Hamilton
Speaks
Thoughts
for 2008. Hoping for Obama
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," -Hillary Clinton
It’s easy to give Senator Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt regarding her confused reference to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Easy, but dangerously naïve. Easy because conscience demands resilience against the inevitability of human nature to err. Dangerously naïve because malice aforethought is hardly dismissable given the vitriolic energy of this primary campaign. The easy way out leads us to the remaining contests of the primary season and on to the serious work in advance of November. To forget is not yet to forgive, however, because this is May. The comments still reverberate with a lasting turbulence. In the event of the unmentionable, the Senator’s comments could conceivably form the basis of an FBI investigation.
This is a nation of mental diversity. The mix, in general is a good idea for the world, but it includes psychological profiles capable of acting out of suggestion, serving ends conceived in delusion. Even conclusions drawn in minds more sane and intellectually sound could act upon the motivational force nested within such irresponsible observations. More overt results could truly render her remarks far less benign than the excuses of fatigue and misspeak seek to characterize them. If such explanations are to be held as sufficient to clean up the mess, then we have to consider what kind of administration she would run given her vulnerability to the pressures of the job.
Giving
Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt could be the least deserving
action called for by her statements. It was a dangerous and
threatening pander to the worst of potential strategies designed to
win the nomination for her. An official reprimand would serve only to
raise the profile of the comments and impede their inevitable fade
from the sound bytes of media intrusion into the public mentality. It
could be best for the continued safety of Senator Obama to let the
matter disappear. The Obama campaign wisely used the term,
"unfortunate" and moved on. For now, this is the best
course of action.
RWH
5-26-08
"God says in Jeremiah 16 - 'Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers' - that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - 'Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them' - that will be the Jews - 'from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust... you can't see that. So think about this - I will send fishers and I will send hunters." -Pastor John Hagee
This profound
display of theological buffoonery approaches the outer limits of
incredulity. This is the Mecca of relativism as regards
scriptural interpretation. Jeremiah 16:16 has been related to
the Egyptians of antiquity, the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Medes,
and even the Apostles of Jesus. The reference to the holocaust
is just one more addition to the litany of scriptural assessments
that have amassed to cloud the original meaning in a lasting and
eternal doubt. Whatever Jeremiah had in mind, we may never
really know. The best take would be to relate something in
the immanent future or recent past within the time of this
prophet. That would favor the Egyptians or the Chaldeans.
Taking it to the Hitler regime is going beyond the irrational to
pure conjectural stupidity.
At
the crux of this resounding idiocy lies the eternal bid to align a
loving God with the existence of evil. Trying to legitimize a
fallacy yields repugnance. What is even more repulsive about
John Hagee's remarks is the mental captivity of the thousands if not
millions of people who regularly listen and attend to this lunacy.
As if there is no further to go, we have the ambitions of a man
seeking the presidency of the United States driving this high office
into associations that border on insanity, explained and excused by
the pragmatism of national politics. Stranger bedfellows have
rarely surfaced. Despite the belated rejection of Hagee's
endorsement, John McCain exposed a sickly and dangerous rift in the
fabric of human intellect bogged down by the ignorance of the
masses which demands capitulation to the irrational dialogue of
religious intransigence.
To
signal the absence of an end in sight to this madness, Hagee goes yet
another furlong by bringing in an aging Jewish "authority" to
stand with him and rubber stamp the catastrophically ridiculous mix
of the holocaust with the prophecy of Jeremiah. I thought
that church and state were to be separate entities within the
framework of a government dedicated to freedom of speech and
protection from religious incursion. I still think that and
shudder each time the ugly head of religious insolence rears itself
in politics at the national level.
John
McCain is not a religious fanatic seeking to trumpet his
zeal to a spiritually thirsty constituency. He's at best a
moderate looking to win a campaign. He, like Barack Obama,
Hillary Clinton, and anyone else seeking the office of president must
find a connection to the hundreds of millions of Americans who live
by faith one way or another. This violates Article 6 of the
Constitution which shields office holders and seekers from any test
of religion. Article 6 continues to be overlooked in elections
which constantly demand from the candidates, a high profile salute to
the seemingly immortal reign of religious intolerance.
