‘First’ presidential labels managing to come across as excessively trivial

I always thought it was a tad bit silly whenever people would refer to Bill Clinton as the “first black president.”

Yes, the man from Arkansas was sympathetic toward black people – and a part of me has always thought that part of the reason for the intense resentment of him by the conservative ideologues is the belief that a Southern white man should know better.

BUT ALL THAT talk about being the “first” black president just comes across as trivial – particularly if anyone did anything significant for African-American people, it was Lyndon Johnson.

He twisted the arms to get the Civil Rights act passed through Congress, then put his name on it – at a time when some people equated such thoughts as being “un-American.”

But back to Clinton. I can’t help but think the reason some people are eager to use that label is because they want to trivialize any actions he made during his presidency that benefitted black people. Don’t even get me started on those loons who want to say Mitt Romney could be the “first Latino” president.

That is my exact same reaction to those people who in recent days are going out of their way to put the “first gay president” label on Barack Obama. I think they’re just eager to undermine any benefit that Obama gets for finally standing upon the issue of gay marriage.

STANDING UP, AS in he’s no longer sitting on his brains when it comes to the issue, and just accepting that the proper thing to do is to quit claiming there’s some significant line that exists between civil unions and marriage for gay couples.

There really isn’t any difference, particularly when it comes to the conservative ideologues who want to rant and rage about this point. To them, they want to denigrate anyone not exactly like themselves – and I’d be willing to bet anything that there are potential gay couples among the ideologues who on a certain level know Obama is now correct.

But they will continue to trash him!

Seeing that “first gay president” label used for Obama on the cover of Newsweek magazine disappoints me, because I can’t help but think that these ideological nitwits will now go out of their way to use this to provide their own warped thoughts with legitimacy.

THAT COVER OUGHT to be the ultimate evidence that the concept of “liberal media” is a myth! A part of me almost feels like Newsweek has given aid and comfort to the ideologues in their “war” to spread nonsense talk to the public.

Or, it could be evidence that the concept of “media” as a unified force is absolute nonsense. For I couldn’t help but notice the cover of New York magazine headlined “the first Jewish president” that proclaims Obama to be “the best friend Israel has right now.”

So which is it for Barack? Or is he the first Jewish-black president?

The answer to the ideologues who keep themselves too isolated from the real world is “yes.” There ARE black people who consider themselves Jewish – some will actually tell you that it is really their religion that all these white people took from them!

WHICH ONLY GOES to show that you can find someone on planet Earth to believe just about anything.

Because, quite frankly, I would find it to be rather discouraging if Obama’s meager gesture of support toward gay marriage is a significant-enough gesture to warrant such an over-reaching label.

This direction (that of showing respect for people) is the one that our society as a whole is headed, no matter the fact that people like Sarah Palin’s daughter has publicly let us know she disapproves of -- although I think the fact she brought up the fluff television program "Glee" undermined any seriousness her point might have had.

Like Bristol was ever going to vote for Obama to begin with!

  -30-