-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/monday-open-thread-how-was-the-weekend-2/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Group pushing Clinton as VP choice secretly
tied to her campaign
By Margaret Talev McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008
WASHINGTON — A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton's — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.
The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.
VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.
VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.
One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.
A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians to endorse her. wrote When VoteBoth
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group's original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.
On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest divisive remarks and Obama's renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton's name was on the ballot.
Last week, as Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.
Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. "VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket," he said. He wrote of friends who "believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary" and wanting to be inclusive "as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope."
On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"
On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.
In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton's campaign, and is "just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea." Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn't just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals' historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.
"There's been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that's where the conversation should be," said Arora, choosing a word — conversation — that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. "If we've been able to help the discussion forward, that's what we're focused on."
"If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you've got a ticket that's already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that's turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November."
Obama's campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !
Ruth
Don't feel bad, I feel like I'm standing still in time until this thing is over. It's been a long I am ready for the celebration.
Michelle Obama attacked on Fox News
http://writechic.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/michelle-obama-attacked-on-foxnews/
Just blame it on a black person
http://writechic.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/just-say-it-was-a-black-person-the-fiasco-at-samford-university/
Peace.
Bill O'Reilly Goes Nuts!
(explicit language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaHime9aaM&eur;
ajc.com > Metro > Atlanta
Morehouse valedictorian stands out -- he's white
Joshua Packwood says college provided him a perspective he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere
That Bill O'Reilly video made my morning, I'll be laughing all day on that one!!!
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know.html
I've said it and I'll say it again: I will never forgive Barack Obama for the way he failed to standup to the attacks directed at Michelle Obama when the media trounced on the "I'm proud of my country" remark.
He cant be seen reacting to every jab and criticism. One way of dealing with a "fake" issue is not to feed the monster. The story eventually went away on its own.
Instead of stop messing with my WIFE!!....you are seeing, let me tell u who Michelle and I are..
I wanted him to come and say more than what I heard him say, that her statements were taken out of context, but I'm sure he knew that anything else would feed the nonsense. The speech speaks for itself - everyone knew what she meant. No point at swinging at the wind.
Why would any business put up with that bs?
Just goes to show you the grand American double-standards. O'Reilly can be the Angry White Guy blowing up over trivial sh*t but God forbid a Black man, Rev. Wright, say "God damn America FOR KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE..."
I guess Narrative Maintenance is a must.
US history has a basic narrative: The settlers were heroes; the indigenous people were either heathens or naive primitives, but in either case they were in the way of progress. Slavery was an unfortunate episode that was cleaned up by the Civil War, though it has never been quite clear that the former slaves were ever meant to rule themselves, let alone anyone else. US foreign policy has generally been benign, nearly always driven by either a God-given imperative to improve the world or our sense that the planet would be better off with our version of capitalism and democracy. Where Rev. Wright fell into problems was by challenging this myth. Taking the standpoint of those who have seen the underside of the “American Dream”, he was prepared to speak to a counter-narrative that identifies the problematic nature of US history.
*** Roll that Ronald Reagan "City On A Hill" clip from Hannity's latest attack on Michelle Obama.
Now roll clip after clip of Barack Obama subscribing to or floating the same problematic narrative. And, actually, that's the biggest problem I have with Obama's grandstanding. Denouncing Rev. Wright, Obama tried to feign offense claiming that it was Rev. Wright who acted like he didn't know him, after all these years.
Well, a little message from Trinity puts this back in proper perspective, IMO.
#
# Pastor Otis Moss III : Divine Love Does Not Ask Family To Choose Between Family Members
Well, Sen. Obama did just that.
...you are seeing, let me tell u who Michelle and I are...
Where am I seeing that? I don't do myths, Anon.
I saw: Barack Obama FEED the Rev. Wright "fake" issue.
I saw: Barack Obama FEED the "fake" issue over Michelle's statement by saying she "misspoke."
Like I said, I don't do myths.
He didn't say Michelle misspoke, he said her words were taken out of context.
Then I learned she went to Harvard and I thought "oh shit". Certainly, one can imagine the sort of things she went through in the 70's. And sure enough, the story came out about her white roomate attempting to get transferred so as not to bunk with a black person. I am sure Michelle sensed that she wasn't welcome. A lifetime of those experiences can hurt. I think any worry or anger in that context, is a defense mechanism.
People like Hannity can sense those things too. They will poke at her sore spots as a way to take down Obama's bid for the Presidency. They want Obama to get angry and react like a man, and defend his woman - which is what he should NOT do.
I am sure Michelle doesn't need Obama to prove his devotion. I don't know why anyone outside would need him to prove it. They obviously adore each other. Which brings to mind another thing. They've got nothing on the Obama's as a family. There's nothing sordid in their that they can attack.
Cindy's got sore spots too. She is deeply humiliated by the stories about John calling her a "cunt". I saw her sitting behind him on the stump, she was staring off into the distance with a strange expression. Despite her wealth, she may have serious self-confidence issues. John is a weasel and a bully. He hides behind Cindy when convenient. Bullies don't marry strong women. I am sure Cindy is the frequent recipient of his rage.
