What if... ?

I got an email from my uncle this morning that does a nice job providing a fresh perspective on the qualifications and character history of the Obamas and the McCains. Maybe you know someone who needs to see this?

I think the double standard arises less, though not negligibly, out of racism, as the message portends. I think it grows more out of the treatment the two parties receive from the press, the way the two party's political operatives do their jobs (as I wrote about a couple days ago), and the sorts of people who, generally, support each party. For evidence of that, just look at the perception of the military service of Senator Kerry and President Bush in the 2004 campaign.

Anyway, here's the message. I'm curious, what do you all think -- is it racism or is it political affiliation-ism?

~~~

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cu m Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United States Naval Acade my - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.

Rachel Maddow and the difference between FOXNews and MSNBC

What's the difference between Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann as opposed to Sean Hanity and Brit Hume? Rachel Maddow nails it in this interview with former Bush speechwriter, David Frum.

Frum comes on Maddow's show to say that the attacks coming from the McCain camp are hurting the country, and by the way, your show, Rachel, is doing the same thing. In the ensuing discourse it becomes clear, to those who weren't sure of it already, that Rachel Maddow is a heavyweight. She stays calm, holds her ground, stays on topic and embarrasses Frum (look for his downcast eyes - he knows he's beat).

But this discussion highlights a bigger, maybe the predominant, trend in today's national politics, especially since 2000. Democrats attack Republicans on issues of policy, experience and competence. Republicans, needing a response, and unwilling as always to defend themselves (After Katrina: "We're not going to play a blame game;" in the financial crisis: "When the house is on fire, you don't want to talk about how it was set."), have to find a way to counter-attack. Since, for the most part, they can't attack on policy matters, both because they've been doing such a crappy job and because the Democrats have been in opposition, they have to resort to personal attacks.

There are legitimate different approaches to policy between the Dem's and the GOP (the role of military force, the allotment of power to federal, state and local governments, etc.), and we see some discussion of them between the campaigns (albeit more from the Obama camp). When personal attacks are made, the Democrats, and Olbermann and Maddow, point to personal shortcomings that are relevant to the capacity to lead (involvement in political scandals, temper, competence), where Republicans and their supporters in the media seem to be simply grasping for any mud they can find (Clinton's voice makes men's balls shrivel, Obama is a terrorist), because it's all they can do right now.