RWH
5-24-2008
" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
-US Constitution, Article 6
The
current fabricated hysteria over the sermons of Pastor Jeremiah
Wright raises some serious questions regarding the above quoted
Article 6 from the U.S. Constitution. I remember watching the
Arizona Debates during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Questions were asked of George Bush and John Kerry regarding their
faith, etc. etc. Bush, an evangelistic, re-born Christian was
aflame with his adoration of Christianity etc. etc. Kerry, a
Catholic not accustomed to defending or saluting his faith in open
forum, was rather subdued about it and failed to match the spirit of
George Bush. I have always felt that John Kerry’s lack of
passion about his religion contributed in part, to loss of goal to
become president of the United States. In the balance, we got
the continued presidency of a man who went to war because he felt
"America is led by the hand of God". Four years
later, we are in serious trouble over his "divinely conceived"
plan to invade a sovereign nation without legal cause. The
current recession is part of the fallout. George Bush tipped
the scales in that very close finish because he pandered to the more
generically appreciated, bible-belt, conservative style of
Christianity. His is a religion that mixes well with
patriotism, mom, and a slice of old fashioned apple pie.
As
a former Divinity School student, in the 70’s, I have a fair amount
of knowledge about the history of black religion and its inseparable
association with the politics of social justice. Slaves were
not allowed to worship with their white masters even though it was
from them that the religion came. At best, they were allowed to
sit in the balconies of the churches and keep their
silence. It wasn’t long before slaves began to worship their
own unique form of Christianity, seasoned with the
religions of their African homeland. Soon, the black spiritual
became a venue for secret messaging which aided and abetted the
success of The Underground Railroad. The black spiritual, born
in the spirit of black Christianity, became most useful as a
communication tool for enabling the escape of slaves to freedom in
Canada. From the moment it was taught to the slaves,
Christianity became a beacon of hope and a tool of justification for
throwing off the shackles of slavery and every social inconvenience
that has come in the wake of it’s abolition in 1863.
This
is not intended to be a lecture on black religion. It is my
intention here, to describe the nature of black religion as
expansive. It includes not only the worship of Christ and the
hope of salvation, but in a very real sense, it accommodates just
about all aspects of life in the experience of being Black in
America. The black church became far more fundamental to the
lives of African Americans than just a place to go on Sundays and
worship God. The black church is the apex of the community.
Its association with freedom movements and resistance to the
government of the United States came with the package. In
confronting the thinking of Barack Obama’s pastor, the more
fundamental question even more primary than First Amendment
consideration, is the interpretation of Article 6 of the US
Constitution.
Article
6 came along because the founding fathers did not want the same
restrictions placed upon Americans that they escaped from by fleeing
the Anglican Church of England. A test of religion implies a
prerequisite based on the choice a candidate has made regarding the
manner in which he practices his religion. Article 6 is an open
statement that could produce a great deal of intrigue at the level of
the US Supreme Court as regards interpretation. In the Arizona
Debates of 2004, the questioner was clearly testing the measure of
belief. One could argue that since the moderator was not a
government official, the tone of Article 6 did not apply. One
could also argue that if the answers given by the candidates were not
satisfactory to the voting public, they would be denied the ultimate
public service position; the presidency of the United States.
If by failing the test of religion, an aspiring candidate loses the
election, then I personally believe Article 6 has been violated
by the moderators. I would leave it up to the Supreme Court to
make a final decision.
In
the case of Barack Obama, who has, for his own reasons, chosen to
belong to the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, the exposing of
Wright’s thinking in such a way as to inhibit Mr. Obama from
succeeding to the presidency, brings up the same question regarding a
violation of Article 6. I know it could be a stretch to see it
this way, but for the last week we have been bombarded by Jeremiah
Wright’s sermons, not as they apply necessarily to a judgement of
Rev. Wright, but as they apply to the candidate that belongs to his
church. Questioning Barack Obama’s affiliation with the
United Church of Christ as he runs for president is administering a
test of his religion. It is, in effect, saying "You,
Mr.Obama, belong to the wrong kind of church with the wrong kind of
pastor and therefore the public has the right to dismiss your
candidacy on the grounds that you may, with your religion, be
associating with Anti-American sentiment."
It
seems that before we elect a person to the office of president, we
want to know what his religious beliefs (or lack of such) are all
about. The voting constituency of the American population acts
as the administrator in offering the job of the presidency to the
candidates seeking that office. If the US Constitution forbids
a test of religion"as
a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States", then
any undue scrutiny of a candidate’s association with his choice of
religion, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, tent in the open woods
or whatever, raises valid issues regarding the meaning of Article 6.
