by Sam Birnbach

Created on: May 30, 2009   Last Updated: June 02, 2009

I don't claim to understand the Obama mindset. Only the president and perhaps his wife are the only people who can make that claim. There are things about the man, though, that I believe have been confirmed for me recently. This all hit me with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I blogged on my twitter account when David Souter stepped down that Obama would appoint a Hispanic woman to the court. Obviously at that time Sotomayor's name was already on the short list, but I didn't have to know the short list.

Why?

Obama is a "first" president.

What does this mean exactly? Let's put it this way. He was the first African American elected to the presidency. He likes being the first this or the first that. He's already defined by it. His presidential first listed above is a first that he couldn't help; it was one of race.

Race matters a lot to the man. It's very evident to me. One doesn't sit in Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years if it doesn't. Michelle Obama's thesis at Princeton was all about race. As a half black and half white person, Obama wrote in his books about his struggle with race in terms of his identity. He even used to introduce himself as "Barry" to people when he was younger, because he was uncomfortable with his full African name.

Does this mean Obama looks at people from the outside-in, as opposed to the inside-out? Does he see race first and go from there? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know. But we do know it certainly came into play with his Supreme Court nominee.

There are many qualified lawyers of both men and women of all races and religions to nominate to the high court. Yes, on both sides of the political aisle. Yet, Obama's short list was composed of seven women and two men, both at the bottom of the list according to ABC.

Why only seriously consider women then? This is better answered with another question: What goes hand in hand with race in terms of politics? Gender.

While physiologically the two cannot be more different, (for example, there is no real difference between a black male and a white male other than the color of their skin, but there are many physical, chemical and psychological differences between a male and a female) they are used together by the left and the right to play identity politics.

What better way to play identity politics, AND get the "first" you want, than to nominate a Hispanic woman? If you look at it from that perspective, it's a brilliant choice. I have very little doubt that's exactly the way Obama and his team views this nomination.

As important as the high court and the Constitution are, it shows to me that this is all a petty political game. Does it really matter if she's Spanish or African or Asian at the end of the day?

Not to me. The law and the Constitution matter, as they will far outlive the Justices who are charged with interpreting it. Race, religion or ethnicity are not qualifiers for judges.

Let me get this straight. We (rightly) can't use those criteria as admission for colleges, but we can use those same things as resume enhancements for judges when you can get political points from it?

We know this is exactly the mindset of the president, or else he wouldn't hail her "life story" as her main qualification. He would talk more about her judicial experience (which she has plenty of) and leave others to point out the fact she's a Hispanic woman.

But he doesn't, and it's clear why. It's who the man is and how he views people.

I don't believe in Obama's "change", whatever it means, but playing identity politics at the lowest level with the Constitution is something that really does need to change.

Our country is better than that. Our president should be too.

Learn more about this author, Sam Birnbach.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.