Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Squandering of Obama

By Salim Muwakkil, In These Times. Posted August 2, 2007.


Political masterminds have transformed the candidate from a political visionary into an electoral product like every other presidential aspirant.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Salim Muwakkil

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I have known Barack Obama since the early '90s. My various conversations with him had convinced me he was an indelible progressive. I celebrated his entry into politics with his first election to the state senate from Illinois' 13th District, and he compiled a strikingly progressive legislative record during his seven-year stint.

Conditions conspired perfectly to grease Obama's route into the U.S. Senate and then into the presidential race. Those of us following the "Obama phenomenon" from its inception were amazed by the magical, dreamlike quality of his ascent. A local astrologer explained it by noting a propitious celestial alignment in Obama's chart.

Perhaps astrology could best explain his meteoric rise. After all, what rational pundit would have predicted that a black candidate with a name like Barack Hussein Obama would become a U.S. senator and a legitimate presidential candidate during a war with Islamic terrorism?

The dream continues with Obama as a frontrunner in the Democratic primary race. Somehow, though, the magic has gone missing. The cut-and-parse, political calibrations employed by Obama's campaign staff have devalued enchantment and put a premium on marketing. His political masterminds have transformed Obama from a political visionary into an electoral product (with demographically designed components) just like every other presidential aspirant. His handlers have excised the very quality that distinguished Obama from the usual suspects.

No one in this well-populated brood of presidential candidates has yet said much about the incarceration crisis in black America, or the large black unemployment rate, or the chronically low quality of education in city schools, or anything else relating to the specific needs of the African-American electorate. That is no surprise for the GOP's gang of 11. It is surprising, however, that Democrats have been similarly reticent, since black voters are the party's largest and most faithful electoral bloc.

This avoidance is deliberate. Party strategists apparently believe American voters are less likely to choose Democratic candidates if they perceive them under the sway of the party's most loyal constituents. For example, candidate Bill Clinton's criticism of Sister Souljah's inflammatory comments in 1992 about the Los Angeles riots (now referred to as Clinton's "Souljah Moment") is often credited with helping him win the votes of many "Reagan Democrats." He demonstrated a willingness to put blacks in their place.

Sophisticated African-American voters are expected to tolerate this perverse electoral tendency and squash their specific gripes for the good of the progressive whole. Obama's progressive supporters often utilize this argument to push back black demands for specific campaign attention.

Many of us familiar with Obama hoped he would help put an end to the Democrats' racial schizophrenia. Knowing him as a strong advocate of racial pride, with a deep knowledge of African-Americans' liberation struggle, we thought Obama was perfectly cast as the candidate who could bring needed perspective to our racial dilemma. Our past conversations led me to believe he would seek that role as well.

Perhaps he came to believe that political success was incompatible with efforts to promote a serious racial reckoning. He may have wanted to ride the Obama magic all the way to a progressive revolution, but was reined in by more seasoned political hands. You can almost hear their hypothetical arguments: "Personal magic and charisma will take you only so far. The rest of the trip requires astute political calculations."

Political calculations must be the reason Obama is playing the "Bill Cosby card" (that is, focusing on individual behavior as the primary cause of racial disparity) in his latest speeches. He knows better than that. After all, Obama wrote the foreward to the National Urban League's distressing 2007 report "The State of Black America: Portrait of the Black Male," which indicts institutional racism as the major culprit.

With his knowledge of context and his unique access to the public square, many wonder why Obama is focusing on issues that reinforce white Americans' denial of slavery's legacy. Some commentators point to that very focus as the reason for his popularity. Paul Street, for example, writes in the June 20 edition of the webzine, blackagendareport.com, "Obama allows whites to assuage their racial guilt and feel non-racist by liking and perhaps even voting for him while signaling that he won't do anything to tackle and redress the steep racial disparities and systematic racial oppression."

Street has been a consistent critic of the Obama phenomenon, but many of us who know the candidate begged to differ. We argued he was a true progressive who would use his extraordinary time in the limelight to speak unpopular truths about U.S. foreign and domestic policy while unflinchingly reminding the nation of its racial obligations.

That prospect was the magic ingredient in Obama mania. His strategists are busy squandering it.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, campaign, barack obama, political masterminds, electoral product, image

Salim Muwakkil is a senior editor of In These Times, where he has worked since 1983, and an op-ed columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He is currently a Crime and Communities Media Fellow of the Open Society Institute, examining the impact of ex-inmates and gang leaders in leadership positions in the black community.

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

Advertisement
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:
2
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 2, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you suggesting that Obama is obligated to push for special treatment of black people because he's black and "progressive"?

And what are "racial obligations"? Is this about the reparations thing again?

Would you vote for a guy who favors one color over another? According to this article, I guess it depends what color you're talking about.

On an instinctive level, it's easy to hate Condi for being part of a system that's responsible for keeping a lot of black people poor, or worse. But if you really believe in racial equality, then she's just another scumbag like the rest of the Regime, and you can't really pass extra judgement on her, although I admit it's sometimes fun to point out the irony. The same goes for wishy-washy, insecure Democrats.

