Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Americans may vote for a black presidential candidate, but would they vote for a black Democrat with pragmatic-progressive values and policy ideas?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

From Powell-mania to Obamarama

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted December 18, 2006.


Americans may vote for a black presidential candidate, but would they vote for a black Democrat with pragmatic-progressive values and policy ideas?
Advertisement

"Obamarama" can be defined as the cult of personality surrounding the young senator from Illinois -- Barack Obama -- and his "leadership potential," specifically the fad fantasy that he could be the first "black" POTUS.

Apparently, Colin Powell-mania is officially over. Maybe Condi-palooza is right around the corner?

I put "black" in quotes not because I question Obama's authenticity, smoothness, eloquence, or blackness (whatever that means), but only to note the inevitable (and irritable) racial debate Obama's candidacy will inspire in living rooms and barbershops across the country.

Would he really be the first truly "black" president? His father is Kenyan and his mother is white. His forbears weren't slaves in America. So, he may be 'a person of color,' but this isn't a story of a descendent of slaves rising to the most powerful office in the nation, etc.

The other national race discussion Obama's candidacy will spark is whether the "color-blind" anti-affirmative action crowd actually sees him as "black," which brings with it a host of unconscious, often negative, associations, manifested in coded language like "is he really the most qualified?" As we get closer to campaign season, watch how much "serious" commentary you'll find raising questions about his "qualifications," as if affirmative action opponents didn't vote for Bush. Twice.

Of course it's possible that a white majority may vote for a black president. But Condi's a more formidable candidate than Obama. A black woman running against a Democratic opponent? How do PC Democrats go after a black woman and win?

Still, if the historical record is any indication, Obama winning the White House in '08 would be nothing short of absolutely shocking, a few steps down the ladder from discovering alien life on Mars. True shock and awe, on my part, at least.

If Obama were to somehow prevail on election night, I would be OJ Simpson-acquittal shocked. Add to it my surprise at how surprised most of my fellow Americans seemed to be that terrorists actually attacked the United States after all these years of U.S. "interventions" and that's how shocked I'd be.

The awe part wouldn't kick in until a few months later. Let's say Obama is elected. If he actually lived aaaall the way from election night to the inauguration, I would be so awed I'd lead an anti-affirmative action protest in front of the NAACP's national headquarters.

What would be most surprising isn't the possibility that a majority of white Americans would cast their ballot for a black presidential candidate, which must be the case given present demographics. No, the real surprise would be if a majority of white America voted for a black Democrat with pragmatic-progressive values and policy ideas.

Because the undeniable record is: black leaders who don't come from the Booker T. Washington "safe Negro" tradition never reach the pinnacle of their political potential before they're either marginalized or killed, whether we're talking about Martin and Malcolm, Jesse and Al or Shirley Chisolm and Paul Robeson, superficial style aside.

Robeson's life is instructive, actually. As my friend Stew Goodwin has convinced me, Robeson is one of the most accomplished Americans of the 20th century, whose life boasts elite accomplishments in sports, theater, music, oration and activism. Progress? Yes, but here we have probably the pound-for-pound most talented African-American ever and most folks reading this right now are saying Paul Robe-who?

That's not an excuse for black politicians and civic leaders to throw in the towel. As the legendary Detroit activist Grace Boggs once told me, "You just never know."

One thing we do know: As important as responsive politicians are in creating a better America, it can't happen without an organized, energized, visionary and multi-racial citizen movement, no matter who's in the White House. Instead of obsessing over presidential possibilities, it would be more fruitful to focus on social movement possibilities.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, barack obama, colin powell

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama is a sellout just like Powell so neither of them deserves it.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 18, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd love a black president if he or she were a populist ala Webb, Tester, Sanders, Nancy Boyda, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conyers and Waters Posted by: ScottP
» RE: Conyers and Waters Posted by: Lincoln fan
Barack Obama and bad arguments
Posted by: CriminallySane on Dec 18, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"His father is Kenyan and his mother is white. His forbears weren't slaves in America. So, he may be 'a person of color,' but this isn't a story of a descendant of slaves rising to the most powerful office in the nation, etc."

So? Vote for the person, not the heritage. I suspect most of those who will vote for him will do just that. I further suspect that most of those who will not vote for him will not vote for him because of his heritage, whether it includes any slavery or not.

"But Condi's a more formidable candidate than Obama. A black woman running against a Democratic opponent? How do PC Democrats go after a black woman and win?"

More formidable? How? Explain, please.

