Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Dumbest Thing I've Read Today

In glancing over the morning headlines on Yahoo, I came across this little gem, displayed proudly in the top headlines for the morning:

Obama's success hinges on more than race

Reading further, this is the opening paragraph:

History surely will remember President Barack Obama as the first black to sit in the White House. But success in his term will depend on his accomplishments rather than on the color of his skin.

I can't decide if this writer is ignorant, racist, or just trying to cater to those sections of the population. It's a wonderful thing that this country finally found itself able and willing to put a black man in the highest office in the country, but did any of us think that Obama's success might rest just on the color of his skin?

And now, since I'm already criticizing the author, did we really need him to point out that history will "surely" (as if there's a chance it won't) remember Obama as the "first black" to sit in the white house? Isn't that a given? Is it even worth mentioning at this point?

And since I'm already getting really picky with the details now, and while it may be grammatically correct as is, couldn't the author have referred to Obama as a black man, rather than just as a black? I mean, the man is more than just a color. And if you need proof of that, you can refer back to the beginning of that last sentence, where I clearly pointed out that Obama is a man (thus proving that he is not just a color). The whole article seems to center around the fact that Obama is black, and while that certainly seems true, it also seems a little late in the game to be talking about it like this, like maybe none of us had considered for a moment who we were voting into office.

And lastly, I need to point out that the author is listed as "DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent", and I have to say that if the word "Special" in his title refers to his eligibility for the olympics of the same name, he has my deepest apologies, as I never would intentionally tease the 'literally retarded', just the literary retarded.


  1. You are in fine form on this one :)

  2. ahahahahaha.. i was thinkin the same thing about the 'SPECIAL' part of his title.

    I have had this conversation many times on a few different points.. I know someone that cannot get over the fact that people are making such an issue of Obama being the first 'black' President..and then there are others that can't be happy about the fact that we have a new, hopefully fresh-idea'd, man in office.

    It is what it is.. and dwelling on the color of his skin is something we, as Americans, have never been able to get over. So I agree with you that it is ridiculous.. but I also can tell that the argument won't go away anytime soon. Not as eloquently put as you may have put it- but you get my drift I think :)

  3. I do get what you mean. And I think there's really a lot to discuss in terms of how this election went, but I think what surprised me the most about the article was how crudely worded it was. I really do wonder if the author has some racism in him that he was unable to totally erase from the tone of his piece. I could be wrong about the reasons behind it, but regardless, if I had been the editor on that one (not that I'm even remotely qualified), he would have had some revisions to make.

  4. it also suggests that people, somewhere, might be cutting him slack for being black, like it's a handicap. like, "i know the bar needs to be set lower for you, president obama, because you're black and so you're uneducated and speak poorly and have poor nutrition and can't pronounce the word 'ask' correctly and whatnot, but we are going to expect you to do SOME things correctly. okay? just do your best."

    he was a pretty good president, for a black man!

    he exceeded my already-low-because-he's-black expectations!

    classy, guy.