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

» RE: 2 Posted by: Lauren
» RE: 2 Posted by: prolific0ne
Obama, like Hillary, a corporate shill for Class and Empire
Posted by: Perfectclue on Aug 2, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would strongly urge, Obama, the equal opportunity class shill for corporate Empire, to shut down its imperial policies, and to stop supporting these fascist, zionist foreign policies, state terrorism, that produces multiple "blowbacks", counter terrorism. Once again these corporate democrats pretend anti war positions, yet position themselves as class thugs and partners with Bush's imperial policies.

Obama, pretends to be more anti war than Hillary, yet both are warmongering, threatening the Arab world with more of the same policies. Eveyone now is calling themselves Al Qaeida, to signal world resistance to Amerikan, fascist interventions against the Arab world. The Sunnis are called Al Qaida because they oppose the illegal invasion and occupation. The Shiites are called Al Qaeda because they have left the CIA puppet regime of Iraq, demanding Amerika leave. The resistance of the Arab world to Amerikan regime changes, and mass murder, is labled Al Qaeda. Obama has no clue, which is why many democrats refuse to support this corporate, imperial democrat, liberal war hawk, and Zionist supporter of the policies of AIAC, the Israeli lobby and its warmongering cheerleading section.

Minorities should not be voting for Obama because he is not white, Women should not be voting for Hillary because she is not male, in fact people should stop shooting themselves in the foot with these superficial loyalties, and everyone should reject these class elties, for those who oppose these policies on a fundamental level, by rejecting the corporate polciies, corporate ideologies, appeasing class shills for fascism, and voting for true anti war candidates, like Kucinich or Gravel. Vote for Green, or any independent party, that is truly independent of these corporate class values, class policies, and imperial class interests. It is as Gravel said of the corporate democrats: "These people frighten me". Olbermann correctly called the corporate hierarchy of the democratic party, part of the failed political class, and Neville Chamberlain appeasers of fascism and imperial policies, who only streamlinged the class corruption and process for corporate Empire.

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

When WILL we ever learn . . .
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 2, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . that even the the most incompetent, committed, and visionary individual, when processed through Political Packaging, Inc., comes out homogenized and, dare I say it, a pale copy of him- or herself?

Robert Kennedy was one of the few politicians in my lifetime who wouldn't sell black people down the river for white votes, or working-class people down the river for middle-class votes. Maybe it was because he had so much family money he didn't have to worry as much about big corporation money? Nah, plenty of the rich guys out there now are pretty gutless. Political Packaging, Inc., can make a great candidate mediocre, but it can't give a mediocre candidate intelligence, compassion, or courage.

Come out, Barack Obama, wherever you are! And by the way, where's the Wizard of Oz when we need him?

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

» P.S.: Woops! Posted by: hagwind
Multitude of comments
Posted by: anothername on Aug 2, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Obama, Clinton, and Richardson, just like the white male candidates, are most familiar with the people of their heritage. The key will be for Obama, Clinton, and Richardson to demonstrate they can reach beyond the Black, the woman, and the Hispanic affiliations. Unfortunately, we don't hold the white men to the same level of demonstrating that they can reach beyond privileged white male heritage.

2) Look at who pulled Obama into the presidential contest. It was a white Hollywood producer and a white Wall Street investor. From the very beginning of his presidential campaign, Obama has been representing wealthy, white male America.

3) Once again, Obama is presented as having a vision. Yet, nobody can tell me what that vision is. I was at one of his recent campaign stops in an early state and a local saw me taking notes and gave me an aside comment that Obama is still not saying anything. Moreover, I found it interesting that one of the examples of current conditions that Obama used was what one of his main backers has been saying. That is Warren Buffet talking about his 15% tax on dividends while his secretary pays 28% on salary.

4) Obama is not a descendent of slaves, at least not slaves in America. There is a different heritage between African Americans who came to the U.S. after 1900 and those whose ancestors were brought here on slave boats. When I call my credit card company and talk with somebody in India, I can understand the words but the person does not understand my frustration. When Obama hails a cab that does not stop or gets into Harvard, he may bring recognition to the African American/Black community but does he understand the generations of struggle and refusal for admission or access that descendents of slaves in America feel?

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

» RE: Multitude of comments Posted by: Belter
» RE: Multitude of comments Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Multitude of comments Posted by: jmooney
All About the Image
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Aug 2, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fear the use of words like "enchantment" to describe a politician. Indeed, it's the same with terms like "visionary". They give us a feeling of something important, something that will lead to change, but in the end they refer only back to image.

This is not an article about someone with real specific policy plans, ideas, or even ideals being turned into the usual empty figurehead. It is an article about a change in image that may prove to be poor political policy-- unless the author did not choose words wisely. This is, of course, typical in an age of what Milan Kundera referred to as imagology.

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

EXTRA, EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT........
Posted by: bestofthebest on Aug 2, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OBAMA Wants to Invade Pakistan.
Can you believe it? He wants to open up the possibilty of bringing down Musharraf's government. That could turn Pakistan into another Iran.
This man has no clue when it comes to foreign policy.

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

» Absolutely right Posted by: ladmeaux
a cult of personality
Posted by: MadFlacc on Aug 2, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Obama's supporters and his campaign staff are really wrapped up in his personal charisma; you could tell by his campaign video during the YouTube debate. Upbeat music mixed with the noise of screaming fans, long shots of big crowds cheering, and Obama, Obama, Obama. He performed well in that debate, but the skirmishing with Hillary that began the next day was kind of absurd...