And "PC Democrats" won't have to go after her - the Republican racist and misogynist base will never support her in a million years, for exactly those two reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barack Obama and bad arguments Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
» RE: How elitist can you get? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Would they vote for him?
Posted by: particle on Dec 18, 2006 3:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know. But the time may be right for Obama if he can manage to run the inevitable gauntlet of swift-boating. And he wouldn't get the soft handling that Bush got from the press. But he's got a political presence, fresh and smart, that stands out against the dreck we've become accustomed to. It's something the likes of which no potential candidate has had in a very long time, including Powell who at one time may have seemed respectable but wasn't particularly charismatic. Like it or not, this is important in politics. More important than race these days? Remains to be seen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does this mean?
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Dec 18, 2006 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How do PC Democrats go after a black woman and win?"

What does this mean?

The answer to not having Rice as president is simple: don't vote for someone who has committed war crimes. Common sense.

My vote goes to Paul Robeson, alas, posthumously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Robeson...
Posted by: k_the_c on Dec 18, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cults
Posted by: edith on Dec 18, 2006 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cult of personalities wrecked "socialism". It will wreck efforts to reform the American system after the gross centalization of power by the Cold War "wise men" and then the reign of the Bush regimes, aided and abetted by Baker and the Carlyle cabal.

Obama may be a perfectly decent fellow. He certainly is highly intelligent, a change from the Dim Duke Of Crawford. But with respect to Obama, Harvard Law degrees are common to men and women of power and influence. Law firms, corporations, universities and yes, public interest groups feature many men and women of intelligence, drive and ambition who are anti-Bush and Ivy League grads.

How about leadership from below for once. Somehow I think if we are really sincere about restoring liberty to the nation, we need to make the President an unimportant figure by the dismantlement of the Federal govt to its basic funcitions explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Health care, retirement, homeland security, education, most transportation and research should be carried out by states, local govts, nonprofit organizations and individuals who would have the benefit of trillions of dollars now sucked by the vacuum cleaner called Washington. Barack's a nice smart guy, but like Hilary, McCain and Romney, he wants power, to be the Numero uno.

We need a President to get us out of running the world, to dismantle most of the Federal govt, to refund the people's money back to them, and then to retire to go fishing, hunting, to play chess or play with his grandkids.

Dennis Kucinich?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cults Posted by: davcrock
» RE: Cults Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Cults Posted by: Leman
Obama
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 19, 2006 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As politicians go, he sounds half-way articulate and intelligent. Or to put it another way, he doesn't have a chance in hell.

Condi is a compulsive liar, drowns puppies for fun, and does what The Man tells her. A
formidable candidate indeed, more in line with American values.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama must 'fess up'. Posted by: symcokid
We are a racist, sexist country
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 19, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Obama or Hilary have chance of winning the general election. If the democratic leadership choose either one, they’ll be slaughtered like McGovern was. Americans have been conditioned to hate liberals, and neither a black liberal or woman liberal will escape the wrath of a white man backlash.

Dirty Harry said, “A man has to know his limitation.” And the same applies to a nation. We are a racist, sexist country from the bowling alley to the boardroom. If by some miracle, either happen to win, The Rabid Right will assassinate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wise words Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: A man has to know his limitation Posted by: shangrilalad
I asked Paul Street if Obama actually believed what he says or
Posted by: mdruss42 on Dec 19, 2006 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is he like George Wallace...remember Georgie saying, late in life, that he did not believe all that racist drivel, he just did it to get power, like that is a moral, decent thing to do...


Paul answered..
Mariam: My sense is that (beneath his pronounced statements of Christian committment) Obama is a soulless political machine who says what he thinks will get him into the White House some day. What he or other policymakers and politicans truly believe is rarely a simple matter to discern; sometimes it comes out only later. Pretty much by definition they make a big distinction beween private beliefs and public statements.

My sense is that B.O. is more conscious than most politicians of the extent to which he is spewing bullshit. I mean he's no dummy. Like Clinton and unlike, say, Bush, he is highly intelligent.

B.O. is considered to have strong "man of the people" and related domestic policy credentials (this even while he has been vetted by corporate elite power brokers, who have determined that he is safe for existing homeland hierarchies) but to be presidentially suspect (as far the structurally super-empowered corporate imperial folks who matter are concerned) because of short national experience particularly with regard to grave matters of foreign policy.