Now obviously, one might raise the example of devil worship, or witchcraft and so forth as a valid reason to question a candidate’s association with those "religions". Chances are, a voodoo priest could get elected president if objections to the practice of Voodun were not allowed in debating forums.
How
many times did the Mormonism of Mitt Romney get thrust into the
consideration of his becoming president? Maybe Article 6 needs to be
amended. Maybe it wasn’t intended to allow Satanists or Frog
Worshippers to inhabit the office of the presidency, or any other
office of the US Government for that matter. Maybe a test case, or a
class action suit needs to be brought before the Supreme court if it
can be concluded that Barack Obama’s candidacy was offended by
questions pertaining to his pastor’s sermons or the church he chose
to join.
Obama’s
recent speech on racism, Jeremiah Wright, and the ills of American
society, attempted to link the rhetoric of preaching to the
overall experience of being Black in America, reaching back into
slavery. Since there is a clear connection between black
religion and social activism responding to accumulated consequences
of the Black experience, it should come as no surprise that Jeremiah
Wright chose the pulpit to exhort his opinions about American Policy
at home and overseas. His sermons were not anti-American.
They were "anti" the America that has ducked under the
radar of the US Constitution as well as the Declaration of
Independence. Wright’s sermons were a call to what America
can and should be, in his opinion. They were a calling of
American policies onto the carpet and a suggestion that quite
possibly, the actions of American governments over the years have
violated moral justice and the thought of the Founding Fathers.
Barack Obama became associated with Wright’s United Church of Christ when he was organizing and advocating for the rights of dispossessed, disadvantaged Americans, most of whom happened to be black. They lived in the worst areas of Chicago and were too poor to matter to that city’s government at the time. The United Church of Christ belonged, at that time, to a council of churches which funded support groups and active efforts to respond to issues of heat, asbestos contamination, single-parent familes, unwed mothers, incarceration issues, HIV-Aids administration and so on. Barack Obama gave up a promising legal career to work for those people and it was the churches in that area that provided money and meeting places as well as other support facilities. If Jeremiah Wright and his congregation hadn’t the heart and spirit to reach out and assist people whom the government ignored, perhaps the association would never have come to fruition.
It
could be argued that the facilitation of Obama’s mission in the
Chicago housing ghetto was a more fundamental reason for his joining
that church. It could be argued that despite the flaming
rhetoric of his pastor, he was attracted to the willingness of
Jeremiah Wright to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Barack Obama found a comfort zone in the religion of the church he
decided to join and enough political activism in the ideology of
Reverend Wright to form a relationship with him, which suited Mr.
Obama and his family. Now he is being handed a test of his
choice as he continues to defend his religion against those who seek
one thing: The discrediting of his candidacy for the presidency of
the United States.
The
ongoing exposé of the ideas and sermons of Jeremiah Wright is a
masquerade; a sleight-of-hand operation to deny the presidency
to Barack Obama by manipulating the mind of the electorate. If the
sermons of Jeremiah Wright were so caustic and abrasively damaging to
the character of America, then why NOW are they being paraded in the
media and on the opinion pages of publications all over the land?
This is not even a violation of Wright’s right to speak his
mind. It is simply an effort to obstruct the path to the presidency
of Barack Obama, using a test of religion.
Somewhere
in the future of presidential campaigns, an agreement of protocol is
going to have to come about which adheres to the thinking of Article
6. Hinting at his Muslim and Atheist background was a clear consensus
of the idea that a person cannot be president unless his religion
satisfies the public conscience. Linking him, through Jeremiah
Wright, to Louis Farrakhan, a proud and prominent practitioner of
Islam was designed to motivate the fears inherent in the current age
of terrorism and anti-Semitism. If religion is to play a deciding
part in the election of a US president, then Article 6 must come to
the attention of the Supreme Court in terms of revision or official
interpretation because it sure sounds to me like we have an
infringement here.
The
attempt to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy with the ongoing debate
over the content of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright has hit its mark.
There has been a drop in the Nominating polls along with a
rise in the general election polls favorable to Hillary Clinton.
If this association between Barack Obama’s faith choice and
his chances for winning the presidency prove to be detrimental then
bringing a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding Article 6
could be a reasonable consideration.
