I wondered at times. If Senator Barack Obama won the Primary, would he speak about the Sean Bell verdict and if he did, would it be a bit more than just what he said recently? That’s the case a few days ago.
According to The Washing Post blog, Obama said the following about the recent acquittals of the police officer that fatality shot Sean Bell.
… he believed that the verdict needed to be respected and urging those who disagreed with it not to resort to violence. That would be “completely unacceptable and counterproductive,” Obama said.
He admitted that he doesn’t have all the facts, so he can’t make a sound judgement. And the best answer he can muster up was the following:
“The most important thing for people who are concerned about that shooting is to figure out how do we come together and assure those kinds of tragedies don’t happen again,” he continued. … “Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and counterproductive.”
Of course, some comments expresses that Obama is out of touch, while others are pro-Obama and defends him with facts.
I say, maybe it’s best that for now, Obama needs to stay silent on the issue. Note the keywords “for now”. Why I say this? For a few reasons, but the major one is this:
New York is Senator Hillary Clinton’s Territory.
Unless Obama wins the Primary, Clinton can fire at will at ANYTHING Obama says about Sean Bell. It’s fair to say that Obama can hold his own, but basically it’s best if Clinton goes first as far as what she would do. This is a tricky issue that can make or break his nomination. Focusing away from national issues and onto a small case you hardly know about in New York? This is something that’s going to look funny, like awkward kind of funny, which leads to the second reason:
Obama do not know what’s going on in New York.
Sure, he can fire up his Macbook (I guess that’s what he uses) and look up the facts. Sure he ca get his assistant to do it. Sure he can listen to 100s of people about the issue. However, it’s only best to make a statement after knowing the facts.
I rather Obama stay quite on the issue for at least a few more days and let Clinton look into the matter… if she ever gets to it.
For now, it’s best that present lawmakers deal with this matter, such as the one CNN reported earlier today.
Not a lot of people is going to agree with me, but the reason I say this is because it’s easy to turn this issue into a political one. It’s also easy to misused a person’s name. We want to elect a person who’s qualified to handle some to most of the problems, not because of one moment or one person. If you ride on someone’s tragedy at this moment, then it will be false hope.
I also know about Obama’s issues with being silent on certain civil rights issues. However, the media’s all about the present moment. Some people don’t think well at the present moment. Sometimes, there’s nothing you can do at the present moment. That’s like being ask to agree with two people talking to you… in Spanish… and you don’t know what the heck they are saying, yet being pressure to say “just say si, senor”.
So, while I’m upset that Obama didn’t say much, I’m just glad he said at least something…
… and not him calling it “an abortion of justice.” Those words… *sighs* why is Al Sharpton trying to be a poet? (Makes me wondered, “maybe he was up for three nights, thinking what can sound good if the trail goes on way or another.)