Oh How Quaint

So they have moved passed just saying it, and Barack and Hillary have proven they are playing nice in the sandbox. For their first appearance together since Sen. Obama became the presumptive nominee, they have chosen the tiny town of Unity, N.H., where they split the Democratic primary vote right down the middle 107-107.

Oh. How. Quaint. Or is it trite?

It is a move aimed at us Democrats to reinforce their call for, you guessed it, unity. But here’s the thing. A publicity stunt is a publicity stunt no matter how you try to spin it. And sometimes the desired or intended symbolism is so trite and contrived that it loses effectiveness.

A far better move would have been a joint appearance in a large and critically important city where Sen. Clinton won handily. That would have been a much more powerful call for unity. Not in a state that much of the rest of the country considers to be a bit snobbish, and certainly not one in the northeast.

Think middle America. Think red states. Just think.

:: :: ::

Jockeying for Position

It’s sadly funny to watch the positioning going on between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. On the one hand, they are trying to define themselves by defending their respective decisions. At the same time, they are attacking each other on other, sometimes irrelevant or even unproven points. Which forces the other to scramble in establishing a new defensive definition.

What makes all of it worse, is that enough of what they say is utterly inconsistent with their stated policies and current voting records.

If I had to guess, the underlying reason rests on private polling results.

I’m not sure how else to say this, guys, but stand up for what you believe in, and stand firm. ‘Cause here’s the deal, when you get into office, we expect execution, even if you have to compromise. We’ve had eight straight years of incompetent lying. We don’t need any more of that.

:: :: ::

How Can We Trust What You Say?

I’m not the only one who will be commenting on this phenomenon, but I’ll throw my two cents in anyway. This past weekend, Senator Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and called for all of her supporters to support Senator Barack Obama in his presidential bid, representing the Democratic Party.

This is the same person she called inexperienced. Not ready to be Commander-in-Chief. With dealings with shady people from Chicago. Unable to capture the votes of her supporters.

So if we were supposed to believe her then, why should we trust in what she says now? Well, it was a campaign, and we all say things we don’t necessarily mean. It’s just how you play the game.

Now that she has lost the nomination, she has to shift gears, because of the Hatfield-McCoy fight coming through November. The Democrats have to win. It’s time to say whatever we have to for that to happen.

And the Republicans are doing the same thing.

How do we know what the truth is, what we can trust? We really don’t and won’t until their respective actions match their words. Who’s more likely to walk the talk? That’s tough to say. But based on how Sen. Clinton ran her campaign, there is reason to have doubts.

:: :: ::

Adoption and Race

Last week, The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute issued a report critical of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994. You can read the story by The New York Times here. The day following the original story, I had the opportunity to hear one of the report’s authors and someone from San Francisco, who disagreed with the report, on a radio talk show (forgive me for not knowing their names, as I started listening after the introductions were done).

Basically, the law says two things—adoption agencies cannot consider race in matching parents to children and states must do more to recruit minority parents to adopt children.

The report contends that parents willing or wanting to adopt children of a different race should undergo special training. While I agree that families that will become multiracial through adoption have special needs to address, families that adopt any child will face many of the same needs. The question shouldn’t come down just to race. It must also include the family’s support network and whether it is sufficient (or capable of being sufficient) to support all of the child’s needs.

It goes further to say that those same parents should consider raising that child within the child’s culture. The reasoning given on the radio interview was disappointing. It went something like this (I’m paraphrasing): when you black children are raised in predominantly white areas, they have more problems in their teenage years with racism. Instead, the parents should consider moving with the child into an area that is more suitable to her. This may be taking it to an extreme, but it sounds like he is saying that since racism exists, we need to keep the kids separated by race.

That’s is less of an issue of race than proximity. But if cultural sensitivity is the goal, shouldn’t we all be exposed to a broader spectrum of cultures and not be told we should grow up with our own kind?

The report also acknowledges that states must make more of an effort to recruit minority parents. And I agree with that wholeheartedly. And they may not succeed in doing so, which might be OK.

Because, at the end of the day, what are the most important things we must accomplish with, not just adoptees, but all children? Health, welfare, a good education, a solid path to adulthood? Which of the available parents are best suited to provide that for these foster children? For any adopted child?

And who is going to set the criteria for matching children and parents appropriately?

Oh yeah, and how much time, money and effort are states going to put into recruiting the right parents for these kids?

This issue goes much further than race alone.

:: :: ::