Who are Obama's campaign people? The author of this article seems to think they're sinister fixers...

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

Barack Obama's article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS a revelation
Posted by: jcrw on Aug 2, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are two articles on candidate Barak Obama.

Democrat Barack Obama spells out his foreign policy: “I will not hesitate to use force”
By Andre Damon
28 July 2007

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/obam-j28_prn.

"This month’s issue of Foreign Affairs carries an essay by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama outlining his foreign policy. Obama gets to the point early on. Noting the catastrophe in Iraq, he writes: “After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world
affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make.”

And this informative article:

Running Dog Obama
by Paul Street
July 29, 2007
Empire and Inequality Report, No, 24 ZNET

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11
&ItemID=13396

(N.B. Please join two portions of URL into a single line
- was split due to 60 character limitation here.)

"Barack Obama’s most recent attempt to prove his Harvard-certified safety to the doctrinal gatekeepers of the U.S. foreign policy establishment ought to make it clear once and for all that he is what the Maoists used to call a "running dog lackey of United States imperialism."

My final comment: For any real change, we must DUMP THE DEMOCRATS. The party is totally controlled by corporate money and corporate interests. Corporate financing of Obama and Hillary negates any oppositional or progressive facade. Kucinich is already a proven loser and totally dependent on Democratic Party.
We need a new third party, devoid of corporate control and financing, supported by the labor movement in support of the interests of the vast majority of people, America's working people.

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

Obama's Hillary Moment
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Aug 2, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed, Obama is beginning to sound a bit like Hillary Clinton in that packaged way. Now, following in the Clinton mold, he has to sound as if he will take bold military actions in the faux war on terror. Well, threatening to invade Pakistan to go after terrorists, as Obama just did, was even less thought-through than the Clinton nostrums. The unintended consequences of going into a third Muslim country, that happens to have nuclear weapons, would magnify the problems we have like a thousand suns.

I'm truly disappointed in Obama's blather, and cannot trust him.

You say Obama, he says Osama; let's call the whole thing off.

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

» RE: Obama's Hillary Moment Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Obama's Hillary Moment Posted by: Lauren
» WDOW? what does osama want? Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: WDOW? what does osama want? Posted by: EasterBunny
WE ALREADY HAVE A WAR MONGER
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 2, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has his bright moments, but his 'wouldn't hesitate to attack Pakistan' wasn't one of them. He's out of the race in my mind. He does not have the experience to make such a statement so early in the game. Sorry, I liked him but he's trying to be all things. The Hillary is 'Bush Cheney light' remark also landed with a thud. So early on and he's floundering. That shouldn't be. Maybe he's been squandered because that's all there is. Thanks, ANNA

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

Barack was SPEAKING to Bush + his Bilderberg buddies NOT Clinton
Posted by: DanielleClarke on Aug 2, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
read july 25 senate CFR statement

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2007/hrg070725p.html

Here you will see how torn Barack was during the last week.

He had Hillarys niave statement and he also had to deal with the REAL TRUTH

That lead him to SAY THE RIGHT THING

and that wasn't good for POLLS

I believe Barack has not just reacted to Hillarys statement at the last YOUTUBE DEBATE but he is using what he has learned to help let the people of Pakistan understand that he is a potential candidate who will take action and it can be good and it can be bad depending on their actions in the upcoming elections.

Now this was not what many expected to hear from Barack. Especially after coming out on top after the Clinton/Obama fued.

To me it tells me Barack has decided that letting the Pakistan people know what is going on and by making it public that the future president is willing to help with 5 billion dollars in aid to that region. This is
important because they do need funding for stability.
Barack knows that much has been lost due to all the funds going to the war in Iraq. This i am sure hurts Barack. He knows Bush had a chance at doing great things in afghanistan and Pakistan but that was detored with the Iraq war.

I know, this was a shock to me, a supporter, to see his statements about invading Pakistan, but now that i have read the "full report", i am proud of Barack, for doing whats right, versus just trying to win an election through getting good polls numbers.

For this i have to thank Barack for pushing the envelope and helping to do the right thing that is best for the long run for american for Pakistan and for the world.


Also Bush's BILDERBERG buddies with the bin laden family habe created HAVOC around the world and i am sure Barack was also letting Bush know he would act and not follow along with Bush's buddies.

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

The Old Obama Is Gone Forever
Posted by: Blueprelude on Aug 2, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Muwakkil, I empathize with your heartbreak over Obama. I went through similar withdrawal symptoms during 2005 and 2006 when it became apparent he stood with corporate interests and only had words for ordinary Americans.

It sounds like you are in the first stage of grief, namely denial. You are ascribing what has changed in Mr. Obama to his handlers. The truth is, as always, that it takes two to tango. He wouldn't be playing with the money crowd if he wasn't willing to play with them. Mr. Obama no longer dances with the ones who brought him; only the rich banker's daughter.

