Pssst...Barack Obama is a Black Dude
Geraldine Ferraro said that Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black.
So what?
Was that supposed to be some kind of secret? I mean, hasn't Obama himself written extensively about how race shaped his life? Made him the man he is today? Would we really be so excited about him if he'd done a Freaky Friday with John Edwards in the 1970s? I doubt it. Yes, he'd still possess a brilliant mind and a gift for oratory, but his life experiences would've been completely different. His ability to bring together opposing viewpoints might've never emerged. He would've never had the transformative experience of visiting Kenya after his father's death. And he wouldn't have been the "skinny kid with a funny name" who captured America's attention in 2004.
In other words, Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black.
And so the Obama camp's response to Ferraro's "divisive" comments has been a tad disingenuous. But worse -- much worse, it's been a squandered political opportunity. Obama still needs to convince nervous Democrats that he can handle a street fight with John McCain. A fight that, at present, might be billed as "The Brainiac vs. The Maniac," thanks to some people's image of Obama as a chai-sipping, mani/pedi-loving Harvard man, and some people's image of McCain as, well...a total psychopath. When you're up against a guy who spent five years getting his limbs broken in a pool of his own filth, running away from a point that you've made yourself in paperback isn't the best way to look tough.
So if I were David Axelrod, I'd fire up the nearest edit bay and flood Pennsylvania's airwaves with an ad that went something like this:
(Start with a nasty frame-grab of Ferraro and Clinton). "Hillary Clinton's best friend, Geraldine Ferraro, says Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black." (Cut to Ferraro giving the finger to a group of black Girl Scouts). "We couldn't agree more. Barack Obama's life as a man of mixed race taught him to respect people of all colors, faiths, and points of view." (Cut to Obama clearing brush on his ranch). "It also instilled a great love for America as the land of opportunity. A land where people from different backgrounds could come together and achieve the impossible. Barack Obama is proud of being black." (Cut to a beautiful Obama family portrait). He even fathered two black babies -- twice as many as John McCain. Don't the working families of Pennsylvania deserve a president who's proud of his heritage -- and proud of America? (Cut to a smiling Obama). "Barack Obama...you're damn right he's black."
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not defending Ferraro. I think it was a stupid thing to say, especially for someone who would've never been her party's vice presidential nominee if she hadn't been a woman. She's thrown her beloved Hillary off message, and her refusal to apologize promises to keep the story alive for another day or two. She even had the chutzpah to warn Obama not to "antagonize" people like her, lest he become the nominee and need her fundraising muscle. Don't "antagonize" her? Who is she, Sonny Corleone? And when did she become the "must-have" fundraiser, anyway? Politically speaking, she's about as relevant as the top-loading VCR in my garage.
Still, Team Obama should give the public a little more credit. After all, a good 80-90% of us have figured out by now that their candidate is, in fact, black. Deep down in our heart of hearts, we know that none of this would be happening if he wasn't that skinny kid with a funny name. It's part of what makes him different. It's part of why we like him. And no matter what Geraldine Ferraro says, it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Barack Obama has a white mother and a black father making him a Mulatto or in modern speak a bi-racial person. The old "one drop rule" where if a person had one drop of black blood ...they were considered black ..is still in effect today. It didn't matter if a person looked white .....they were still condsidered black just because of the one drop of blood........ It's unfortunate that people still have to be put into some catagory. Can't we just be people? Aren't we all Americans.... regardless of race?
Barack Obama has a white mother and a black father making him a Mulatto or in modern speak a bi-racial person. The old "one drop rule" where if a person had one drop of black blood ...they were considered black ..is still in effect today. It didn't matter if a person looked white .....they were still condsidered black just because of the one drop of blood........ It's unfortunate that people still have to be put into some catagory. Can't we just be people? Aren't we all Americans.... regardless of race?
The reason Ferraro's comments are insulting is that they are intended to diminish all of his other qualities.
How many 46 year old people can claim that they have accomplished as much as Barack Obama?
I don't personally know any.
