BARACK vs HILLARY or OBAMA vs THE CLINTONS? Is The term “inexperienced” Just Another Politically Correct 2007 Racist Coded Word?

(Photos: The Times-UK)


FACE-OFF! FACE-OFF! FACE-OFF!

As the 2008 election campaigns heat up, with charges and counter charges and counter-counter charges, one cannot help but feel inundated with physical images and back-and-forth verbalizations between and among the democratic and republican candidates, respectively and collectively. But one thing that stands out in my mind more than all the other issues I have heard, is the charge, especially, from the Clinton (Hillary) camp is that Obama (Barack) is too “inexperienced” to be president of the USA. Too inexperienced? As if there is a definitive list of prerequisites that prepares one for the office of the president of the USA. Only in the movies! Not the real world.

Now Bill Clinton, disgraced ex-president of the USA and Hillary’s beloved(?) husband, has entered the fray in defending his wife’s reputation or record; rightfully and to be expected. According to The Times, UK, Monday October 1, 2007, Bill stated that “Obama is too inexperienced to tackle America’s challenges.” And that “her (Hillary’s) experience is more relevant and more compelling.” Whatever in the hell that means? A lot of pretty-flowery words that only Bill Clinton can conceive and master. But then again, there’s Jessie Jackson, Sr.

Speaking of Jackson, the “inexperience” issue is the same phoney charge made back in 1984 when Jackson- another black man-ran for the presidency; who by the way garnered over 3.5 million votes during the nation-wide primaries from varied racial groups-not just blacks; which is worth mentioning. Additionally, the operative and most poignant question was back in 1984,which is still being used in polls today: “Are Americans, meaning US citizens, ready for a minority/black president?” Instead of asking outright the most obvious question: “Are the [majority of whites] ready to vote for a minority/black president?”

Some even said that Jackson should have ran first for local or state office, such as for a Chicago aldermanic seat or for governor of Illinois. And only after holding such a position for a few years, should he throw his hat into the ring in his aspiration to fill such a high office as the presidency. Unquestionably and without a doubt, the naysayers and closeted racists always find a reason to raise the bar, or move the goal post, especially when a black runs for the Oval Office seat. This in my opinion equates to nothing less than an attempt to amend the Constitution by invoking additional requirements that simply and irrefutably do not exist; nor should they be pertinent.

The Constitution states:”No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Unquote.

I see no mentioning of the word “experience or inexperience” nor an inference or an implicit delineation of its meaning with a list of prerequisites. Thus, the term as used in the presidential campaigns is simply bogus, a pretext to conceal a coded politically correct message for 2008 to remind “white” Americans that Obama is a black man. And that he should not receive their votes; pure and simple. But to be expected, even more so in this phoney- politically correct day and age. You decide!

_____________