That's why you see him giving these weighty global policy speeches with obvious major input from people in around the foreign policy establishment. He is trying to sound presidential and safe for the Empire. If you look at the chapter called "The World Beyond Our Borders" in his plodding book "The Audacity of Hope," it's just loaded with terrible statements showing (1) the significant influence of elite doctrine and education (how much he believes I have no idea...) and (2) a desire to impress the elite that he's safe and will seek to maintain basic imperial continuties.. a more intelligent and "competent" version of American global dominance than that promised by incompetent morons like Bush II.

Speaking of being smart and Chomsky, I don't give smart people a lot of points for being smart but for what they do with their brains. What's so great about Chomsky in my opinion is that he took an obviously super-gifted mind and background --- capacities that could have probably put him into the economic super-elite if that's what he'd wanted --- and applied it all instead to marvelous morally engaged radical-democratic criticism of social injustice and imperial criminality. I've worked for many years (though no longer) in and around academia and must say that it is full of people with all kinds of smarts (no not Chomsky-level smarts, but very clever and knowledgeable people often enough) who just do nothing worthwhile or meaningful (not to mention radical) with their capacities and their privlege. With some noble exceptions, they spend most of their time making excuses for the crimes of concentrated power or just pursuing totally innocuous subject mattters. It's a very boring and often quietly vicious, back-kniving world where the stultifying stench of irrelevance and wasted energy is thick indeed. Interestingly enough there's a real acadedmic feel and related boring tone about Obama's prose in this last book. He has worked for years as a professor at the legendarily dull, vicious,and reactionary University of Chicago.

You can find the article by Paul and the other comments at Z NET.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it would be more fruitful to focus on social movement possibilities.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 19, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that this should be the focus, I want certain results and I couldn't care less who delivers them. I'll tell them both before the election what I want. If Condi Rice backs my issue and Obama doesn't then it's Condi for me. If Obama does and Condi doesn't it's Obama all the way. If neither backs my issue a pox on both. I'll write in a protest vote for Honest Abe.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Answer is Very Simple
Posted by: Kym525 on Dec 19, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter how qualified Obama is (and he's a damn sight more qualified to run this country than that loser who's sitting in the White House), the bottom line for much of America, and not just white folks - is can people see past his apparent RACE? Whether or not he's 'half-white' does not signify.

My answer is very simple:

NO.

I'm not being cynical, just realistic. We've progressed much beyond race and gender but we still have a long way to go. The fact that anyone even questions Obama's qualifications when it appeared that no one ever questioned Bush's (and god knows more people should have) says everything right there. He's black, he's obviously 'unqualified'. Just observing the fallout from a campaign ad against Harold Ford in which a white female blows a kiss proves that some backwards folks still can't handle interracial relationships, especially those that involve a black male.

Can you imagine what the Rove machine could do to Barack Obama, especially in places where they think they won the Civil War simply because they killed more Yankees? And the fact that he's both a man of quiet faith and progressive values - well, that won't play too well in states where they still think this war in Iraq is a good idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neanderthal logic
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 19, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From their perspective, conservatives are quite correct in debunking the theory of evolution. Evolution isn’t a universal circumstance, some evolve, some don’t and clearly, they didn’t.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neanderthal logic Posted by: Lincoln fan
Boldness or Not?
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 19, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a way, nominating Obama would be bold in a sense, but it is also pretty iffy. I do think there is a bloc of folks who won't vote for a person of color (whether or not he or she is descendent of slaves).

I'd like to see a person of color or a woman or both (but not Condi), but there is a lot at stake now so maybe we need to go with a palatable white boy one more time? I feel shaky even typing this, but we just need to turn the White House over to Democrat this time. I'd like a third party. I'd like a real liberal. I'd like a million dollars. But maybe I need to take what the heck I can get this time and try to save the country.

Hillary just has too much baggage to win, and do we really want 20 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton? Come on. I think Barrack might have a CHANCE to win the general; I don't see that with Hillary.

Someone mentioned that a man needs to understand his limitations, and the same applies to women. Hillary can be a great U. S. Senate and probably even the Majority Leader at some point, or she could be a great Cabinet member. She might even be a good VP and that might give her a chance to overcome her baggage and get elected down the road. But to go straight to the nomination, I can't see it.

I see it as three person race, and someone will become number three. The best prospect now seems to be Edwards, and he does talk about addressing economic inequality, and he does seem to care about poverty. He messed up with his vote on Iraq, but I think he has overcome that by admitting he messed up. He was a freshman senator from a conservative state and didn't buck the popular opinion of the time. No, he didn't show leadership, but sometimes folks "f" up.

