The Tipping Point in Pakistan

In light of the tragedy unfolding in Pakistan – and the potentially dangerous vacuum that such an event may create – one can’t help but think about the implications Benazir Bhutto’s death will have on politics here in the United States.  A rather political junkie question arises: How does this impact the Presidential race?  Where do the candidates stand? 

It becomes almost amusing to watch each one stumble over the other for the most aggressive quote of the day.  Who will appear the strongest against the forces of terrorism?  Who will seem to possess a keen sense of the geo-politic?  Who will have the “experience” to deal with something of this magnitude?  So, Bhutto’s assassination doesn’t appear to be significant in terms of the ripple effect it has on the global stage and the likely instability that can arise from it.  Instead – in a somewhat shameful and cynical way – it acts as a foreign policy testing module for American presidential candidates. 

This is also one of those major “geopolitical” moments that we’ve been saying will radically change the dynamic of this race.  As for Barack Obama, he may have frantically prepared for this moment months ago when he was suddenly accosted by criticism for statements he made about U.S. intervention in Pakistan.  He knew the day would arrive sooner or later and he needed to appear ready and engaged.  Unfortunately, for him, this event may prove somewhat of a setback for populist/domestic issues candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards or Mike Huckabee.  It will, in turn, raise the prospects of candidates like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Guliani or John McCain or, even, low-tier candidates such as Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, all claiming to have prerequisite foreign policy “experience” or the comfort of knowing someone like Bhutto. 

An event such as this makes the world a bit more darker than it already was.  People get a bit more anxious, a lot more nervous, a little more fearful of what the future holds.  Candidates who provide a perceived shield of “readiness” and “security” become the preferred candidates.  The upcoming early primaries, just around the corner, may suddenly turn into unexpected measures of success based on candidate response to a new surge of instability in the Middle East. 

On the Clintons & Their Blackness …

We cringe upon those outlandish statements made by intelligent few who seem to find much fun or draw inspiration from calling the Clintons – both former President and current candidate – “Black.”  We’re not certain what exactly that accomplishes; nor would we like to understand why it’s cute to refer to the former President as “our first Black President” simply because he works rooms of Black folks in a particular way that is comfortable and friendly.  Sure, many of us appeared to have it good while he was in office; but many of us still didn’t.  So, which side are you on: perception or reality?  Can’t have it both ways.  We digress …

Point is that we think it gets to the Clintons’ collective calculating and very political heads.  They become emboldened when hearing such statements, particularly from the Black intelligentsia.  They become “familiar,” as we say; very much along the same lines as hip hop buying White kids who think its o.k. to freely use certain words and statements because either they hear it used incessantly in the music they buy or its being channeled about by otherwise idiot Black friends who don’t know how to discipline their own use of it. 

As a result, the Clintons begin buying into the notion that they are, indeed, “Black.” And they are “Black” enough to talk about Black people amongst Black people in ways that would be uncomfortable if they were not the Clintons.  It’s as though they’ve been offered entirely too much access.  Thus, the expectation that they’d be getting most Black votes with little challenge. The former President, especially, eats this up more so given his Southern background.  Hence, they have recently appeared to buy into it so much so that they’ve become a bit too “familiar” in their references to their lead opponent when referring to him.  The coded language and cultural references are too much to ignore.  Sources reveal a hotly irritated Clinton campaign referring to Obama as “uppity” (a term we thought was mostly reserved to our family living room conversations regarding the Talented Tenth and class detached among us).  The former President, in a recent address to Black State legislators in Little Rock, AR, underscored Sen. Obama as “risky” – voting for the junior Senator would pose a “risk.”  Coded language for: “you know, they won’t elect a Black man in the general election.”  We understand the dynamics of Presidential politics, but why is there something about that statement (not applied to any other front runner) that irks us on some level.  And it bothers us even more that there are peeps out there who won’t check them on it.