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

Blame the handlers, sounds like Al Gore.
Posted by: Niels on Aug 2, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember that Al Gore blamed his handlers for putting him in a straight jacket after he won the election (that is my view of history anyway). Why repeat this? If Obama is indeed the candidate he is supposed to be, one of the tests he has to pass is the picking of the right staff. Does he not control that? If he is the wonderboy, is this not one of his tests? What kind of president would he be, if he cannot get his own views and voice by his own campaign staff. I am sorry, but this sounds like a truly silly accusation. If Obama is the candidate many hope he is, then he can speak his own mind, and be his own person. If he is indeed the untested, inexperienced candidate, some say he is, then he will be handled with ease. Nobody to blame but Obama himself.

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

» RE: Blame the handlers, sounds like Al Gore. Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
Obama Has Talked About Urban Problems
Posted by: zennie on Aug 2, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi. I've heard Senator Obama talk about issues of concern to African Americans many times. Oh can forget his famous father's day speech? Please review the Senator's speeches before making such a statement.

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

There's nothing to "sqander"
Posted by: xi_people on Aug 2, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How has Obama been "squandered"? His so-called "meteoric rise" has been accomplished through smoke and mirrors -- and a crap load of funding from people who demand that his agenda follows theirs.

I have no idea what gave anyone the idea that Obama was progressive in the slightest degree. Like Hillary, he craves power and doesn't particularly care how he gets it. Beware of voting for a candidate who doesn't hesitate to run and lick the boots of those with power, money and influence.

A great article in the Black Agenda Report tells you all you need to know about "Obama-mania."

Just go to http://www.blackagendareport.com/ and search for
"Barack Obama: The Mania and the Mirage."

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

I applaud Obama's stance on Pakistan
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Aug 2, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No mercy to the real al-Qaeda or anyone who shelters them. The war King George ran away from in his haste to plunder Iraq needs to be finished.

plur

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

» ...and I don't share Posted by: hurricane hugo
» That's the best you can do? Posted by: hurricane hugo
Vote for Dennis K. or Ron P. -- and NO ONE ELSE!
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 2, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless, of course, you want more of the same in Washngton, D.C.

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

what's with the bloodthirsty comments?
Posted by: ethanay on Aug 2, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are you kidding me? give him some time -- he's a junior US Senator. in general, they get to vote on bills, and it takes a lot of work and time to get to the point where they have enough political capital and even the *remote* possibility of them doing other things (being committee members, authoring or sponsoring bills that have a shred of a chance of passing, etc)

in an "ideal" racist society we would be able to elect someone who could immediately start working on our lingering race issues...but we don't live in an ideal racist society. we live in the real world USA, where we pass laws against racism and sexism, but they are still both institutional and cultural. this makes it very difficult for all but the most powerful people in our society to do anything about the problem. When people like MLK, Jr. and RFK get powerful, they get assassinated. it's not necessarily a conspiracy or anything -- it's just what tends to happen to good people who get enough power to do some amazing things.

even still, robert kennedy was a white man speaking about race issues -- very different than a black man doing the same in the eyes of the public and the political establishment. obama has to navigate a minefield even just to have a chance of making any change. for instance, i have nothing against al sharpton, but it's clear that obama has to do his best to prevent others (repubs, dems, media) from making cliche, racist comparisons between the two. he shouldn't have that responsibility, but he does. not to mention the fact that, both he and clinton are under the spotlight as the two first viable minority/woman presidential hopefuls. as soon as either one gets in office, every little misstep they make will become a sexist or racist stereotype for how "women" or "black people" perform as president. i also wouldn't be surprised if the national media manufactures or exaggerates some missteps, opposite of it hiding so many of bush's. for example, editing so many of his quotes(!!) for articles so they sound coherent.

i would back off, clean the blood off your chops, and give the folks a chance to work things out! if they truly end up as bad as you say they are apart from having to navigate through all the institutional and cultural racism and sexism, then you can kick and scream and i'll be there with you doing the same.

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

You want to know what's going on with Obama?
Posted by: kimbari on Aug 2, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read his books.

Dreams from My Father
The Audacity of Hope

Until you do, you don't know what you're talking about.

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

Advice worth repeating.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 2, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget Obama and Yo-Mama (Hillary). Democrat or Republican, if you love America, vote for Dennis K. or Ron P.

Enough said.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican, John Kerry supporter in 2004 and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

Peoria School Teacher
Posted by: Ginga on Aug 2, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an ardent liberal progressive citizen, I am dismayed by the Obama backlash from so many of you "fellow progressives". Barack isn't black enough to some of you and, I fear, not white enough to others. Never mind that he's the smartest, most far seeing, and compassionate democratic candidate! Is he perfect - of course not but he's the best candidate I've seen in the Democratic party since Bobby Kennedy. There are realities in our flawed election system and he must work within that framework if he has a hope of being nominated and elected. Do we want to win and start making some of our dreams realities? Or do we prefer to bring down this candidate. We have republicans to try to do that - we don't need to join them.

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

» RE: Peoria School Teacher Posted by: jmooney
This is part of Anti-Obama conspiracy by institutionalists!
Posted by: JPechinski on Aug 2, 2007 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This load of BS, not really discussing ANY of his solid issues, and completely overlooking that FACT that he is the BEST hope for Progressives to get away from the corporatist status quo Hillary et al. This (including most of the troll comments here) falls into the same category as the BS "polls" that somehow show that Hillary is "in the lead, and by a large margin" when Obama is clearly garnering more funds and these funds ARE SMALL Donors, NEW Donors AND VASTLY MORE NUMEROUS, thus how is it possible on this (diminishing) green earth possible that she could be leading? Fact is she isn't. Barack is clearly the star and desired candidate of the majority of people, but the institutions are afraid of this actual popular support and would tell you that he is "losing" knowing that many Americans (including many of these posters) can not think for themselves, and can't stand picking a "loser" so would vote for the "leader". Wake up you all, and start unabashedly following your heart and mind: vote Obama 08!!!!!!

