on bigotry

i learned recently through a friend that sarah palin's public statement concerning the recently-deceased osama bin laden gave no attribution to the current administration for its efforts or involvement in his demise. it struck me as a nuance with so much formality that it demanded attention.

i'm interested in this sort of omission, to reconcile it with my understanding of political pragmatism. after all, it is not likely that sarah palin would believe the president was unrelated to the military strike that killed osama bin laden, nor that she would forget to voice such an opinion in her remarks. it is apparent that she commands the respect of so many who view the president as a harbinger of radicalism, a muslim socialist at odds with american tradition, hailing--still--from kenya, possibly the antichrist, possibly not (but who knows). and so it appears she is deputized to react to him as though it could all be true, to deride the efficacy of his leadership, to frame his presidency as a peculiarity, a detail often forgotten in a vast worldwide discussion of more important things, just as it was in her statement.

this treatment serves a purpose in the emtionally-driven dialogue of political conversation, which is to operationalize a sentiment that can manifest itself no other way, to say without saying: 'he is not like us, he is not as good as us, and deep down we know why.' as a nation we call it many things, but life is short so i'd like us to call it what it is. i'd like us to elevate the conversation and to recognize the bigotry that precludes reasonable discussion and reasonable opportunity in a nation that needs them now more than ever.