Page 1 2
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
"A new kind of politics," Barack Obama has heralded. He states continuously that the "old" kind of politics -- which he describes as the politics of division, of hate, and of fear -- has not worked, and will not work, to solve America's problems. According to Obama, America needs, and is ready for, a new politics of hope, of honesty, of unity and of partnership across ideologies, ethnicities, and ways of life.
I believe strongly in these statements, as I believe the continued strength of the US depends on some of these fundamental kinds of changes, put forth by a visionary renaissance person whose leadership can put it all together and lead us forward. However, if Obama believes these things, then I'm disappointed that time and again recently he has reverted to that "old" politics of hate and fear. As a result, my support for him is wavering. I would still vote for him if the election were held today, but I can't muster up the gung-ho excitement needed to go canvassing in Pennsylvania this weekend, which I had been looking at doing. At last night's debate, Obama was asked a question about comments he had made that his daughters were too privileged to need affirmative action, and that affirmative action plans could be restructured to take things like that into consideration; that poor whites could be eligible for that which rich blacks shouldn't need. During the course of Obama's answer (which was, to me, distastefully off-point and long-winded), he emphasized that he was against quotas. Politicians love to state that they are opposed to "quotas." Reagan in 1980 and 1984, both Bushes, Bob Dole in 1996, I think even Bill Clinton in 1992 & '96, all took strong stands against "quotas." The problem? The Supreme Court outlawed quotas in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in 1978. Thus, every politician since then who has promised to stand against the "quota" menace has been pandering to hate-based feelings among an electorate who didn't understand that quota were forever abolished already, thanks to the Supreme Court. One might give Reagan a pass, since he wasn't a lawyer, except that I'm sure the Bakke case must have been a major news story when it broke. But Obama is not only a lawyer, but a civil rights lawyer, AND a law professor. Undoubtedly, he knows Bakke like the back of his hand. For him to be as familiar with affirmative action legal precedent as he must be, and turn around and reassure voters that he's opposed to that which has been illegal for 30 years, constitutes the very pandering, the very politics of hate, that he states can't work to solve our problems. Kresge, on this site, posted a Youtube video of a fuller context of Rev. Wright's "9/11" sermon. The clip, approximately 10 minutes long, placed his "controversial" statements in context, and revealed a decidedly UNcontroversial, highly spiritual and reflective message that even I, Mr. Anti-Religious, found moving and uplifting. If Obama didn't remember hearing the comments before, it may have been because he'd heard the whole sermon, which, in full, gives nothing to be upset or offended by. Once the controversy broke, this would have been clarified for him. There is no way that Obama, who had a close relationship with Rev. Wright, was not made aware of the full context of all of the offending comments. Therefore, there is no way Obama was actually offended by them. He knows the comments were not offensive, but yet his public statements were unequivocal in how reprehensible Wright's comments were. This, again, is playing to the politics of hate and fear. Obama was lying to white people when he said these things. He could have used that moment to create a turning point in race relations; a "teaching moment," as I believe Kresge stated. But he chose not to. Ditto, in many ways, the "bitter voter" controversy from the other week. We can argue all day that Obama needs to do these things in order to get the white support he needs. But that "need," if true, cannot override that other, more pressing need that Obama has made the centerpiece of his overall campaign message: America supposedly needs real talk; a new politics. The old politics don't work; they don't get things done. This mantra should be preventing the behavior we're seeing from Obama. Much of Obama's dilemma lies in the fact that much of his white support is coming from people who see him as somehow "transcending" his race. Unfortunately, both Obama and these white supporters fail to realize a fatal flaw in this idea: Obama, if elected, will be black every day for the entire 4 to 8 years he'll be president. He will have to "transcend" his race every single day. This is America. He cannot do that. Worse still, these particular white supporters are led to believe that, by supporting a black man who has transcended being black, they have put race "behind" them somehow. This is nonsense. If you can't support a black candidate unless you believe he has "transcended" being black, then you still have a racial issue. If you have put race behind you, then you should be able to support a black candidate whom you feel