That's what the Democrat constituencies of blacks, Hispanics and white women are doing. With a black man and a white woman going down to the wire in the Donk contest, how can it be otherwise?
You have the black Democrats, most of whom will vote for Obama to see the "Dream realized," and who don't know about or choose to ignore the candidate's very real and very numerous deficiencies for the job in question in deference to that dream.
You have the Hispanic Democrats, mostly of Mexican descent and who vie with the blacks for turf, handouts, political ground--you name it--and, therefore, would never vote for a black person. They could never believe that a black person would have their best interests at heart. (In this case, they're correct, however.)
And you have the white female Democrats, who feel they are "next in line" behind the white man when it comes to taking the reins of power and who feel betrayed by both those men and the blacks--especially by the latter, for whom they've "done so much"--because the party appears to be coalescing behind Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton.
I've never been to a cockfight or a dogfight, but I bet that neither the amount of blood nor the entertainment value is nearly as high. As all conservatives have noted, it's fun to watch--that is, if one ignores that the people are fighting over crumbs while an enemy continues to go forward with plans to "solve" all of our problems, regarding of race, color or gender.
Soberingly, John McCain did not allow the public to ignore those stakes as he spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) this morning.
The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami – a man by all accounts less radical than the current president – Iran rejected these overtures.I can't wait for Obama and/or his mouthpieces to start squawking about this again.
Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.
Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on.
Read it all and try to remember this, Democrats: you can't reap the spoils of Identity Politics if you're dead.