I agree with all of the reasons that Ruben Navarrette stated, and my hometown even gets a mention:
This isn't about Richardson, who might be very happy heading for ribbon cuttings in Toledo while Clinton heads for blue-ribbon summits in Tel Aviv. This is about something larger. Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor and the most prominent Hispanic elected official in the country. And the way he was treated doesn't say much about Obama's respect for the Hispanic community. Nor does the fact that Obama seems to have filled his top four Cabinet posts -- justice, treasury, defense, and state -- and couldn't find a single Hispanic to put in any of them.
America's largest minority took a chance on Obama despite the fact that the president-elect had no track record in reaching out to them and didn't break a sweat trying to win their votes. They deserve better.
20 comments:
America's most repressed majority also included some Obama supporters - women.
Alex, as a former Clinton supporter and as a woman who feels the current Obama cabinet is less than satisfactory when it comes to the number of women, I still feel that Richardson would be a more experienced Secretary of State.
Not sure how I feel about Richardson at State. Though I think I'd prefer it mostly because I think that Clinton will be wasted there.
I'd rather see her continue in the Senate, I think she's done a great job there and could have a large impact in Senate. Especially when they get to the health care discussion.
I don't think she'll do a bad job as Secretary of State, I just think that Richardson would be a better choice.
You all may be correct, however, it was the "largest minority took a chance..." argument that I found ridiculous.
Lisa Renee -
I'm a little torn on this. I agree with you that she should probably satay in the senate because this move will effectively end her political career and I think she still could have done a lot to help those for which she advocates. But I'm not sure that Richardson would be better. The Clinton name is awfully popular throughout the world.
Alex, I acknowledge your point, however it's traditionally stated that Hispanics are the largest minority group. Which is what Navarrette was basing his thoughts on.
Jason, I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand how some in the Hispanic community feel as well as the loyalty factor.
I don't have a good feeling about Clinton being Secretary of State for very long which would mean she's given up everything.
Clinton is being set up to be the 2016 candidate, this time with real foreign policy experience. It is how Obama will guarantee his stuff is continued
that said, what does Richardson have that Clinton doesn't, besides his ethnicity
I'd recommend reading the article, it points out the reasons why he feels Richardson is the more experienced candidate.
he still is focusing way to much on the ethnicity, borderline racisim
It's not racism to point out that a minority is not being represented and that members of that particular minority are feeling as if they are being forgotten.
Many expected that this administration would not be made up of mainly white men. It's natural that they would be disappointed, both women and minorities.
I don't think she will run at age 69 in 2016.
Jason, I think that she will
Lisa, I think that it is still racist. To want somebody, simply because of their ethnicity, is racism. To quote my own paper
"The idea of giving a person help, or considering them more-so than another person, simply because of their race, is clearly racist."
Then wanting more women in office would be considered sexist and since such a huge focus was made on the historic nature of electing the first visibly black president, that was racist.
Any focus on Obama including women and minorities in his cabinet would also be racist.
people who wanted them only, or mainly, because they were a gender, or their race, is being racist. It is good to want a more diverse cabinent, or leading group, but the main focus should not be on that. The fact that the article mostly focused on Richardson hispanicness, shows the racisim. Has it been, he is XYZ, oh, and hispanic, it would be cool
Actually that's not what the jist of the article is about, it points out that Richardson has the experience, it points out that Hispanic leaders wanted him to be considered for Secretary of State and then focuses on not only his not being selected but disappointment that none of the groups that wanted him selected as Secretary of State have made this an issue.
It's not just about why Richardson should be picked, it's also about why those in the Hispanic community should be unhappy with not only the way Richardson was treated but with the way some leaders in their community are trying to spin it.
Which to me, is not racist. It's expressing disappointment that a man who is seen to be someone worthy of respect has not been treated with the respect they think he should receive and that their community has once again kowtowed as opposed to taken a stand.
While I am sure he was not trying to be racist, he was basically saying:
He is X, and hispanic, he is Y, and the hispanics want him, he is Z, and of a different ethnicitiy, he is AA, and we expect a diverse administration
you see where I am going?
Personally, I think that Richerdson is better where he is being put
Wanting someone to be chosen due to race is clearly not racism. It may be a unfortunate way to choose an elected official, but it is not at all racist.
I'd be concerned if the person being suggested/pushed for that position did not have the necessary qualifications, if it were being done based merely on the race of the person. Or if one of the candidates had more experience.
In this situation with Richardson that's not the case. He is qualified, and we as a nation are supposed to support the historic first of electing the first black president. It's completely understandable to me that the Hispanic community would want to see one of their own, who was qualified be selected.
It's not as if this would have been a token appointment. Even if you removed the cultural aspect of his heritage, he'd still be more than qualified and does actually have experience that would be needed for a Secretary of State position.
Granted, this discussion is all moot since Obama did not pick Richardson. Clinton is not a bad choice, a much better one than Summers but, I understand the reasoning behind those who felt Richardson would be a better Secretary of State and I agree with them, based on the facts and the perception that Obama was going to have a more diverse cabinet.
Post a Comment