has NOT "transcended" being black. White people should support Obama not because they feel he has transcended his race. White people should support Obama because they feel THEY have transcended race. Obama's fatal flaw -- the position that has led him to engage in this dishonesty -- is in allowing this situation to continue without addressing it. One of two things are inevitable as a result: either his candidacy will collapse under the weight of his poorly grounded racial pandering, or he will win the presidency and fail to get anything done, because he will always be one step away from imploding while having to devote so much time and effort on damage control to maintain this facade of "racelessness." In either case, the "old politics" will prevail, and I'm not sure I still support him in the face of that. I have been a huge supporter of Obama. I have attended $1000 fundraisers, shook his hand, spoken to him, raised money, and canvassed. I have seen him as the last hope for a country headed fatally in the wrong direction. I have seen him as that renaissance man; that Jeffersonian, Lincolnesque, or at least Rooseveltian, figure who can right this ship after years of disastrous leadership. America -- African-America included -- is on what most of us don't realize is a nearly inexorable path toward economic, military, social and spiritual ruin. My support for Obama, as I've explained to some of you, is akin to the defense "bringing the infield in" in baseball, with a runner on third and less than two out in a critical moment in the game, to hedge against further damage from doing things the standard way. But if Obama can't reassure me, and realize that he can be honest even about race, then I'm probably going to move my infielders back to normal depth and reassess. ____________________________________________________ |
||
|
C5 |
What was hammered home to me last night watching the debate is that Obama is in rare air politically speaking. He is the most successful floor plan we have to date. To this point he is the one. And in that light I accept the observations, critiques, post debate quarterbacking, blind faith, blind hate, and the whole nine its par the course. He is unique in his efforts to do what has not been done. What other candidate is being drilled for their name, what other candidate is/has been thought to be too (ethnic) or not (ethnic) enough, Clinton doesnt have to balance her whiteness. So though I understand your fustrations and perspective I challenge everyone to really look at what he is attempting to do, where he is attempting to do it and what has and will be put up against that attempt. The Weathermen  That was the craziest thing I have ever seen. I know he could do better on many levels. He is learning on the fly. I am not suggesting that he should not be slammed when needed, what I am suggesting is that we honestly look at what he is doing and understand the tightrope he really has to walk to make that happen.
|
|||
|
Founder |
Vox - BHO is playing a game. That game is national politics. The game has nothing to do with logic and principle and everything to do with playing the game as strategically as possible. Perhaps you are listening to him literally when he is speaking metaphorically. To revert to your baseball analogy, traditional politics is a 'curve ball' - pols start out saying one thing with the intention of ending up somewhere different. Hillary says she's most qualified to be president because of her 35 years experience, when in reality she has very little. Bush says he's going to be a 'compassionate conservative' but is neither compassionate nor conservative. Bill Clinton expresses his affection for black people and then screws them at every political opportunity. Curve balls. Instead of that, Barack says he's going to play the game differently. He's going to be straightforward and throw fast balls - straight down the plate. He says that he's going to reject traditional ways of "pitching" (i.e. curve balls) where the message and approach is designed to confuse and elude. He's going to be different and he has based his entire campaign on this change message. Now - is he throwing a 'fast ball'? No. But he can't throw fast balls either. He knows that as a black man he must do some things to be crafty and something less than obvious to his opponents. In the same way that every "successful" African American must do in this country, he cannot be completely honest and transparent about who he is and what he thinks because white America will reject that. At the end of the day, he's got to use their rules against them for his benefit. So to be clear, Barack's still not throwing curve balls, he is not playing the game the way it is traditionally played. Even though he says one thing - he has to be a bit strategic in his approach. He's throwing a 'change up' and its that slight deception in the speed of the ball that allows him to play the game sufficiently well enough to be in a position to win but yet still be different enough from the status quo that voters will be attracted to that difference. Does this make sense? Don't lose faith with Barack because he's playing the game. Realize that, in fact, a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could not play the game at all if he did precisely what he says all the time. In a sea of fish, perhaps Obama's a whale (i.e he breathes air). That said, he's still in the water. Thoughts?  |