And to say that all of his success is due to the color of his skin is demeaning and insulting. As if his success has nothing to do with his extraordinary intelligence and charisma, his hard work and discipline, and his deep compassion for others.
Ferraro's comments would've been much less offensive if she had claimed that race has been one of many factors in his success, but she didn't do that. By not using a qualifier, she's leaving it up to others to interpret her comments as meaning that ALL of his success is due to his skin color.
It's also absurd to suggest that black people somehow have it easier in the United States, than white people.
She needs to admit that she made a mistake, apologize, and move on. As a seasoned politician, she should know that.
Does Obama REALLY need all these white people to "protect" him from Geraldine Ferraro's comments, or those of anyone else??? If he does, he's not qualified to be president! I think the man can speak for himself, yet he's treated like an infant by white people. That's Racism!
Besides, RACE is an utterly unscientific division based on minor expressions of skin color, hair type, etc. We will never get past the SUPERSTITION OF RACE until Americans make it past ideas perpetuated by a lack of science education.
He may be ahead now. But the primary is not over. 5 million Democratic voters still need to vote. He cannot win on his own. It is tied. It will remain tied. He has to convince the Independent Delegates to vote for him.
So he is using the race card yet again. It is so obvious.
Obama simply says - if you criticize me, you are a racist.
Obama simply says - if you don't vote for me, you are a racist.
Obama simply says - I'll give permisssion to all my supporters to bully you into changing your vote, your criticism of me. I'll encourage them to hate anyone who speaks out.
"There is not a liberal america. There is not a conservative america. There is a United States Of America". THINK about those words. What is there after Obama becomes president? There is a Dictatorship of America
It has been obvious since New Hampshire that Obama and his campaign have promoted race baiting. White liberals get intimidated easily.
Women and older democratic voters - not so much.
We react like Gerry Ferraro does. "You want some advantage from me and you do it by making threats."" That is it. "You make threats and now I know who you are".
Obama - you are a thug.
Obama using the race card by responding to racist comments? You've got to be kidding right?
And yes, SOME white liberals do get intimidated easily which is why Ferraro, an old white liberal, feels so threatened that a black man may beat her establishment candidate.
You know at first I thought Ferraro's comments were just the silly statements of an old timer, but the more I read comments on this issue the more I'm convinced that it was a contrived racial attack on the Clinton campaign's part.
First, the comment itself as stated in this blog post, "Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he wasn't black." Being Black did not make Obama graduate from Harvard Law near the top of his class, nor did it make white, latino, and asian voters pull the lever for him as a senate candidate or presidential candidate.
But, let's say for the sake of argument that Barack is the man he is today because of his race. And???? Who is this not true for? What person is who they are today for reasons aside from their personal characteristics? White candidates are somehow different in this regard? You are who you are. Barack didn't ask to be Black. So what is really the point of this comment?
I argue that Ferraro's comment was contrived to invoke images of affirmative action and unfair racial preference in the minds of white voters. And indeed that is what it has accomplished. When somone in today's culture says, "he only got there because of his race or she only got there because of her gender" it is meant to indicate that they are somehow unqualified for their profession. Ferraro (hopefully not at the request of Clinton) has subtly encouraged white voters to discount Barack's accomplishments and attirbute his success to his race. That is wrong.
Ferraro's comment is no different than someone saying, "he wouldn't be manager if he wasn't Black or she wouldn't have gotten into this school if she wasn't Latina." This is one of the most under-handed and ugly whispering campaigns that someone can launch in today's world and it saddens me that this is what it's come to.
Barack is who he is and his personal characteristics are pretty irrelevant. That's kind of been the whole message of his campaign when you think about it.
How, specifically--and that's the important part, *specifically* -- has Obama made this about race? Hello? The Clinton camp is the one who injected race into this. Bill Clinton did so too in South Carolina, Geraldine Fox News Commenator Ferraro did so the other day. Be specific about your comments: Give examples. Otherwise, you have no credibility for your claims.