RWH
The Clinton team is currently suggesting that they would consider a "Clinton-Obama" ticket. This latest insult has gone the distance in repugnance, conceit and presumptiveness. It is clearly designed to manipulate the remaining contests by using cheap psychology on the minds of voters having a tough time trying to decide between the two in the remaining contests. The strategy says, "It's ok, vote for Hillary because she will bring Obama with her." The old "two fer". It is a double-edged sword because first of all, they aren't serious. They know that a Barack Obama IN HIS RIGHT MIND will reject the offer. That will leave them free to chose Joe Biden or somebody like that who will shore up the conservative wing and add a tone of experience to the ticket. Why would they want Barack Obama after making it known to the world that they don't feel he's "experienced" enough to be president? Why would they want him one heartbeat away from the job? This is deception reaching a point lower in decency than anything the Clinton camp has thrown at the Obama campaign to date.
Prudence, wisdom, and clear thought mandates a Barack Obama rejection of any teaming up with the Clinton Brigade, even if she DOES miraculousy or through nefarious invention, manage to win this nomination. The rank-and-file Democratic public has spoken loudly about who they want to be the nominee. Barack Obama has solicited money and support from the public, not from his pocket or powerful special interest groups. To counter the overwhelming success of this strategy, Hillary Clinton has had to reach into her own deep pockets and those of her backers to come up with the money to struggle back to a tenuous state of credibility. To win the nomination and offer the VP slot to Barack Obama would be to negate the meaning of the Obama campaign. It would be taking the money this "people's campaign" has donated from their own personal resources and using it for the opposition. I can't think that Barack Obama or any of his high level staffers would not be able to see through this transparency.
This is a campaign to change the way government works in Washington. This is a campaign to get the people who are outside of the system, a voice in the inner workings of the government. This is not a campaign to win the White House for the Democratic Party by any means necessary. This is a campaign to elect Barack Obama PRESIDENT, not vice president. I would prefer for Barack Obama to sit out the general election and take his chances with a failed McCain presidency in 2012 or even 2016. If Hillary Clinton can't win without Obama, then let her LOSE! I have suggested before that the failure to support John Kerry-John Edwards with enough enthusiam to overcome the small gap that defeated them in 2004 can be blamed in large part on the Clintons whose influence in 2004 was probably ranking if not outright dominant. The 2004 loss enabled the Clinton candidacy of 2008, and this was no accident. This did not happen overnight. The Kerry-Edwards loss was Hillary Clinton's gain. BUT!! Along came Barack Obama and his audacity to believe.
The Clintons miscalculated not only Barack Obama, but the public which has flocked to his side and filled his campaign coffers with personal donations amounting to record-breaking numbers. This effort is not to fizzle out in a vice presidential win for Obama. The eye is on the prize. There is no reason to capitualte to the misdirection of the Cinton campaign by acknowledging any interest whatsoever in the vice presidency. Considering her lackluster performance in the primaries, using all her money and power, I hardly think she can win a national campaign against John McCain. Why enable her win with the resources Barack Obama has managed from ground zero? Why direct the casg flow of ordinary individuals towards a win for the powerful and wealthy? It would be unfair. It is a double-edged trick which brilliant minds should be able to see through and reject out-of-hand, any alliance with this team, win or lose, in August. In plain language it is a deceitful work of deception designed to grab votes from the undecided as the remaing contests stand to make-or-break either candidate. Please, Barack. Just say NO!!!
Robert
Hamilton
BET
President Bob Johnson's recent speech endorsing Hillary Clinton
speaks to many things about American society. The best it
reflects is our right to express how we feel, unhindered by any
outside forces or laws. In this regard, I applaud Bob Johnson.
As a stated friend of Barack Obama, I think it took courage to defy
his call for support and turn instead, to Hillary Clinton. No
black man or woman should be expected to support Barack Obama just
because of racial integrity. It reveals in depth the freedom we
have long aspired to in becoming who we want to be. Bob Johnson
is a successful black businessman and speaks both intelligently and
down-to-earth. It would be great to have his presence on
Obama's side, but this is not heaven. This is the United
States. This is not a perfect world. This is America.