These people are very human. The question is, what kind of human are they. And, how do these things portend the kind of leaders they'll be.
Now don't get me wrong, there are a lot of "working, hard working class white voters" in KY who support Obama. But for every one I come across, I encounter three who REALLY hate him.
And the sad thing these people don't realize is that they're being made into caricatures by the media: "look at the backwards hillbillies. Aren't you glad, normal America, you don't live in Appalachia?" (The only difference between "normal" America and Appalachia is that they're too stupid in Appalachia to hide they're racism). And these people in PA, OH, WV, KY, and TN are very obliging. Whenever the press comes around, they're more than happy to put on their racial bigotry performances.
What keeps me volunteering in KY is that even though these people are fighting it tooth and nail, they will benefit greatly from Obama being POTUS. And perhaps not this generation, but the next generation will see that blacks can be trusted in positions of power.
He may have said her words were taken out of context but he also concede that she "misspoke."
Michelle did go to Harvard law school, but the situation at the roomate was at Princeton where she said she felt like a visitor on campus.
Dont u see what's happening here? GOP plans to demonize Michelle and force him to respond by vigorously defend her. Hopefully she comes out as well and shows some anger. That would be a bonus..
Now, we are all focusing on Michelle the wife, instead of Obama the candidate.
The goal?--distract him and make him look weak.
The real anger needs to be directed at these HHH negroes that continue to support Clinton in spite of her repeated use of the race card.
There are much bigger fish to fry my sis and u aint seen nothing yet
Stay safe while volunteering. The whole world is watching these elections. I am sure KY and WV will have a serious tourism problem after this is all over.
Sure. My point is that any Ivy League school in the 70's with few blacks would be a harrowing experience for a young black woman. My own father was a little traumatized after attending University in London in the 60's. To this day he refuses to live in any Europe or N. America. He doesn't talk about it extensively, but I can fill in the blanks.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow
easier said than done with these low info voters and the irony of it all is that these working class whites, by their sheer number--stand to benefit the most from an Obama presidency.
The GOP demonized Rev. Wright too and our dear Senator went back to kindergarten:
"See Barack run."
"We both know that if Senator Obama [did] he said he would not get elected..."
Is that what you're saying? Something like that?
LOL
Funny how that works.
(Wait, there may be some truth to that.....)
Second, let's be honest: Michelle has said some things that are completely suspect. Even when placed in their proper context, there's something questionable about saying that you're just now becoming proud of your country.
Take the right wing spin out of it. She should have had enough sense-or someone should've been smart enough to recognize-that a comment like that would land her under the bus. I know what she meant, but her phrasing was terrible.
I got your point and understand all to well how Michelle felt.
I grew up in a small town in Illinois and was bused to predominately white schools during the late 60s and have worked in environments where there weren't many blacks. I know that anger all to well.
ajc.com > Metro > Atlanta
Morehouse valedictorian stands out -- he's white
Joshua Packwood says college provided him a perspective he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere
Yep. Saw it on the front page of the paper this morning.
IMO, it's a major statement made by academia; a major statement made by Morehouse; and a major statement made to the country, that a young white man can go to a college with 99% young Black men, and not only receive a quality education, but be its valedictorian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/see-the-dress-that-got-a_n_101311.html
I do not believe she said anything that warrants all the attacks, however let's be truthful...a black woman speaking her mind seems to really get under some peoples skin.
She was expressing herself in an intelligent manner...geez you would think she was Monica Conyers the way a couple of you are commenting.
Please differentiate between ignorance and something you don't agree with.
She did have enough "sense". Her exact quote is:
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country; and, not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
So, anyone with moderate comprehension skills and a low level of malice will see that she modifies her initial sentence with the explanation that she is especially proud now because people are hungry for change.
I think you suffer from an honesty deficit, d. There is nothing questionable to me about the quote above because I have no malice toward Michelle and I understand her modifier.
I have NO problem with a woman speaking their mind. I intend to do just that but I don't agree with the way she phrased her comments and if they were so ...hmm "politically correct" then we would not be discussing them and Fox would not have turned them into a campaign all on their own! I support Obama whole heartedly but I do have the right to my opinion and that just happens to be my opinion about Michelle and her comments.
I mean we all know AA's are held to a higher standard and she can't afford to be painted as the angry black woman after all he has enough to deal with (Wright, the innuendos about Farrakhan etc) and I don't think he can properly defend her because he will then be painted as the angry black man although I don't know how much he can defend her other than to say she misspoke b/c the comments (or phrasing) was at best innapropiate. I don't feel as if I have to agree with everything Obama (or his wife for that matter) do to be a supporter.
But, D, you still have your chance. Place Michelle's comments in their proper context (which Truthseeker provided for you) and explain what you find "questionable" about them.
I'm thinking there's a reason why you haven't already done so. It's called: you can't.
This is what is being attempted here in the states. Michelle Obama is the right wing MSM's last hope to derail the Obama candidacy.
He knows it. He's too smart not to. He needs not justify any of it with a response for if he does it will disastrous.
Oh - and side note - thanks for the chat Baratunde. It was great meeting you!