|||
|
A1 |
then this is not CHANGE When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak Audre Lord |
|||
|
|
Founder |
Think of change as one of those dials that turns the light on gradually from light to dark as opposed to a switch. Barack's change is relative to the context that has existed for quite some time vis-a-vis how politics is operated. It is not that there will be no politics. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
I was with it, with reservations, right up until I heard the "quota" comment last night. The moderators -- who, by the way, were as obviously anti-Obama as anything I've seen -- didn't mention quotas. Nobody said anything about quotas before Obama went there. Playing the game is one thing, but there are more honest ways to go about playing the game. For example, although I haven't discussed affirmative action on this board in awhile, you may remember my slightly "nuanced" views on AA, in which I have certain limits to how far I think it should go. If I were in Barack's position, I could see "playing the game" by accentuating the limits I would place on affirmative action; saying I'm basically for it, but emphasizing the limits. (And, surely, sparking all kinds of debate on a website called AA.org, about how Candidate Vox is "playing the game!") But at no point would I start resorting to tired old, 1976-style references to emotionally charged, incendiary elements of AA that have been BANNED and therefore NONEXISTENT for 30 years. The guy supports affirmative action for poor whites. You know what? Fine! Highlight that, and keep it moving. To unleash the "Quota" monster was pandering at its worst when Reagan & Clinton did it; it's just as bad with Obama. Like I said, I haven't turned in my Obama for America buttons yet. But I don't get why he thinks he can be president when he doesn't think he can even be who he is. He thinks he can live a public lie for 8 years??  ____________________________________________________ |
|||
|
|
A1 |
maybe he understands exactly what he means and he is using this buzzword "quota" to give an answer without really having to "change" AA. At any rate, I think many people have this sentiment, contrary to the popular opinion that obama's supporters are blindly loyal. I think it's quite ok to say that you support him with reservations. Every time he chastises black audiences, describes welfare rather than marginalization as a black problem, and clings to the "go into pakistan" statement I roll my eyes. But i still see him as the best option... When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak Audre Lord |
|||
|
|
C5 |
MBM.. I liked the analogy to baseball.. I tend to look at this through the eyes of boxing.. I see the previous fighters (Jackson/Sharpton) as Jack Johnson. Totally black in every aspect but also totally rejected by the majority. Made black people feel good, was champ for a minute but his way of being kept us out the game for quite some time. I see Obama as Joe Louis... totally black in every aspect, but presented in a different way. Like Obama, for Louis to get the chance to win the title he had to soften who he was to be accepted by the majority. I have no expectations that there will be a bail and switch in that since if Obama is elected. But as I have said previously I understand the game he is playing (Jackie Robinson like if you will). Call him nigger to his face he will smile. Not because he likes it, but because he knows there is a bigger thing at stake. He is a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, his blackness is there all the time 100%. And we have all heard the code words, even yesterday they were describing Michelle Obama's speech as angry and tinged. The only thing that can kill Obama is being seen as BLACK as defined by WHITES. Considering that I know what the their goal is I am choosing to have faith that Obama is as far as he is in the game because he too understands that although he may infact be the first, his ultimate goal is not to be the only. And that requires a style of play different from SOP.
|
|||
|
|
C5 |
I was asking/telling someone this morning at work as it relates to Obama and how he is playing the game "what did we expect"? I have not been really surprised by anything he has said or done in this process. I figured it was par the course. I think he will continue to make great choices and not so great choices. And I like you think he is the best option. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
If D. Whiteman uses "quota" to convey a particular sentiment, although quotas literally do not exist, why can't Obama use "quota" as well? When George Stephanopoulos tried to pigeonhole Obama with this during an early interview, Obama was unwilling to say that AA is no longer necessary. Can he use it in the same empty hollow way that D Whiteman politician use it to avoid actually dealing with it? or changing it?