Provide me 5--no, 3--specific examples of how Obama implied that people were racist because of what they said. Also, what Ferraro said *was* racist--she implied that the only reason he is where he is is due to the color of his skin--that was the "lucky" part. Parse the words--they're important. She is using the language of racism--innuendo (and in her case, not so subtle) to imply that he has no innate capabilities and leadership skills--that it's all up to race. And it's not.
The corollary would be to say the the only reason Hillary is where she is is because she's the wife of Bill Clinton. That she is "lucky" to have been married to a two-term president. Has anyone in the Obama camp implied that? Do you understand basic syllogistic reasoning?
Make all the generalizations you want: words and logic matter, but making suppositions without backing them up with examples and using schoolyard epithets ("thug"?), racist innuendo (no capability other than skin color), and fear mongering (3:00 a.m. ads) to make their points is not a good way to gain support for your increasingly mismanaged candidate choice.
If Barack Obama were white, he would not be getting 80-90% of the black vote in the dem primary.
Is this a fact the oversentive obama drones don't wan to admit?
I thought he was "post-racial" (and so was the electorate).....then whey would blacks be voting by race?
If anyone or any group has displayed racism it is the black voters who are voting lock step based on race. Is this what will happen EVERY time we have a black nominee in the primaries?
If HRC got 90% of the woman vote, that would be an unfair advantage too.
The other utterly annoying aspect of the obama drones is the automatic assumption that this was a "tactic". Give me an f-ing break already. How does this help anyone? Oh thats right, you people think HRC is trying to appeal to the rascist vote.
Let the elistist obama camp and media keep telling the voters in PA that they are racist, undereducated, unprogressives cave people....that will surely get them to vote your way.
The more you people look foolish wiht the racist cries, the "as far as I know" nonsense, the oversentivity to people discussing experience, the more backlash there is against him.
It's true that Obama is getting a large portion of the black vote. They are understandably proud to have someone of their background doing so well. What you're missing is that there are, in fact, a large number of white voters, in the South in particular, who are voting AGAINST him because he is black. And of course, the white vote is a much larger voting block.
So Ferraro's argument that he is benefiting from his skin color is specious at best. It's also insulting because it dismisses all of his other outstanding qualities; like his inspiring oratory, his exceptional intelligence, his hard work, discipline, his deep compassion for others, his charisma and temperament, etc. Those are the reasons I'm supporting Barack Hussein Obama. I want a president that the children of today look up at and say "I want to be like him when I grow up."
Damn right we can!
"Intelligence, hard work, discipline, compassion for others, charisma and temperment"...
I keep seeing people say that these are the reasons Obama is where he is, and that his race has nothing to do with it.
Too bad that guys like Edwards, Biden and Kucinic have him beat in all of those categories. Biden is 50 times the candidate Obama is. He has the experience, the charm... he has it all. But he is from Delaware.
Get real Obamabots. You are backing a paper tiger.
Yes SHE Can, cause SHE isn't full of it.
These are stange comments, as just a mere 6 months ago the media was reporting that Obama was not black enough. To say that being black has nothing to do with Obama's sucess is just as dumb as saying it ia the only reason.
Obama happens to have an incredible organization. Media does not report that much. It is no secret that I do not want Hillary in the White House under any circumstances. It is not because she is a woman. It is because of her vote and then lie about that vote for the "war". So I was looking for another candidate to vote for, I out the Obama site and got a response I have never had form any other political web site. I got a call from a human being who gave me a number to call 24-7. Wow. I called it and that person answered and in doing so got my time at the polls here in Texas. I am an old white guy. I worked with people of all ages and races.
I am still not in the Obama Camp for certain, but so far he is the best I have seen since, well Bill Clinton. And with the traits to be better that the smartest President (Bill) in our history.
I fail to see how being able to get a whole groups vote is unfair. Should women recuse themselves from voting for Hillary? Blacks for Obama? Mormons for Romney? HIspanics from Richardson?
Grow up, you use your assets as you can. Hillary won 70% of the white vote is that unfair?
I guess we get the leaders we deserve. With logic like that of which you present it is no wonder that we had 8 years of Bush and I fear 4 of McCain.