Voting for those great guys like Kucinich, while laudible in spirit, (they are in actuality the more progressive), but it truly is throwing out your vote.

Now I know many will jump on this strategic thinking, however, there is a great difference from a) "conservative" strategy with ones vote for illigit reasons, like you all did for Kerry in the last one (believing wrongly and cowardly that he could win nationally, most "presidential", Most Experienced?!@#%$! this would be Hillary now.

((that "experience question" is yet another recent institutionalist attack on the perfectly experienced i.e. NOT STATUS QUO, NOT pre-conditioned by Washington Obama, who actually IS a breath of fresh air in politics (see his votes! read his books! his resume!!!)))

or b) "moderate" strategy and voting for Dean in the last one: the unabashedly energetic, new, and populous candidate then: and its Obama now.

or c) the most idealogically "pure" like a Kucinich (then or now) and get NOWHERE! (He does a great service like a Michael Moore expanding the debate and pulling things left, but like Moore is COMPLETELY reviled in the greater population as Kucinich is believed to be from outer space).

So again, get real everyone, note that the honest polls display that Obama has greatest leads in nationals against ANY republican in the national election. If Hillary wins these primaries, you might as well shoe-in Guilliani or Romney.....Vote Obama 08!!!!! For goodness sakes!

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

Who of the top-tier candidates is better?
Posted by: mwilhelm77 on Aug 2, 2007 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although Obama often gets labeled an idealist, I would say that he is first and foremost a pragmatist. I don't believe it's his "handlers" that are responsible for the shift that we've all seen- presidential campaigns are largely about marketing, and that requires calculation. Obama is far too smart to be led down a path he's not willing to travel.

Inevitably, Obama will alienate some of his more liberal supporters (as can be seen here) in the quest for gaining the support of more moderate Democrats and independents. This is a gamble for the primary, but if he gets the nomination, it will serve him well in the general.

For those of you who say, 'Dump the Democrats,' I say, in favor of whom? The Green Party? In a winner-take-all electoral system like we have in the U.S., that's a self-defeating proposition. What liberals (or progressives, or whatever label you want to give lefties) need to realize is that in order to win power, you need to project a message that is going to appeal to a majority of voters in the crucial states in the electoral college- Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. What that means is that we're not going to have an ideal candidate. What we're going to have is the best possible candidate. Obama may very well be that person, although it's far too early to make a final judgement on that. It irks me, however, that people are already writing him off at this stage of the game.

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

» RE: Who of the top-tier candidates is better? Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
Why we might consider giving Obama a little Slack:
Posted by: Nikk on Aug 2, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But lets look at the bigger picture here for a moment. The point of a campaign is to get votes so that you can be elected. Most black people are going to vote Democrat no matter what and most of them will vote for a black person if given the opportunity. So maybe now isn't the time to be addressing racial problems. Now is the time to be addressing voter-getting, publicity issues. You have to get in to office before you can get anything done. You have to play the game to get in to office. Even Al Gore became a politician when he ran for office, so did Ross Perot and Bill Clinton- and all of those who have never learned how to play the game get laughed at over and over again. Inspite of the ideas, the bravery, and the insite brought to politics by people like Kucinich, and Nader, they are absolutely unelectable, and its because they refuse to play into the politics of running for office. With that in mind, they will never get the policies passed, the changes made, the progress hoped for, that they could if they made it to the oval office.
Something to thing to consider is that just because Obama is black doesn't mean he has to be progressive. Perhaps it is our own racial assumptions that make us believe that a black man must also be progressive if they are running for office. If he was white would we be as upset about his political moves? No one is critisizing Hillary for not talking enough about womens issues because she needs to tap in to her female voting block. Obama is being attacked by blacks because he is black and they believe he should be representing them better. But how can millions of people be represented by one man, of any color, and expect him to stand where all of them do, on all of their issues? There have been plenty of black people who dissagree with most of the black community on where the problems are and who is responsible. Does that mean that electing a black man in to office isn't addressing some of those things, in and of its self? Why is it so important to elect a black president in the first place? Is it because we, progressives, also have a hang up about the color of a persons skin? In my mind I elect whom ever I find the most likely to represent me as president, regardless of skin color or sex. In this situation I find Obama to be that person, with the added point of interest that he is black. He isn't a better candidate because he is black, he isn't necessarily going to be a better president because he is black. He is a politician who also happens to be black, and thats what we need to keep in perspective. This is also how I feel about a woman in office. I would vote for a woman if she was alligned with my political views. I would not vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. This is why I will not vote for Hillary.

