A vote for Clinton is a vote for Jeremiah Wright

Jeremiah Wright may look like a God sent gift to Hillary Clinton. His outbursts enrage many Democratic voters who may have considered Obama. Now Hillary tries to grab these voters, hinting right and left that she has always been patriotic, always stood for the weak, the middle class, and whoever feels the pain of the economy. In fact, any pain. But perhaps counter intuitively, the reality is that a vote for Clinton is a vote for Wright. How come?

As David Brooks wrote in the New York Times on April 29 on "Demography is King", the real voters demographic divide is between the more educated and the less educated, those who make more and those who make less. Poll after poll, survey after survey, show that Hillary appeals to those who are less educated, and Obama does well among the more educated. It is the education factor that also accounts for the age divide - as we go down in age groups we find that education level increases. But as Hillary politically senses, her constituents is also more likely to hold old concepts about race in America and to be more fearful of the liberation rhetoric that Wright expresses.

Except that America has changed. Those old voters ideas are not reflecting reality or the future more than Wright's outdated ideas are. Both Hillary and Wright use the old Roman tactic of divide and conquer. In a sense, they are both dependent on the divisions and hatred rhetoric - one on the white side, the other on the black side. They both prey on the fears and injustices of the past, not the promise of tomorrow.

Reverend Wright is slowly loosing his liberation theology crowd because the reality of the new generation is less race segregated and more economic segregated. It is true that African Americans are disproportionately poorer, but that reality masks the fact that the root of the problem is poverty and education rather than race. That Obama is running a successful campaign for the Presidency should have been a hint to Wright that America has changed, but Wright may be too old in his ways to realize that change. Paradoxically, Wright and his Liberation Theology may actually be standing in the way of African Americans wanting an integrated race-blind society for his ideology perpetuates rather than reconciles the race divide.

Skin shades and church affiliation aside, Obama and Wright could not be further apart. This is a case where generational gaps mean more than their own education achievements because that gap represents the historical changes that happened in America and are still happening all over the country. The reality that education and economic status trump race, a reality that the younger and more educated people are, the less they carry past bigotries, a reality that allows a proud African American run for the Presidency and have a good shot at it (perhaps a better one had Wright not undermined him so much).

Obama is the candidate that symbolizes change not only for whites, but for African Americans as well. He represents pride in his heritage, but also focuses on individual achievement. He represents the believe that what unite us can bring about progress. He is the opposite of the divisiveness of Hillary and Wright. A vote for Clinton is a vote for perpetuating the divisions, for maintaining the gaps, for taking advantage of the chasm, for living in the past and doing lip service for the future. Jeremiah Wright outbursts are similarly rooted in the past, evoking and exploiting grievances and do little to reconcile and build a better future. A vote for Obama is a vote for the future. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Jeremiah Wright.