Gee didn't Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Kennedy, etc. get the majority of black votes? Where was the outrage!
You would think if we have advanced enough to elect a black president, that we could admit that there is a rather large portion of the black vote that is voting for him simply because of his race. No other explanation could explain a 91% vote. If you want to be in denial, go ahead.
The real point here is that the media is talking about the AA vote and not the white vote, which Hillary enjoyed 77% of in Alabama. No one mentions that, but on every station they talk about how the black candidate is getting the AA vote by and large. THAT is the difference here and Geraldine just hits the point home to Hillary supporters in PA, WV and KY. It IS a campaign tactic, not to appeal to racist people per se, but to create DOUBT. By the way, Obama does not talk about race. The media does, then they barrage him with questions about it and he has to answer it. Just imagine if the media started to barrage HRC with questions daily about her large percentages of white supporters? Its weird yes? Well Barack has to answer these questions ALL THE TIME. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. That's why people are talking about this. Try and understand a different point of view here.
Seemed to me, Ferraro's statement was one of frustration analysis concerning Hillary's 'predetermined status' at the beginning of the campaign. Her comments made a few points- 1- the ONLY reason Obama is where he is, is due to the advantage of being black, 2- if he was NOT black, he would NOT achieve the same way, therefore is a benefactor of affirmative action electorate, and 3- his appeal is a merely a cultural one, similar to a 'rap star', an "NBA star", etc. and that the voters just think 'black is cool". In other words, she is an insane person making insane comments, and seemingly on purpose. The tactic is obvious, but the overall strategy is, in my opinion, deeper and more sinister than 99% of those analyzing it would place it. (I have posted these reasons elsewhere, for now it is irrelevant)
.
If Obama camp said, "the only reason Hillary is popular is because she is white", can people see how stupid this comment would be? ....
Tiger Woods is black, EMINEM is white... go figure, eh?
And even if there was some subtle sociological analysis concerning the effects of race on his political campaign........... Ferraro was not being academic, she was commenting on the race directly.... Surely some people vote for people due to race (or NOT vote for), but to attack the candidate personally by referencing that, is just insanely racist and retarded... and that is what she did "IF HE WAS WHITE HE WOULD NOT BE WHERE HE IS!".... the same goes for MLK Jr., Oprah, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, etc.... no substance, just lucky to be born black in America??? WOW!
It's not that he's black. Dude. It's the pattern of gross racial attacks that keep coming from the Clinton campaign. That is why this latest disgusting appeal to those who resent affirmative action needs to be called out. Ferrar did not throw the Clintons "off message." As Bill showed us with his earlier comments, and Hillary with hers (as far as I know) this is a core part of the Clinton's message: He is a black man. Resent him. Fear him. Pity him. Do all of that. But do not vote for (give power to) him. Nothing new.
Re. the Sonny Corleone and top loading VCR lines: thanks for the laugh out loud. Very funny, and true.
My problem with this whole issue is how Clinton and Obama's respective uniqueness is addressed by the media. Obama's being black is presented as a plus; whereas Clinton's being female is presented as a negative. It's been, right from the start, "is Hillary tough enough? is she too tough? is she overcompensating for being a woman? blah blah blah." Has anyone EVER accused Obama of overcompensating for being black? of being too tough? not tough enough? - all because of his being black? It's as clear as anything I've ever witnessed that racism is nowhere near as strong an element of our culture as sexism. It may be far more noxious in its implications, but that doesn't make it more pervasive. Simply put, ANYTHING Hillary Clinton does is viewed through the filter of her gender; whereas NOTHING Barack Obama does is viewed through the filter of his race. What Ferraro said was stupid because of how ignorantly she framed it - not because she mentioned it. All she needed to say - and should have said - was that Clinton's gender is seen as her weakness whereas Obama's race is seen as his strength.
You might check your filter, along with Geraldine Ferraro. I was raised with females and raised my girls to be strong independant women. Hillary's problem is not in her gender. There is a segment of the population that will never vote for a woman president, period, but that is not why Hillary is in the mess she is in. If Obama was trailing and said it was because he was Black, I would be wrting the same stories.