Truth/Nquest, like I said, I know what she meant. The only reason I know what she meant is because I did look at the full quote after I read it. That being said, on first glance-which, being honest, is all a lot of people take-it still looks horrible.
People act like Michelle Obama is the first person to say something about the state of political affairs in this country as it relates to feelings of apathy, frustration and disaffection with the political process.
"I am sure Michelle doesn't need Obama to prove his devotion. I don't know why anyone outside would need him to prove it. They obviously adore each other."
I am a complete, total, and unapologetic Michelle fan. Yet another wonderful aspect of Barack's campaign is that America has the opportunity to see what a loving and supportive partnership this Black couple has. They clearly love each other, are so comfortable showing their adoration to/for each other, and it looks so perfectly natural.
There is a look that Barack gets in his eyes when he's watching her that never fails to make me melt. I don't think Michelle has ever had cause to wonder how her husband feels about her.
And, I have no doubt that if Michelle felt she needed defending, he would have made a much bigger deal out of that entire ridiculous "controversy" over her remarks.
The New York Times reports that Missouri lawmakers are expected to support a constitutional amendment that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote.
This is a troubling development that could disenfranchise thousands of minorities
Read it
here
Nobody can look at that dress and tell me that that girl doesn't belong:
a) on a streetcorner
b) on a stipper pole
Even when placed in their proper context, there's something questionable about saying that you're just now becoming proud of your country.
So, once again: Place Michelle's comments in their proper context and explain what you find "questionable" about them.
That has nothing to do with the right wing spin machine. That was you claiming Michelle's comments were inherently "questionable."
And its completely ridiculous to talk about desperate attempts to smear Obama... Hell, they've tried to smear Obama by playing the Farrakhan card.
The point is simply this: it doesn't matter what Obama and associates say or don't say. ENEMIES of his campaign will find something, anything... to use against him whether Obama & Co. "provide" them something or not.
You can't show what's "QUESTIONABLE" about Michelle's statement but because Obama's ENEMIES will do and say anything (something that can't be stopped regardless) you tried to say there was something "questionable"... only you still can't point that out.
But, hey... Anything right wing nuts question is, by definition, "questionable", huh?
GTFOoH!!!
I never said that you could not be an Obama supporter, if you disagreed with some of the things the Senator or his wife has stated.
However I made it clear in my last sentence (because some were claiming it was ignorant) that there's a difference between ignorance and something you do not agree with.
Instead of making it into an "Angry black woman" issue or an issue of ignorance; why not simply say, you don't agree?
However, after reading what you stated, it seems more an issue of fear rather than anything else.
Fear that she will be labeled, "Angry black woman", and in turn so will the Senator.
Well, it is what it is.In my opinion, that double-standard is not a reason to vilify Michelle.
The quote from Michelle that truthseeker posted, says it all. That doesn't sound ignorant, just a woman (who happens to be black) being truthful about her feelings and perspectives.
I personally feel it was a dumb statement, for the reasons I've stated above.
Outside of that, there's been opportunities for Michelle to be proud of our country because of "change." Based on that, I think the statement's questionable. You, of course, won't like that, but that's the good thing about my opinion.
I'm not attacking Michelle, calling her unpatriotic or anything like that. I'm not your typical conservative. Just like I saw the point Pat Buchanan was trying to make when he said (paraphrasing) that blacks should be lucky to be here, I saw Michelle's point on that statement (still don't quite get the "America is mean" statement, though).
And I'm just saying the same thing about Michelle that I said about Buchanan-her phrasing sucks.
Ha!...It's good to know someone else see those looks! He actually touches her. He puts his hand on the small of her back or around her waist. There is obvious intimacy there, so much so it kinda makes me blush. It is good to think that the President and first lady are having lots of sex - with each other - and enjoying it! Maybe then, he won't go bomb bomb bombing Iran.
I watch Cindy and John, and they may as well be a hundred miles apart.
I loved your comment and it was spot on about the feminist movement rallying around Michelle in the general.
I won't hold my breath.
Since when has the femnist movement (overall) and their organizations rallied around any causes that concern women of color?
Even though, this is a presidential election, one of their own has been best beaten (no pun intended) and I'm skeptical about their support of Senator Obama. I'm more prone to the idea of them undermining on behalf of Hillary in 2012.
Cindy McCain has stated point blank , that she will NOT release her tax returns. She said it with such a fearless air of elitism it almost chilled me.
She feels she doesn't have to answer to anybody.
McCain into power. *smirks*
How the hell did we, as people, become so complacent, tolerant, and willing participants of this disprespect over the last 4 decades?
George Bush has deservedly earned the disdain of Black folk, but the one thing you can NOT say about him is that he has any fear of putting Black folks in positions of authority unlike the Democrats who are supposed to be the Party of racial justice and equality. The Black folks he selects may be to the Right of us, and deaad wrong on every policy front, but you can never say that he feared their race would be an impediment to his goals. Secretary of State is the 2nd most powerful position in the world, and he not only put two Black faces out there to represent this country, but a Black woman.
And here we are rolling with a Party that would actually give consideration to denying the nomination to a man who has earned it b/c poor White folks don't seem to be ready.
you hit on one of the main issues I have with the leaders of the Democratic party and some of their supporters. They seem to be very hypocritical and spineless.