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

In addition to that note, I posit this:
Posted by: Nikk on Aug 2, 2007 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that the simple act of electing a black man in to office is progress, whether he makes the changes you want or not. I say that it is in and of its self progress because he will have changed history. Many presidents are never spoken about, whos names we don't know, and could care less about, but from the moment he is sworn in he will forever be the first black president. The laws he passes, the changes he makes, and the issues he does or doesn't address won't matter in the long run. They get changed, and ammended so often that they are, for the most part, unimportant. Laws are a reflection of a nation as a whole and as a nation changes so do their laws, but you can not go back and undo the first black president. This doesn't mean that Obama has to be that first. All it means is that his particular stance during his campaign might not be as important as the greater statement being made.

The one thing that his skin color will do for him, and already seems to be doing for him, is to energize and empower the minority populations. All of a sudden it is being proven, again, that black people are just as capable of competing for traditionally white roles in society. His color will hopefully get more black people, and other minoties more involved in politics. This phenomenon, if it happens, is when all of the issues, the black communty is pissed that he isn't addressing, will get addressed. Change will take place when the black community begins addressing these issues on a broader scale on their own. Obama isn't the black communities' savior, he will never be able to address all of the problems facing minorities in this nation, he will never be able to make all of them happy- but they can address them themselves. They, themselves, can put pressure of elected officials to make those changes. Minorities are still a smaller voting block, they still don't get involved in national politics, they still don't write to their reps, lobby for policies. But maybe Obama will inspire more of them to do these things.

The point I'm trying to make in all of this is that maybe we need to give this guy some slack. We can't be pissed at him for not living up to our expectations just because we got really excited about a black president. Take a look at his voting record, look as what he's done with his career, and then tell me that he isn't doing enough to talk about race issues in America. I'll tell you it's nonsense. He is actively doing more than most people on changing the ideas of race in America by being himself, working hard in his career, being active in his community, taking a stand against most of what this administration has, and is doing, and running for president. There are plenty of other criticisms we could make about Obama. One, for example, is that he is starting to take a stronger stand against terrorism. He has called for considering sending troops to Pakistan if they don't do more to expell terrorists from their mountains. He is not at all calling for a complete removal of troops from Iraq (in fact no candidate is). He hasn't addressed the genocide of Darfur nor the raising 8 trillions dollar deficit looming over our economy. He hasn't said he wants to cut military spending as far as I know and doesn't have a clear cut answer about illegal immigration that satisfies the needs of both populations (even thought I don't even consider illegal immigration a conversation to be had in the first place). Not one of these candidates are perfect, some are better than others, but they are all politicians. True colors never show until there are votes cast and their voting records get publicized. Lets get him in to office and see what he can do instead of worrying so much about what he is saying to get there.

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

Senator Strangelove.....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 2, 2007 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NY$$
[excerpt]: Shhhhhhhhh...that's O's 'Halo of Hope' pose..'when you wish upon a star, makes no difference (what color) you ...
are'....la de da dee..
Many of Obama’s baby bundlers cut their teeth in Bill Clinton’s administration. Mathis and Froman both worked in the Treasury Department, while Rubin, son of Bob, had been a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission. There was also Josh Steiner, another Treasury hand and now a partner of Steve Rattner’s at the Quadrangle Group. And others had no Clintonian association, but were emerging fund-raising powerhouses, such as former Goldman Sachs golden boy Eric Mindich.
At the heart of the next-gen cadre were Froman and Mathis, both law-school classmates of Obama’s. Together, they recognized that, whereas the Clinton fund-raising corps represented the financial elite tossed up by the LBO and M&A booms of the eighties, they were in a position to mine the vein of freshly minted money spawned by the hedge-fund and private- equity eruptions of the new millennium. The players behind those booms had no loyalties, and owed no debts, to the Clinton dynasty. They were looking for a candidate to call their own.
.....Hmmmmm..I wonder what serves as the rock bottom source foundation of all that 'freshly minted' cash??? EXACTLY who does what to whom and where
does this all take place...to facilitate the 'minting' process..:O)
[following is excerpt from]:
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama As Prepared for Delivery
AIPAC Policy Forum March 2, 2007 Chicago, Illinois
The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons Let's see..read in conjunction with his more recent remarks, O's ready to tac nuke-proactively of course and carried out with utmost surgical precision-BOTH Iran and Pakistan. The 'brotha' is lettin' them Muslim Beyatches know
he WILL step to them...he can throw 'nuclear' gang signs just
as well as (home)girlfriend 'C'......Awright!!!!!

.

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

My problem with his defense and climate plans
Posted by: cryptpyrc on Aug 2, 2007 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need a forward looking president who sees the REAL future and has good solutions to solve them.
The reason I cannot support Obama is because of his stance that the solution to our depedence on foreign oil is to extract oil from coal or coal shale. This produces 4X the amount of greenhouse gases that burning the coal alone would produce!
Global climate change is going to be the single largest thing that will radically impact ALL of our lives and this issue needs the be addressed in every aspect of how we live our lives because the way we currently live our lives impacts the reasons global climate change is happening and is going to increase exponetionally over the coming years.
We need a leader that advances and promotes truely renewable energy production. What they really should also be advocating just as much is conserving (finding ways to use less), efficiency of everything, and coordination so that all the pieces work together to help solve this truely holistic problem.

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

All of them are clueless...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 2, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Attack Pakistan? Oh yeah... i'm there on that one... (NOT)

Oil shale and coal? How brilliant!