Hillaries problems are strategic. She came into the race with a whole truck load of negatives from her time as First Lady. She made a strategic error in that she assumed that she would be the winner by Super Tuesday. She made the error of going to Florida on election night there. But the largest error and the reason that I will never vote for Hillary was her action in regard to Iraq.
If she had voted for the "war" and said it was a mistake, I might have been able to overlook it. Instead she said, "If I knew the what I know now..." which I called her on over a year ago. WHen you are voting on sending troops to their death you know what you need to know and it was available to her. It was availaible to me a working man in Austin, Texas.
Now, watching the way that Camp Clinton is wrything and faoming at the mouth, I have develeoped strong reservations about what a Clinton Administration would look like. It is not pretty.
I am gay. I have faced discrimination all my life. I just don't blame all the troubles of my life on the fact that people don't like gays. I am more than that and know I can over come. That is what I expect in a woman President, black President, Catholic PResident, Jewish President, or Gay President. I do not want to hear the excuses. I want to hear what you can do. Obama has chosen that road.
I have come to Obama slowly. Still not solid there if another candidate rises from the Convention, but if the choice is Clinton or Obama, Obama has it and it is not becasue he is black, it is because he has a message of substance. You do not have to be a policy wonk to have a program. Answers can be in broad strokes because the political process is going to slice and dice any specific policies anyway.
Quit whineing and get about doing. Quit attacking and start selling Clinton. I fear it is too late.
Present one piece of evidence where anyone in the National media has said or inferred that being a woman is a problem for any candidate holding any office in this country in the last decade.
Evidence is a quote or article and not your "feelings" about it.
If being black is the advatage that Ferraro says it is, then where are the black presidents in our past? I don't Remember President Shirley Chisom or President Jesse Jackson do you? If its such an advatange then why have there only been 2 elected governors and only 5 elected senators in THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY? She needs to go back to Cali and private life.
She's talking about THIS man, she's not talking about blacks in all periods of American history. I think the author has it right in that Obama brings a very unique story to American politics and that is a part of what attracts people to him. For Chisholm, the problem, as she said, was not being black but being a woman, and in that regard the US wasn't ready for her when she ran for the nomination. As for Jesse Jackson, for whom I voted twice, many people perceived him as being all about Jesse Jackson. In Obama - not my candidate, by the way - you find a man who has put his life, with all its imperfections, out there in his autobiography, and he has worked quietly as a community organizer, Illinois state senator and US senator. His decision to identify as black is an important choice and there is no way that an important fact like that can not be part of the campaign. Ferraro's comment was expressed awkwardly but valid nonetheless. How many times have you read that an Obama supporter has said, "I want to be part of history"? That history would be electing the first African American president, as supporters of Hillary would be part of history in electing the first female president.
Race is the elephant in the room during this campaign, and will be in the fall election if Obama is the nominee. Some serious form of what the author suggests comically is worth considering rather than ignoring an important factor in what has made Obama the man he is.
It's not a blanket statement; it's a specific statement about Obama, at this time, in this country, under these circumstances. Like everything else that requires unique elements to coalesce into a cohesive force, Obama being who he is, under these criteria, as a black male candidate who can claim the African-American block vote as his own [for the most part] and by that ability take a substantial voting support element [for the most part] from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama--and yes, part of that uniqueness is being a black male in this position--is experiencing the rare incident of having an advantage in being black. It is only in this context, and only for him [at least for now]; but if he is successful, it may at least be less common for race to be a disadvantage...it certainly wouldn't hurt.
That said, I'll throw more fuel on the PC fire...by asserting that if not for Tiger Woods, Barack Obama would have had a much harder time rising to his current level of success. From my POV, many white supporters were "softened up" by Woods' enormous success in golf--the ultimate rich white man's sport.