Toobin: A McCain Court Could Overturn Roe In "Maybe A Year"
Jenna Bush got married. She looked lovely. I felt happy for her. It can't be easy to be George Jr.'s daughter.
20/20 Exclusive: The First Daughter's First TV Interview
I wrote about the "intimacy" between Senator Obama and Mrs. Obama a few months back and yes I'm also happy that other's recognize this and also that it's a very healthy image for the country as well.
This is not a shameless plug...just a observation.
http://www.gerardbutler-afterdark.com/2007/10/baracks-greatest-asset.html
Well Rush has been beaten to the punch on slandering Obama's children. What kills me is that these, are indeed, children...not teenagers and certainly not adults.
So called Democrats and liberals were calling these kids are sorts of names on the Democratic Underground website.
Funny how none of that was moderated.
No. My problem is not fear. I said that I do not agree with the way she phrased her remarks. They would not be an issue if they were phrased in a better context. I think she is far too intelligent to drop the ball like that - particularly in the midst of the Wright (patriotism issues). Why would she even put her husband in a position like that? You would think someone would have censored/approved this. You just can't go around saying anything you want to say anyway you like. You can't even do that in the real world! I know. I have to watch what I say at work, down to my tone- shoot even with my (Black)family members! LOL! I am a Black woman that believes in speaking my mind so I wouldn't hold another Black down, or anyone else for that matter but again I don't think the comments (or phrasing of the comments were wise. If they were they would not have been made for Sound bite Heaven! If they were wise she wouldn't be able to be used as a "scapegoat". Period- now that is my opinion as a loyal Obama supporter!
Pardon the long post, but your comments raise an intriguing issue.
This is how I see it. . . I've said it before:
MLK or Malcolm X. . .
America makes you choose. . .you can either have your Malcolm X or your Martin Luther King Jr.
But you can't have both at the same time.
That's the game.
And history has shown us that black leaders like Martin and Malcolm often play off of eachother to achieve their mutually shared goal, black liberation.
MLK wouldn't have been so successful if he didn't have a Malcolm X to play off of.
"We shall overcome" means little without "By ANY means necessary," to back it up.
It's yin and yang. They go together even when conventional wisdom suggests they should remain at odds.
Thus, from a black perspective, "Yes we can" is fine as an aspiration so long as we don't sacrifice "unapologetically/unashamedly black."
nquest, I understand your anger. But my point is this:
There's a reason why Martin has a holiday and Malcolm doesn't.
There's a reason why W. E. B. Dubois got more accomplished than Marcus Garvey.
Some fight the system. . . others master the game.
Malcolm fought the system. . . Martin mastered the game. Likewise, Wright fights the system. . . but Obama's mastered the game.
It doesn't make one side better or worse. They just provide different forms of leadership. . . each with their ideal place and time.
By definition, the presidency is an aspect of "the system." Thus it's time to master the game. That means more Obama and less Wright for the moment.
I love the fire and passion of black folk like Malcolm and Wright. As a matter of fact, my spirit is a little more Malcolm than Martin, more SNCC than SCLC.
But we know the game and how it's played. For all of his greatness (indeed some attributes more inspiring than King, himself) Malcolm X was never gonna pass a 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was never gonna influence a 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Why?
Because he was made to FIGHT the system, not master it.
Policy and politics is all about compromise. None of us like it, but that's the nature of the beast. We live in a pluralistic society (ultimately, that's a good thing).
Sad to say, but baby steps are the price we pay for progressive politics in a stagnant nation.
The question is how much you and I are willing to compromise.
And that brings us back to Rev. Wright and his comments during the question and answer phase at the National Press Club. Please, note that I stress the question and answer phase because Wright's actual speech (for the most part) was focused and on point.
Black folk know the deal. And Rev. Wright's sin, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't "hate speech" so much as it was HNIC syndrome.
In essence, Wright sought to force us to fight the system at a time when we were invested in mastering the game.
There's a time and place for everything. Wright's voice is important. However, Wright's words at the National Press Club, however accurate, were neither the time nor place to raise them. Play the game, but know the rules. If you must, make your speech at the NPC, waive and say goodbye. But don't get sucked into a chest-thumping contest with the very people who control the microphone, control the news headlines and control the media spin. That's just not smart.
I have no problem with much of what Wright had to say. But I have a major problem with the fact that he fell victim to the game and gave the National Press Club every type of sound bite they had been waiting for. His performance (and sadly, it was a performance) exploited the limelight to simplify matters of race and religion and make it a battle about himself.
He had every right to defend his honor and reputation. But Obama doesn't have to fight that battle for him (at least not on Rev. Wright's terms), especially when Wright doesn't give him anything to work with. That's a personal battle between Wright and the media. Sadly, it got hard to discern where defense of the black church ended and Rev. Wright's ego began.
Unfortunately, Wright's timing (and mentioning of his new book) undermined much of his message.
Similarly, MLK didn't have to fight Malcolm's battle over those famous words in the wake of Pres. Kennedy's assassination, "chickens have come home to roost." Despite it's accuracy, it was neither the time nor place. And Malcolm faced backlash (both from the SCLC crowd and the NOI) when he appeared to make the movement personal.
