Symbolism, substance, and unintended consequences

By Peter Lemiska

It wasn't supposed to be like this.

Hillary Clinton was supposed to waltz onto the convention floor unopposed, a triumphant symbol of the strides made by the feminist movement. But her supporters hadn't counted on an inspirational and popular black candidate, a symbol of the advances made by the civil rights movement.

Neither had they counted on the turmoil within the party as the vulnerabilities of first one candidate, then the other were brought to light.

Watching the support for the two candidates shift as they battle it out is like watching the panicked passengers aboard a sinking ship oscillating from port to starboard in a futile effort to stay dry. It would be almost comical if it didn't have such a profound effect on our country's future.

Democrats have only themselves to blame. It is no accident that they are where they are today. Driven by symbolism rather than substance, they rejected experienced, viable candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson, while seizing on the opportunity to make history, to see the first woman or the first black candidate become their party's nominee. But they really didn't give much consideration to their qualifications or suitability. Now they have to play the cards they dealt themselves, and choose between two seriously flawed candidates.

One carries more baggage than a Samsonite delivery truck. And her much-vaunted international experience is regularly discredited by those who were there, those who say it amounted to nothing more than a series of social visits.

Unfortunately, her opponent's experience pales in comparison to hers. What he purportedly brings to the table is inspiration and hope, and in fact has mesmerized crowds with his message of unification. But some disturbing flags went up when his wife recently confessed it was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country. Then we learned that his church minister and long-time mentor is a racist and hate-monger, who regularly preached outrageous and inflammatory sermons, including charges that the 9/11 attack was a government conspiracy, and that the government created AIDS as a means of eliminating the black race.

Senator Obama admits to having a close long-time relationship with his minister, and even found a place for him on his campaign. Of course, he has since repudiated the controversial statements, and claims that he never heard them.

Though we want to believe him, considering the lengthy affiliation with the church and its preacher, our logic suggests otherwise. Besides, his wife's outrageous comment dovetails precisely with some of those anti-American sermons.

But Democrats will have to decide for themselves whether or not they accept his explanation, or in fact, whether or not it even matters to them.

Regardless, at some point, one of these two will be their nominee, and there's no doubt that the far-left will coalesce around the chosen one. But if independents and fair-minded Democrats don't already know enough about Clinton and Obama to question their suitability to lead the country, there are still eight months until the election, and time to learn more.

Because of some of his positions, many conservatives would argue that John McCain is also a flawed candidate. But the support he enjoys is not because of his gender or race. It comes from voters across the board, those who believe he would be right for the country. Perhaps that is why he leads both Obama and Clinton in the current polls.

© Peter Lemiska