I don't apply that concept to myself, as I'm not a golf fan and his race isn't a objectionable factor for me. But I steadfastly believe that such is true for many of the country club set that support Obama; like it or not, we are a dumbed-down, American Idol pop-culture, and a lot of positive "face time" on TV doesn't hurt anyone in politics, and I think Woods helped enable Obama by proxy.
I'm sure that makes me a racist in some Obama supporters' eyes, but from my POV that perception is more their problem than mine. I just think it's absurd to dismiss elements of political logistics [be they intentional or accidental] just because they touch on racial elements.
Specific comment about this man at this time??? Then why did she say the exact same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988?
I see where you are coming from. But as a Black person who too has not has an easy life, I would like my essence as a person judged as meritocratic and not an affirmative action attribute. That is not meritocratic exercise to judge Obama as a Black man when what is his winning quality is his bold, ambitious ideas of mending the country back together again. It's so lofty. Who would do that as a campaign platform and prove that it is a winning strategy?
That is a meritocratic characteristic he should be judged on. Hillary choose a very usual campaign tactic: experience. There was nothing special about it. And then she played up her sex as a meritocratic attribute when Obama did not advertise his race and his hard background as one. That is the difference.
I think I know why Obama did not advertise his Blackness as a meritocratic trait on several levels in strategy. But as much as it was to calm those afraid of a Black man and those who think a Black Candidate would pacify Blacks and punish White Society, I don't think that is his only intent in being risk-adverse to. I think he feels like me in that as much as life is so unfair for us, there are many of us who don't want to be pitied. We want to compete. We just can't get in sometimes to compete because of our skintone and the lack of connections to broker us there. I am so socio-politically Black but I don't want affirmative action set-asides. I think White Society has too long NOT DEALT with leveling the playing field that when they do consider being compassionate towards Blacks, it is rooted in guilt and pity. It may be hard to believe but a lot of us don't want that because we don't feel like we want to play the depreciated human being with a permanent tin cup glued to our hands.
But as well Obama is downplaying being Black because that is politically suicide. As much as you would like to think this country is sophisticated enough to appreciate that, most White People think Obama is special whereas I know other people like him or who are even more dynamic. They just never ran for public office or sought public attention. Obama knows this too. It would be disingenous of him to play this up continously and I think that is another reason he pulled back. His disparity was the variables that made his journey but it would be sensationalized pimping for him to use it as a marketing tool. That is what Hillary is doing when she is a poor role model for women. To use your sex or race as a marketing tool, it is still a scam if you say you want to be judged equally.
But advertising being Black to an uneducated populace that can't simply understand how Geraldine Ferraro is racist is what makes the dynamic difficult and suicidal. White Society and Mainstream America needs to first be introduced what White Privilege is and what White Liberal Guilt is. No matter how many times Geraldine Ferraro or The Clintons try to excuse that they are not racist, they fail to understand how deeply racist they are trying to use physical evidence to justify their rooted tendencies. White Liberals tend to think because they are do-gooders who work to help Blacks are not doing it with supreme notions still in spite of their intent to do-good. What is rooted is the superior idea that they are a good person because they are simply doing the affirmative action lobby which is so many times structured in White Liberal Guilt. They help us but they don't expect us to get out of our place or challenge them. That is White Supremacy.
White Supremacy is not simple ideas and ideologies of white hooded males or Neo-Nazis. They are actually not as dangerous as White Liberals that don't know that they are White Supremacists in a self-righteous notion to be superior and be sanctimonious about their aggrieved feelings.
As a white liberal, thank you for the sweeping generalization. It is your kind of arrogance that is alienating many people who would otherwise give some thought, as Michelle Obama has said about working for a Hillary Clinton national candidacy, to supporting Obama.
I'm sorry, but with 80%+ of African Americans voting for Obama, race is very much a selling point, even if it's a soft sale.
Very very very well said. To assume that one can "do good" also assumes that they have the power to dictate and control the outcome of the welfare of others. They "give" to those "lesser".
I often feel that it's a patronizing concept lost on many many people. Sometimes myself.