Listen, I embrace many forms of black nationalism. I love my black people. I'm all for self-determination and self-affirmation.
But don't get it twisted. . . self-determination will NEVER be realized through purely political means. It goes deeper than that. . . it's political. . . it's social. . . it's economic . . . it's spiritual.
MLK was never the be-all-end-all of black leadership. But he got stuff done on a policy level. I love Malcolm X. But his style (like Wright's) -- NECESSARILY hostile -- was more about self-affirmation than policy. And that's ok. Black self-affirmation is, and should always remain, exclusive of white approval. Just know your audience and stay mindful of the bigger picture. Speak truth to power, but be mindful of the game.
I didn't catch it when I first saw it. But, looking back, it appears Wright's timing had more to do with ego, than fighting the system.
Unlike black culture, the law, legislation and politics are not exclusive of white influence. They're not beholden to white approval either, but they do require white involvement. That entails a willingness to reach across the table and a discipline to pick and choose your battles.
I think Obama did that with his speech on race. He didn't disown his pastor. He reached across the table to contextualize black anger. He defended the controversy for the complexity it was. The easy path would have been to disown him then.
Wright's a smart man. He knows this. So why reintroduce himself into the public spotlight just when things were starting to die down?
Wright was inviting people to question his motives.
And, my goodness, why discuss controversial topics without providing evidence to back it up For example, I wouldn't automatically dismiss the contention that our government pushed AIDS in the black community. But I'd make damn sure I had a stack of evidence prepared before I made such an argument? Conspiracy minus evidence equals no credibility. Wright left too many accusations dangling in the wind. He left them bare; exposed and waiting for the media to spin them in their most harmful light.
Wright doesn't have to defend himself in his church or amongst his own people. We get the context. We know the history (well, most of us). But Wright wasn't amongst his own people at the National Press Club. He stepped into foreign territory without a plan. As Roland Martin said, be cognizant of the fact that, by speaking before the National Press Club, you are playing in someone else's house, by someone else's rules.
Now back to Obama. . .
Like King, Obama will not end all racism. I've never expected as much. However, Obama is in a position to get stuff done. And the success of his campaign proves that he's got a plan to break down historic barriers and open the flood-gates of inclusion for millions of Americans who've been systematically disenfranchised over the years. That's a paradigmatic shift. That's a movement. Not surprisingly, he's determined that he'll get there if he's more Martin than Malcolm. Now, that might be his honest approach (I have no reason to doubt that). But, either way, it's too late to change now.
Again, it's a question of how much we're willing to compromise. Where do we pick and choose our battles? Where do we draw the line?
Personally, I draw the line at black identity. Even in his most stark denunciation, Obama never crossed that line between the person and the people. He has not disowned the black community. He did not disown the black church. He has not shunned his black identity.
He has challenged his people, but not disowned them. There's a difference.
Juxtapose that to the Clinton apologists who place personal loyalties over cultural pride; defending race-baiting comments from the Clinton campaign for personal gain in an ever-improbable Clinton administration.
They too know the game, yet they choose to ignore the same type of race-baiting tactics that they'd quickly rebuke if spoken from the lips of a conservative. Ironically, they are the ones who place their hopes in the power of one person, Clinton. They don't want to change the game or even master the system. . . they just want to champion a different "master" (politically speaking) who will throw them a few more crumbs once she gets in office. They're perfectly happy with the way things work in Washington. For them, it's not a matter of challenging the status quo, but accepting the status quo and waiting their turn in line. Sadly they appear to define victory as a matter of WHO gets in office rather than WHAT actually gets done. Very partisan. . . highly cynical. . . extremely predictable.
Trust, I'm with you nquest. My IDEAL picture of black leadership is a little more defiant. I've always preferred Malcolm's style over Martin's.
But, let's understand that this is about baby steps. . .
The first black President will be more Martin than Malcolm. If we're honest, I think most of us understood that going in to this.
Now about Michelle Obama:
As for Michelle, I agree, I would have liked to have seen more passion in Obama's response to her critics. But he did respond. . . just maybe not as forcefully as you or I might have liked.
It's like the movie CRASH. Remember that scene where Terrence Howard and his wife were pulled over by the cops? And how that officer sexually groped Terrence's wife in front of him? Remember the wife's reaction towards Terrence? She wanted him to "be a man." She wanted him to fight the police . . . KNOWING damn well that, if he had, it could have meant a bullet in the brain for both of them.
Obama's in a similar position with Michelle. He's Terrence Howard and Sean Hannity is the cop with gun drawn and aimed, just begging for Obama to "give me a reason!"
He should defend his wife. But he also needs to pick and choose his battles. He can't fly off the handle every time Sean Hannity picks a fight. He'd be fighting every day if he did that.
You beat people like Hannity by staying focused on the bigger issue. The issue is the right's monopoly on "patriotism" and how they use that as a sledge-hammer to beat down anyone who disagrees with them. Michelle is the flavor of the month, but she's not the focus. The focus, is painting Obama as an outsider who doesn't mesh with "traditional" American values.
The way for Obama to fight that smear is to provide an alternative, yet equally patriotic, vision for America (again, Obama might do well by looking towards MLK for this). His campaign has done that by bringing in new voters. For example, this year might not focus on NASCAR dads so much as youth voters.