When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak Audre Lord |
|||
|
|
Founder |
Are you "who you are" 24/7? In the law firm? I know if most of my clients found AA.org they'd be scared to death and my business with them would be compromised. That's just the way it is in this country. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
baseball? Boxing? whales?  When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak Audre Lord |
|||
|
A2 |
It is a horrible predicament that america finds itself in. IN desparate need of a savior, but mired in expected political chicanery and unable to free itself from it.
Obama, in the beginning did not pander. He engaged his audiences on an intellectual level. That is wonderful for the people who read small print magazines (like Harpers, The New Yorker and The Atlantic), but that does not go over so well on the much needed to win, large print mag readers (like People, Ebony, Women's World, Us...) So now he has to pander to them and hope he does not lose the small print crowd when he does. It is a tricky and ugly thing, this election. Knocking jockeys off the lawn for over 50 years |
|||
|
A1 |
Idealism and politics don't mix well ... Especially if you're black.
Trying to have a new politics in a country run by morons is almost oxymoronic/. In other news: I just volunteered at the local BHO campaign headquarters ...
|
|||
|
|
A1 |
I appreciate your sentiments in this thread... But I don't like it when any politician uses the "quota" card. White or black. It's just that it's disingenuous, period. Yeah, pretty much. How I am in a black setting is virtually identical to how I am at the firm. Otherwise, it would create an embarrassing situation when I'm around a white person AND a black person at the same time... Plus, I'm way too absent minded to be able to juggle two personas. There's absolutely nothing, especially in terms of my political views, that I say here on this board that I'm afraid to say to the partners I work for. On the other hand, in whatever setting, I'm not exactly Your Brother Faheem, so maybe I'm not saying much.  My outward persona is somewhat similar to Barack's, and I'm actually not even as liberal as he is. But I'm not exactly Ward Connerly either. Now, I understand that this locality, full of Tony Soprano & Joe Pesci types, regards a more straightforward approach differently than some of the people across the country that Obama has to court. So in my current experience, I don't have to resist the same forces that Barack does. That's something to consider. ____________________________________________________ |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Men huh?
|
|||
|
Tasmanian Angel |
Personally, I don't think Obama's race is the problem that he makes it out to be. He felt it necessary in the beginning (and still does today) to try to leave that out of the conversation. But the truth is, that cat is out of the bag and long gone. Everybody knows that Barack is Black .. even the White people who are supporting and voting for him. He is referred to as "the Black candidate" or "perhaps the first Black/African American president" now without any shuttering or blinking or fear of retribution. Of the many things that came out of the Rev. Wright flap, the fact that he is solidly *Black*, attends a church with a Black congregation and has been in that environment for the last 20 years, is uncompromisingly one of them. His wife has said (and written) things that bring her *Blackness* front and center. They keep their kids out of it, but when they are pictured, what is clearly seen is a Black family. And that's okay with (a whole lot of) White people, apparently. Through all of the "He's Black" revelations, Barack has lost little if any of his support among the White Americans who want to see him as president. It is his message they are listening to ... it is his "hope" they are clinging to. I don't think they see him as the same kind of "Black" as Sharpton or Jackson, because they see the truth .. that he is, indeed, half-white! It's Black people (and Barack) who are having trouble with their truths ... so afraid that to acknowledge it will me certain doom. There are White people who would not vote for a Black person (for anything), just as there are men who would never vote for a woman. And Obama trying to be *neutral* or Hillary's trying not to appear too feminine will not change people like that's minds. Their biases are too long and too strong for that. So, faking the funk and trying to act like something that he's not - or would that be acting like he's not something that he is - and that is if he is *acting8  may be explained away as some kind of political tactic, but it is definitely dishonest. And I appreciate honesty at all costs.BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE. Before there was ANY history, there was BLACK history. |
|||
|
.. or a .. 
.. or a