I am really thinking that an Edwards/Obama ticket might be juicy enough and yet safe enough (Edwards has had some pretty solid vetting during the 2006 process) to help us thread the electoral needle and elect someone halfway decent. Actually, we might do better with Edwards and Richardson. I like the New Mexico boy because he is Hispanic, and that's important. And he is a man who beleives in international negotiation, etc.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boldness or Not? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Boldness or Not? Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Boldness or Not? Posted by: jenvon
An Interesting Thought
Posted by: Kym525 on Dec 19, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how the right-wing wacko pundits out there, co-opting MLK's belief in the 'content of one's character' and endlessly kvetching about how black people don't support Condeleeza Rice because she's a republican, will react if black people decide to overwhelmingly vote for Obama. Will they view it as some sort of 'sticking with the race' mentality, or will they actually think we're voting for someone who understands our issues and is willing to address them?

Then again, the wacko pundits always try to have it both ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama, a new Kennedy?
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 19, 2006 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Democratic demogogary aside...

Americans may vote for a black presidential candidate, but would they vote for a black Democrat with pragmatic-progressive values and policy ideas?

Sure they would. But Washington wouldn't like it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Please!
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Dec 19, 2006 8:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know who has anointed Barrack the next Great White Hope but I suspect that the Republican Party will back his candidacy in the faint hope that he becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2008. Why you ask, simply because in the great "free" country our ours, the Evangelical Christians and Southern Republicans would never vote for a Black President. Let's be real here folks, if the Democrats loose a third presidential election in a row - they cease to be a party and become a gaggle of losers and malcontents. Obamma is the darling of the Republican Party and the Media as the poison pill candidate for the Democratic Party. An to those who will brand this commentary as racist, please face the reality of the situation and not the color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Please! Posted by: jenvon
Don't be led down the garden path
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 20, 2006 2:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Be aware

A word of warning to my fellow democrats. Please be aware of who the Mass Media chooses to spotlight and whom they ignore. Right now they heap attention on Hillary and Obama and ignore Edwards and Kucinich. Who chooses which candidates get attention and who gets ignored?

Please be aware of the awesome power of the Mass Media to influence and manipulate the outcome of our elections. They can make or break candidates, just as they did with McGovern, Goldwater and with Dean and his exuberant scream. The Mass Media is not a neutral force, they represent the interests of their masters. Their masters are not a bunch of altruistic liberals, they are tightly knit group of extremely powerful corporations owned by the richest two percent of our population. They have an axe to grind.

The Mass Media emphasizes the negatives and ignores the positives, and vice versa. Be aware of what they are doing.




.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barak Who???
Posted by: Leman on Dec 20, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously, who is he?
Why is there so much talk about (and overall attention to) a random guy?

Hey, maybe I should run in the next elections too - I headed a couple of class meetings in high school and I just may be a half Icelander and a quarter woman.

Who cares if he is black or orange? Race-schmace. He does not have any record - that's it. He is not a governor. He's never been a Secretary of anything. And his last name is neither Kennedy nor Bush. Aside from a pretty smile - what exactly are his qualifications?

P.S. And no, I am not trying to trash him because he is black (nor the opposite - because his anncestors didn't grow cotton in the South). I don't care about one's color as long as he or she is right for the job. Is he?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barak Who??? Posted by: goldenta
I Miss President Dean
Posted by: dannrusso on Dec 23, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad we never get to have (or even sometimes get to vote for) the best candidates...

wouldn't that be nice someday?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up
Posted by: Dianne D. on Jan 1, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so tired of people wanting presidential candidates to have years of experience in Congress, etc. As of now, I'm scared of folks with years of experience simply because they have years of being tainted by the system, years of playing political games. Has it occurred to anyone that Obama's lack of "experience" may actually benefit us? Perhaps we need a person who has a fresher, more objective, less tainted perspective on our problems as a nation, and one whose political "ties" have not become so strong as to hinder creativity in resolving those problems. WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Barack Obama?
Posted by: Dianka on Jan 2, 2007 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it "just me", or are most of us far less interested in race than in ideas? I think what we are seeing here is tremendous disappointment/dissatisfaction with the "new" Democratic Party, which is merely the party of Republican Lite. Few things have lost elections for Democrats like the conservative DLC. Americans are crying out for a party that actually represents the people, the great masses, the working class AND the impoverished. Obama is the closest thing we've seen to a bright spark of hope from the Dem Party in many years, someone who might choose a route other than government of, for and by the elite. He represents a hope that has been so incredibly distant for decades---a hope we almost felt, for a little while, when Clinton was elected, quickly dispelled when he took welfare dollars for America's desperately poor to fund even more "tax cuts" for the rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]