People like Hannity like to keep it simple. Simple audiences require simple messages. But they can't handle the prospect of an educated electorate that sees these wedge issues for what they are. This will only happen if Obama gives people an alternate "American patriotism" to buy into.
Continued attacks on Obama's wife and kids will play HORRIBLY with Independents (both left and right-leaning) in the General election. McCain's viability rests in his separation from the A-hole wing of the Republican Party. Yes, there are 527s, but overkill is easy when you attack someone's family.
In closing, I'd like to see more fight in Obama as well.
But I know that his fight is directly proportional to the leverage he has - thus, for example, you'll see me rant about how Obama should use his leverage to push Hillary out of the race. Again, it's about timing and picking the right battle at the right time.
But the general election is a new monster. There will be new dynamics at play. Fortunately, despite my worries, thus far Obama's shown he's smart enough to anticipate them and master the system.
_______________________
OR, it's a major statement that even at one of the most elite HBCUs, where supposedly the best of the best in black male talent is fostered, a single white male is always better than a thousand of the best black men. I don't recall the blogosphere or national newspapers reporting on the Morehouse Val from 2007 or 2006, do you?
WV has 5 electoral votes in the General Election, 2 more than DC. Senator McCain IS going to win West Virginia and Senator Obama IS going to win IA, netting Senator Obama 2 electoral votes from the 2004 general election map. So, why all this talk about WV? If Senator Obama was trailing and poised to exit the race after a big win in let’s say in DC, which has as favorable a demographic for Senator Obama as WV has for Senator Clinton, would anyone be giving DC the importance some are trying to give WV for Senator Clinton, that is if they weren’t trying to make the argument that poor white voters are more important than African American?
Here’s one more thing for the MSM to ignore…In Gallup’s latest poll, Senator Obama is trailing Senator McCain among whites about 11%, the same as every Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson who was the LAST Democratic presidential candidate to garner more than 41% of the white vote.
It’s fair for the media and the Clinton campaign to point out Senator Obama’s weaknesses, but what’s not fair are exaggerations, lack of historical context and lack of attention to Senator Clinton’s weaknesses. Poll after poll is showing that Senator Obama is doing equally better with Independents as she is among Democrats, so it’s a awash. But you wouldn’t know this reading or watching coverage that still wants to present this as a horse race.
Screw the MSM. It is VITAL that AA's are registered to vote and get any necessary ID and that they turn out to vote!
Ha, losers!
GOP's New Slogan Already Being Used To Market Anti-Depressant
You must have a REALLY, really small penis.
As far as Obama campaigning in WV, he did say he had a 50 state strategy, and even though he knows he will lose both KY and WV, it would seem silly for him to say "Aw f'ck it" when it comes to WV. That's the kind of attitude that got Clinton in the jam she's in today.
General election: I think if Obama wins Virginia, it's a wrap. He's #44.
Bingo!!!
Great analogy.
Only one small consideration. . . African-Americans are actually part of the Democratic base. Which makes Hillary's argument even dumber than at first glance.
Plus does anyone have the stats as to whether low-income rural white voters are even part of the traditional Democratic base to begin with?
The entire premise for her argument is specious if you ask me.
brilliant post on MLK vs Malcolm!
is it that your penis is so small that it seems you don't have one; or, is it that you're female?
There is nothing racist about highlighting a lone white guy on an all black campus. It's an oddity.
YOU GO BOY on your analysis of MLK and Malcolm!
I enjoy a good verbal fight; but, I don't have a snappy comeback right now, so I'll let you get away with that.
Ummm... No you don't. You can't understand something I have not expressed. FRAME your own perspective. Don't try to frame mine.
Great post!!!!
That would be the exact thing I would question and you can save that "master the game" rhetoric.
Policy and politics is all about compromise...
The question is how much you and I are willing to compromise.
That's the very question Barack Obama's chosen statements/behavior begs.
There's a time and place for everything.
There's never a time to front like Obama did.
Wright's voice is important.
Important to whom?
don't get sucked into a chest-thumping contest
Funny how Obama is never addressed or admonished in that manner. Again... Divine Love Does Not Ask Family To Choose Between Family Members.
You will note that it was Malcolm X who chose to get MLK's back even as MLK talked about how "wrong" Malcolm X was in the same kind of paternalistic and dismissive way Obama has regarded Rev. Wright. So these lectures you're giving are misdirected.
He reached across the table to contextualize black anger.
He misrepresented it while privileging White Resentment in the process. That's objective analysis vs. "be mindful of the game" (relevance??) and "Black self-affirmation" (relevance??) rhetoric.
Wright was inviting people to question his motives.
Question them then but none of that make Obama motive-question free. Like I said, I don't do myths.
Like King, Obama will not end all racism.
Dude, you done bumped your damn head. Like the supportive facts you insist Wright should have had, I'm still looking for the reasons why you've used all this rhetoric to address me. The very idea of putting either MLK and especially Obama in the same sentense as "end (all) racism" is as hilarious as it is dumbfounding.