I believe Blacks do vote at least in part for Obama because he is black. Of course they have a sense of loyalty to one of their own. There is nothing, nothing wrong with that. That we don't speak about the fact shows how far we still have to go.
And yes there is sexism, we can't deny that either. The name calling is for Hillary not Obama.
It's important to understand the trend line with black voters in this primary. At the beginning of this primary, black voters supported Clinton overwhelmingly, not only because they felt loyalty to the Clintons, but also because they felt a black candidate was unelectable. And there was a very strong determination to elect a Democrat in November. Barack had to prove to black voters that he actually had a chance of winning in the general. And he managed to do that in Iowa, and to a certain extent in New Hampshire.
There seems to be a tendency to saddle black voters with some sort of racial loyalty psychosis, that doesn't generally apply. Black voters do tend to vote democratic, because of policy agreements, but you will find that there is no black candidate who can draw support from black voters simply by virtue of being black.
"a sense of loyalty to one of their own"--are you serious?
"They" are actually thinking humans like the rest of us.
When Bush got 7% of the black it was because he didn't represent their interests---he didnt speak to them. I am not suggesting that this is true of Clinton, but I think we should all take a sober breath and ask ourselves if there is perhaps another reason the Clinton's are losing the black vote, which they enjoyed right up to SC primary. I am not saying I have the answer, but perhaps it is more complex than black people stick together.
Obama and team have conducted a brilliant campaign. Hillary was so confident she had no strategy planned for after super Tuesday. She'd spent her money, created no local organizations, wasn't prepared at all.
To belittle all of this and say Obama is only winning because he's black is just mind numbingly stupid.
More amazing is how prevalent racism still is in the US and acceptable to some people.
To further Seth's point, many younger voters, themselves raised in multicultural and/or single-parent households, readily identify with Obama's ethnically-mixed heritage and upbringing in Hawaii by a single parent and maternal grandparents. He, like his fellow 40-something and especially younger Americans, has learned to move easily across cultural lines with prior generations even as his generation and the generations which have followed almost non-chalantly obliterate the divisive notion of ethnic identity as a means to define, categorize, and marginalize.
It is interesting the Senator Obama has a white mother and a black father and everyone says he is black. He has written about his black-white experience in two books.
What Senator Obama is is a very balanced man. For all the punditry around him and the black white issue, the reason he has gotten so much support is obvious. Senator Obama is reflective and knowledgeable. He is a wonderful writer. He has worked to build communities.
I look at the Clinton and Obama campaignes. Which one has been better run? Obama.
I look at Clinton and Obama. Who is more open about who she/he is? Obama
Who is needs to be president more? Clinton. I get the feeling of blind ambition with Clinton. I don't see it with Obama.
Obama looks like a mature, reflective man. He is articulate and inspiring.
What I found interesting about what Ferraro said was she never mentioned his personal strengths. His position was simply due to how he was categorized.
To me the reason he has done so well in this campaign is simple: he is the better product.
If Obama s "black" because his father was black, then Obama is White. His mother was white.
There you got it. Barak Obama is WHITE!!!
"To me the reason he has done so well in this campaign is simple: he is the better product."
Spot on.
great point. i feel similarly about all the fear-mongering influenced comments about his middle name, years in Indonesia and the fact that his father is Kenyan. reactionary folks have used that to stir up hateful reactions, but why does hate get to set the tone of those facts? why aren't we *celebrating* the fact that one of our candidates has an Arabic-linked middle name? or that he spent some years in one of the most heavily muslim countries in the world? or that he's the son of an african man? shouldn't those be positive things in a time when there is so much divisiveness and misunderstanding of the Arabic, North African and Islamic Asian worlds? of course, unfortunately in order to see those as assets not things to be covered up we have to have an informed and educated populace and many politicians seem to revel in having ignorance and insularity prevail. but there needs to be a way to change the terms of the discussion so that instead of pandering to the presumption of ignorance and fear, we can embrace these things as assets that we treasure in our candidates.
Loading comments…
Posted March 12, 2008 | 10:55 PM (EST)