Do NONE of these clowns get that we simply CANNOT burn ANY fossil fuels anymore? Where is the candidate who puts forth the idea of "Manhattan Project" type focus on solar and wind as a national priority? As essential to the very survival of anything like life as we know it? These guys speak only for a slight variation of more of the same... If this is the best we can do, I don't think we're going to make it, folks.

Do none of them see that 99% of the so called "terrorism" in the world is fueled by resentment of the Capitalist empires way of keeping the many down so the few can live in luxury? They act like we have a right to the mineral and petroleum wealth of other countries simply because we have developed a huge need and because we made agreements with governments that probably wouldn't even be there were it not for our political meddling, our monetary and military aid... Where are the candidates who truly want peace in the world and are willing to lead in giving people back the rights to what is on or under their own land so that they can provide for their own people?
You laugh? Well, then, see? That's how far gone we are. An idea like that seems absurd because we have been conditioned to see it that way but it's as easy really as intervening with toddlers and getting them to give back something they have grabbed and said "MINE." Once done and the good of doing it is seen and experienced, it becomes the new habit. The new way. Dig it!

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

Moneyed Elite Already Crowned Hillary, Obama Can't Win
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 2, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary has already taken tens of millions from the banks, insurance companies, defense contractors and AIPAC. Obama has gotten some loot also, (he is after all, a member of Congress) but, realistically he is not the coronated one. It is Hillary, she has already shown she can play ball - by not standing up to the banks on bankruptcy "reform," by voting for ever bigger defense budgets. And, lest we forget, her (now flim-flammed on the issue) support for Bushes stupidity in Iraq. We could go on. Obama could also be a "corporate man," just give him a little more time in Congress. He is already on his way to becoming a Condi Rice. The poor people to be even further left behind as new "corporate tax breaks," will be put into place. But, Obama is just being groomed now. Hillary has been choosen. Of course, for now, every little even slightly twit Obama statement is going to give him the working over in the USA press. The goal is, after all, Hillary, not him. Not now, not yet.

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

In search of perfection
Posted by: willymack on Aug 2, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We expect presidential candidates to say exactly the right thing every time they open their mouths, is that it? Just listen to our "dear leader" some time for comparison. While we're at it, WHO gets to decide whether someone says the right thing, or even what the "right thing" is? Just think about how difficult it is to make dozens or hundreds of speeches around our country and hit a home run every time. Do you think you can do it yourself? I know I can't.

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

» RE: In search of perfection Posted by: opeluboy
It's a fact...
Posted by: opeluboy on Aug 2, 2007 5:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that when running for the highest office in the land, the surest way to get a bump in the polls is to threaten someone — somewhere — with annihilation.

Today this means some Arab/Muslim country, and you will not find a Democrat (Kucinich and Gravel excluded) who is not pounding his/her chest in the hopes that it will make them electable.

I think this speaks volumes about the morality of the people we will eventually elect: they are willing for thousands — even millions — of innocents to die in order to win and to stroke their own vanity.

We have a very fucked up country.

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

Obama and independent voters
Posted by: NancyHanks on Aug 2, 2007 6:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your very thoughtful post about Barack Obama's historical run for the DP nomination. As an independent, I wish all the best for Obama's campaign--we need new leadership and a new direction for the country that reflects what the American people want, which I believe will come from outside the 2 political parties and partisan thinking that now dominate our political culture.

Your article makes me think about what a risk for the Dems right now to highlight issues important to the black community. Very risky. Obama fills the bill and Hillary has to contend with a Dem base organized around a non-Clintonian politic. Oooops! (In addition to Bill's "Sister Souljah" moment, let's also not forget that he left the trail in his seminal campaign to oversee the execution of a black man in Arkansas -- hardly an appeal to Americans of any color...) As you say, "He demonstrated a willingness to put blacks in their place."

The critical ingredient for the Obama campaign, if it is to remain relevant and anti-Clinton/Bush, is for Sen. Obama to reach out to independent voters. Independents are the base that can give flight to a new vision for America. I hope Mr. Obama will reach out to independent voters. It can make all the difference, not just for his campaign, but for the future of our country.
Nancy

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

» Ummmm....... Posted by: ekipnrut
Atlas shrugged
Posted by: nlewis23 on Aug 2, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never imagined in my lifetime that a Black person would be a viable candidate for the White House. Like many Blacks, I have often felt like an invisible citizen. On the 4th of July, President's Day, etc. - the nation would celebrate various milestones in our national history, but always under the guise that our Founding Fathers were such thoughtful, caring, creatures whom we should admire. Now, comes Barack Obama, a little bit of this and a little bit of that which has appealed to almost everyone. Therein lies the problem. Blacks are questioning his authenticity. The mainstream media (largely controlled by whites) is painting him as too naive, too young, and dare I say it too Black [read: Obama-Osama, madrassa, etc]. Unfortunately, a large segment of the Black community has bestowed upon Barack the burden to make us feel (finally) like full citizens in this nation. The conflicted feelings we have on "Independence Day", which occurred more than 100 years prior to the abolishment of slavery; the professionals among us who walk that tight, narrow rope among our culture and that of corporate America. All of that hurt, pain, confusion, pride and LOVE we have towards America - we expect Barack to heal. I personally feel pride while simultaneously feeling sympathy for Barack. Regardless of the outcome of the primary/general election - I have the utmost respect for what he is trying to accomplish. To suggest this man is in "unchartered territory" would be the understatement of this century. Please understand what this man gave up in the way of wealth to pursue Civil Rights. Even now, he could step away from it all, and work for a top law firm, etc. Say whatever you want about his policy. But he genuinely loves his family, and I certainly don't believe he would put himself and them through this level of scrutiny, personal attacks, belittlement, etc. if he truly didn't believe he could make a difference. I believe that about all of the Democratic candidates for president (to varying degrees) - except Hillary Clinton. Admittedly, Hillary knew years before Chelsea was born about Bill's skirt-chasing ways. At one point, he even attempted to leave the marriage. But she made a calculated move and convinced him otherwise; largely on the belief of all they could accomplish politically together. With pride, the Clintons admit to how young Chelsea was in the situation room as Bill discussed with his handlers how to spin the "Lewinsky situation". Say what you will, but the Obamas have a real love between them, and they're daughters are very fortunate. If I were in Barack's shoes, I would probably only think of my children, and never have entered this race. But he's still standing, and still STRONG.