Really? What is all this about? First, know, that I asked you not a single thing about what you think about Black Nationalism. So I don't understand all the wasted breath. What the hell is your point? Who the hell do you think you're talking to? Why the hell do you think any of the stuff you've said, most of it superfluous rhetoric, is relevant?
What does any of it have to do with what I've said? Not what you think I said or what you think will make a point to me. What I said?
Personally, I draw the line at black identity.
Whatever that means. But it's clear you're dealing with your impression vs. what Obama actually said:
"...when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed that you lose sight of what we have in common, that it overrides everything else, that we’re not concerned about the struggles of others, because we’re looking at things only through a particular lens..."
That, my friend, is not only dishonest (Obama claimed he didn't "see" it (the very explicit Afrocentric lens) as a member) but it is "sacrificing" what is called "unapologetically/unashamedly black."
Obama decided to go there, all on his own. His pronouncements there stand at odds with what he said before:
"...at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den...
Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story...
Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish..."
But let's really deal with this whole "game" playing, compromising thing. Campaign Hillary and the media readily point out how Obama has a supposed problem with attracting (winning) amounts of White working-class voters, some of whom presumably just won't vote for him because he is Black and he's lecturing Black people via Rev. Wright about seeing things through selfish lens?
Gone are the days of the EMPATHY DEFICIT rhetoric (Obama's term) which, by definition, says that there is a problem with somebody's lens. Notice how the language changes...
Throughout the whole "bitter-gate" ordeal, Obama never talked about how working class Whites, e.g., failed to see what they have in common with the very people they have "antipathy" for. Instead of flexing the way he did when he charged a Black woman with "scapegoating" (Nevada debate) he had that White Privilege thing working as he went out of his way to paint working-class Whites as "victims." He did the same thing in his race speech.
legitimized White Backlash.
There's a problem when Obama gets animated and is quick to denounce a Black person for "scapegoating" but went out of his way to paint working-class Whites as "victims"
Which brings me to another important point:
Obama stuck to his guns during "bitter-gate", insisted there was nothing wrong with his statement and didn't pay any additional price for sticking to his guns. So this mythology about "game" playing, etc., etc. needs some examination.
And since we won't to invoke MLK:
"A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
That's what I have to say about all this willingness to play "the game." With that type of attitude... with those types of excuses... one has to be careful about getting played and going above and beyond what it called for in order to play the game.
Trust, I'm with you nquest.
You're with me how?? Stop trying to FRAME my position when you don't know the half...
The other two are saying that she needs the white vote.
Great post!
LOL
Go Michelle!
I will only add this...for all the criticism of Booker T. Washington, he created a lasting legacy in the institution of Tuskegee University. How many Black people have created something that goes on well after their deaths? Think about the thousands of Our Community that have been and will continue to be educated and be able to use that education to lift themselves up because of what Booker T. ' The Compromiser' Washington did way back when?
Mr. Cool's Intensity - a Post column on Obama
This one is particularly stunning. It's worth reading several times:
The Tao of Obama
It wasn't until he got to Chicago that he immersed himself in the Black Community. By then, he was grown.
You can take the boy out of the East, but you can't take the East out of the boy.
That is what those links above suggest.
great links.
I saw Speed Raced this afternoon, and you had me thinking about Obama...LOL
@ Rikyrah-In what context are you talking about the clothing? Unless I missed something, you gave a response without posting the story. That said, it is often very challenging to find appropriate girl's clothing that your child also likes. The dept stores sell grown women's clothing in miniature. You can buy a size 6x shirt that says "Hottie," and little wedge heel sandals. Luckily, my daughter doesn't like that stuff, but neither is she willing to look like one of those FLDS girls. I saw an ad for Beyonce's mama's clothing line, House of Derion (or whatever-derriere) and that stuff looked pretty bad. It can be an issue, and a lot of people really don't know any better because they lack standards and discernment.
As for Obama and anger, the MSM has also been calling for him to be more forceful and exhibit more testosterone. He's darned if he do and darned if he don't. After the bowling fiasco, morning joe said he bowled like a little girl. It was tre' insulting. This is another aspect of america's collective unconscious. We glorify the thug, the mafia, John Wayne, Shaft or hillary. We like assholes and ass kickers. Thats why McCain polls so high sometimes even though most people claim to be against the war. Its a conundrum.
As for Michelle, I'm not a big fan of hers either (please, no hating). I have also wondered why she has said some of the things she has said, and I have wondered if she is mad at him and exacting revenge. I wasn't crazy about her saying things about his socks stinking, etc., and I wondered why I was supposed to care. To me, it was kinda like her saying, "He's not all that!" So I'm thinking, you can take the sister out of the hood, but....Why is she doing this? What is the point of saying "I love accessories. I'm married to one." She did an interview where she told someone he has 1 shot at this only, and that there would be no more chances. I guess I should assume that they had discussed it and come to a mutual agreement, but my initial impression was that she is some kind of dominatrix. That said, she did slam dunk for him in a tv appearance I saw with Caroline Kennedy. She was GREAT and redeemed herself with me. I just think that if she can't muster the self-control, she needs to say nothing.
They do appear to have the warmest union of all the candidates. I think Obama is a kind and decent person. He doesn't have the harshness or edginess of those of us raised in the continental 48. I've seen him be generally affectionate and huggy on the campaign trail.
