than an over-inflated ego. What gives anyone the right to think they are any better than he is?

          Amid all that has happened there still are those who argue that Elliot Spitzer was a great governor and that the hypocrisy of his nature does not change the validity of his crusade against the evils corrupting a complacent society. He has done a far better job as governor than most of his arrogant, outspoken critics could ever dream of doing. While his actions have deprived him of any future credibility, his prior message is consistent with the widely accepted perception of “morality.” It is safe to say that until Mr. Spitzer was unmasked, he wore an impregnable suit of invulnerability. Once the first crack was found, it was not long till the rest was shattered.  

                           Blog: http://twentyfirstcenturylife.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/elliot-spitzer-a-legend-of-hipocrisy/ is a vivid example of someone attempting to judge by moral standards, but only succeeding in treating their fellow man with disdain. Yes, Governor Spitzer was acting hypocritically when he established a code of conduct that he himself did not follow. Yes, he broke the integrity of the office by soliciting the services of a high priced prostitute, who has emerged as an icon from the whole disgraceful situation. Yes, he broke several laws that could cost him his law license, let alone his political career. But no, no one has the right to smear his person with contemptuous remarks that serve no purpose in determining morality. Many of those who ostracize the politicians, who fail to live up to the public’s case by case misconception of morality, are hypocrites themselves. It’s easy to talk, even easier to judge, but it is truly a feat to walk the walk.

          The only way to have a legitimate form of moral evaluation is to judge the action and not the actor. In this context Mr. Spitzer was the actor, who according to some played the role of hypocritical idealist. But it is not our calling nor our place to sputter critical remarks, but rather to see what went wrong and how can we learn from another’s mistake. As for those who so desperately awaited the resignation of the governor, are you happy now? Curious enough he was unfaltering on one of his promises when inducted to office about a year ago: he promised to relieve the administration of all corruption. By resigning last Thursday he may very well have turned his greatest undertaking into a reality. 

          “Who are you to judge the life I live,    

            I’m not perfect, and I don’t live to be, 

           But next time you point your fingers,  

           Make sure your hands are clean.”