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

Bye Bye Barak!
Posted by: jallan on Aug 2, 2007 7:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the writer and have been sorely disappointed in Obama. The article is timely as Mr. Obama showed that he is not different than any other politician. His call to go into Pakistan if necessary is a fast walk on the plank. His handlers are sinking his chances...bye bye Barak!

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

He wants to attack Pakistan??????????????????????
Posted by: gary_7vn on Aug 2, 2007 10:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is hard to believe. WTF does progressive mean in America anyway? I have no idea. Hilary is a war monger, Obama is a war monger. Jesus, you guys are screwed, at least those who want to live in peace. No one can get "elected" (ha ha elected what a joke, no democracy in Amerika) in Amerika unless they work for Zionists, the uber rich, and probably fucking Satan. America is bent on world domination. That is the "sane" agenda. Vast segments of your country want war in the middle east so Jesus can come back. The whole goddamn planet is doomed because of people like Obama, Hillary and Bush.

From where I sit they are the same. Scum, idiots, crazy christians, millennialists, give it up, talking about who will get "elected" in amerika is pointless. Murdoch is king, Israel calls the shots, the rich pull the strings, and what passes for a dem party can't do anything, precisely because they don't want to do anything.

A big war is coming. It's to stop China, protect Israel, work for big business, make shrub Churchill - who cares why! Obama, Hillary, don't matter, war is coming and amerikans are too stupid, too controlled, too weak to do anything about it. Good night.

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

» Substantive commentary Posted by: MadFlacc
» RE: Substantive commentary Posted by: opeluboy
Give me a freakin' BREAK! Shame on AlterNet.
Posted by: Flora Gael on Aug 4, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has NEVER been a progressive, has always mimicked white male corporate robots. Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY progressive candidate among the Dummocrats - he's a white male with a HEART (and there are several of those buzzing around), and his hands are not tainted with the blood of corporations.

And stop blaming his "handlers" for his generic packaged image - Obama is who he is by his own accord. He is a CORPORATE ZOMBIE, like Hilary and Edwards and the rest of the Demublicans.

AlterNet, do some freakin' coverage of Kucinich. You claim to be so "progressive" and against-the-grain and yet you shy away from covering the only candidate with the cojones to represent PEOPLE, not PROFITS.

Shame on you, AlterNet, for being part of the problem.

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

Perpetual Victimhood
Posted by: jmooney on Aug 6, 2007 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frankly, I know there are still problems with institutional prejudice in America. And I know the lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow still continue to permeate our system. However, there can be little doubt that some of (if not the majority) the problems facing African Americans today are a result of behavior. Now that behavior may well be as a result of all that historical injustice. It may be a psychological thing tracing back to the wrongs of history. But, you know what, at some point people have just go to say, "The heck with it," and lift themselves up. There are plenty of examples throughout society (Sen. Obama being a great one) of African Americans rising above racism. And regardless of whether or not we like her politics, Secretary Rice is another one. Cosby is an example. African Americans I work with are examples. There are plenty of African Americans who have done well, and if they can do it, every African American can do it. But to do it they have to do what other successful black people have done, they have to behave responsibily, not kill each other, not have so many children, etc. We liberals or progressives or whatever like to blame society, we like to make everyone into victims, and everyone can be a victim if choose to be. But victims can also choose to go another way. We all know people who have been victims of soemthing terrible, a crime, a dread disease, and some overcome it through spirit and hard work and perserverance and some just wilt and let their victimhood sweep them over. Maybe we progressives need a more nuanced message, that yes, we know society has a ways to go and we're going to keep working on it, but the "victims" have got to rise above it all as well, and working from both ends of that spectrum we can make a difference. But to just keep harping on society, "woe is me, I can't catch a break, blah, blah, blah..." how's that really do anything other than just dig oneself deeper and deeper into a hole. I think the great potential of Obama is that he could set an example for African Americans, particularly younger ones, that anything is possible as long as you do what you're supposed to do. And it isn't easy. Even the senator apparently dabbled with some stuff that could have sucked him, things that have harmed other African Americans heavily, but he was able to get away from it. With determination, others have done the same thing and more can as well. But wallowing in victimhood isn't a recipe for rising up. It is a recipe for ongoing disaster.

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