I also feel sorry for Cindy McCain. She's married to the crypt keeper. Not only did he call her a cunt, he called her that in public. He probably wanted a more passive woman after being raised by his mother. What a shrew. She reminds me of hillary.
I don't want to see Hillbilly get any post or appointment. I want to see her flat ass go down in flames.
Sigh....
Top 10 Reasons Obama Beat Clinton
More than 20 Senators Say They'd Be Willing to be VP
someone up above linked to the story at HuffingtonPost. The girl got arrested at prom. Roland Martin also has it as a story at his blog at Essence.
Apartheid Victims' U.S. Lawsuit To Proceed
High Court Can't Intervene Because 4 Justices Forced To Sit Out Case Over Apparent Conflicts
Comments 6
WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008
Remember: Obama is not running for president of Black America. By the same token, he's not presenting himself as a Black leader with any specific intent on doing anything in particular for Black people per se. Taking his own statement and not some idea people want to project onto him, Barack Obama, the presidential candidate, sees something wrong with that kind of idea.
What kind of Tuskegee like project has Barack Obama talked about?
See, that's the silliness of the Booker T. reference. But it is rather illuminating. What's really funny is how folks are swinging at the wind, to use language that's already been used.
This "compromise" FRAME and the whole argument is an argument B-Serious et al are having with themselves. I'll refer back to MLK, another so-called "compromiser":
"A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
Translation: Just assuming the position based on the assumption that that's what you have to do puts you at a position of disadvantage that's of your own making and have nothing to do with the game but rather with the role you assumed without respect to how the game has changed and what can be done to change it.
I agree with you about Michelle O. She often comes across as emasculating towards her husband. Let me say/repeat (before I am attacked) I am a loyal BHO supporter but she has not been coming across very well to me. I suppose that is not truly the case as they do seem happy and she did do MUCH better in the interview with Caroline Kennedy.
It's my belief, however, that women are much stronger than men.
Much.
And it comes down to the strength it takes to give birth.
If the electorate doesn't want to vote for Obama because his wife speaks her mind, then too bad for us.
Civil disobedience is a compromise. So is nonviolence.
MLK's nonviolent movement was a compromise. Turning the other cheek is a compromise.
You quote king's statement: "A man can't ride you unless your back is bent."
As if nonviolence in the face of violence is not "bending one's back," to assume the position one must in order to make the change they want to see.
A lot of people called King an accomodationist. They accused him of doing the very thing that particular quote warns against. Well, in the end, King's style got more accomplished. In fact, King's style has become a template for other movements over they years. He saw the bigger picture.
Was King an accomodationist? Judging by his goals, I say no. Yet many obviously felt that subjecting black men and women to violence was the definition of bending one's back to let the man ride on it.
Compromise (strategic compromise) is not a sign of weakness. It can be a sign of immense strength.
The Civil Rights Movement was built with a belief that "black" struggles must take on a more universal appeal if things were to change. That's strategic compromise.
That's what a minority group often does. It doesn't have the numbers on its side. Instead, it finds leverage to maximize the opportunity at hand.
As a practical matter, King and others realized that they could not change the wheels of power with a purely "black" message. But you find a way around the zero-sum equation. You make a win-win situation out of a win-lose situation. That's strategic compromise.
Thus, they transformed the concept of black liberation into wider, more universal, appeals of equality, humanity and spirituality. And yes, even symbolic politics has its place in moving the country forward.
That's mastering the game. That's finding a way to make the game work for you. It's beating the majority at it's own game. . . slowly, but surely, one step (one generation, even) at a time. That's understanding the forces at play and seizing the opportunity at hand.
The perfect storm surrounding the Civil Rights Movement presented a unique moment, which allowed King to repackage black rights in a more palatable manner and create a paradigmatic shift.
Civil rights was no longer a "black" issue for blacks to bear alone. The Civil Rights Movement was a coalition of black and white designed to pressure government into specific legislative action on generic matters like voting rights, education, equal protection and employment.
Malcolm didn't create that type of a coalition. Rev. Wright won't create that coalition.
That doesn't make them better or worse, just different. Their less concerned with universal appeal and more concerned with "speaking truth to power."
My point is you need both. Obama is building a coalition to affect change. . . just as King did. He's taking advantage of a perfect storm that is ripe for another paradigm shift.
I never said I wouldn't vote for him b/c of Michelle - can't speak for others however my opinion as a STRONG BLACK WOMAN (who has had babies!) myself is that she does not come across in the right manner. She comes across actually as insecure but maybe making up for it with the strong persona. I think if you are strong and "tough" you can act that way but it's not necessary to hit others over the head with it so to speak(when you are secure).If she did then I really don't think the MSM would have all of the sound bites they have of her to be used against her husband.
I also never said that women emasculate men I said she comes across that way. I beleive that men emasculate themselves and blame it on women at times, personally.
Again, I am not trying to convince anyone else of fight anyone over this but this is MY opinion as a loyal BHO supporter.
She's a Capricorn. She's pragmatic, practical, earthy, she leads, she's strong, she teaches, and she's powerful.
That's all.