It is pure irony that when the torch of presidential leadership is about to be passed to an intelligent, articulate (there's that word), charismatic, young black leader, the question of his race rises to defeat him. This not in the minds of racist whites as one would expect, but in the free speech of discerning blacks like Bob Johnson. Johnson’s refusal to allow race to influence his decision to back Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, is a testimony to the kind of individuality so long suppressed by the torment and ravage of slavery which produced a violent racism in this land, encompassing ALL blacks, good, bad, young, old, ugly, beautiful, intelligent and illiterate. There was a time in our history when white leadership such as the Clinton legacy would not dream of seeking support from a prominent black individual. My, how times have changed.
To listen to this endorsement of Clinton over Obama by Bob Johnson fills me with the sense of a great schizophrenic moment in the history of blacks in this country. Even with his inspiring lecture about experience and leadership ability, you can perceive behind the amused eloquence of Johnson's speech, that his heart is wounded for having to bypass this moment of destiny and hold the hand of the white liberal establishment. What less could you expect out of a successful black entrepreneur? It is a wonder he is even voting Democrat. You can sense this madness; this frustration in the sonorous silence of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You can feel this strain of conflict in the weakened song of Clintonian support coming from the lips of a politically indebted Charles Rangel.
There is a fear of success in many people, for success demands far more energy than failure. Success reveals strength. Success spells empowerment. There is no recipe for handling black success at the presidential level because such an accomplishment challenges the mantras of the Civil Rights Movement, if these guiding elements include a disadvantaged underclass of blacks needing help and assistance to get where they want to be. It takes the beef out of the roll and challenges the movement to find a new reason to push forward. It changes the song from we SHALL overcome to we HAVE overcome. It shouts loudly to the world that America has at last come to terms with its racist past. It signals an end to plantation politics. It ushers in the dawn of a new responsibility for all blacks to end their crying, stop their begging and stand up.
It smothers the fire of black activism and forces a new division between so-called "biological" blacks and what, TRUE blacks?
The irony of an Obama presidency is that it redefines the struggle at the expense of the struggle itself. No more white man to be second-class to. No more white power structure to be disenfranchised by. Becoming is always a psychologically difficult time. Becoming of age. Becoming married. Becoming sober. Becoming parents; Becoming who we can be, as opposed to hiding from that level of potential in self-defeatist and divisive attitudes against our own, comes with a price. Obama is the black man grown up, fully franchised, legitimized and ready to steer the world. Some blacks just can't handle that idea. It has deep psychological and emotional overtones. It is a frightening thing to see your dreams realized sometimes.
Given all of this, the Johnson speech has increased my sense of Barack Obama's courage 100 fold. He called it "audacity" and no better word could describe his intention to win the presidency of the United States. That same audacity can be used to describe the opposition of eloquent and intelligent blacks like Bob Johnson who feel duty-bound to support the status quo. Most of what he says about Hillary Clinton's experience is lost on me. All talk about her experience is lost on me. WHAT experience, I ask? Her husband's? She ran a full-fledged battle to win a health care program at the outset of Bill Clinton's administration. She was well intentioned, but roundly defeated. I can't think of any other significant contribution she made to her husband's administration. She moved to New York State to take advantage of an opportunity to run for the Senate. Since then, I can't determine how much better, or worse she has been at this job than Barack Obama has been at his. Bob Johnson says there's no debate about her experience, but to date, I have not seen the list of accomplishments reflecting her so-called leadership abilities.
As I have said before in this space, politics makes strange bedfellows. Given the absence of qualities, Mrs. Clinton is said to possess, and given the intelligence of Bob Johnson, I have to assume he has different reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton. As a businessman, he is no stranger to the art of the deal. Bill Clinton made a lot of friends in the black community as president and moved his office to Harlem when he left the White House. Bill Clinton is calling in markers and black folks are weighing in out of loyalty and commitment more than out of pride and a sense of destiny. This totals up to the sad bipolarism that has influential blacks bowing out of the racial call and turning their backs on Barack Obama. It must hurt, and I can only hope that as Mr Obama continues to convince white America to vote for him, that more blacks across the board will take another look at his accomplishments, his leadership abilities, his experience, and his drive.
I have said before and say it again now. It is ok to vote the color when you have to add that to complete your decision regarding Barack Obama. Nobody would ever vote solely on color. I am not promoting that. What I am doing is including the color; acknowledging the race. I knew it would come down to race anyway. All efforts to avoid the race card have failed while gender has been spliced into the Clinton Campaign effort from day one. If it is fair to vote gender, it is fair to vote color. The Clinton campaign is mining black support by confusing the black issue and maintaining the integrity of the shopworn Civil Rights Movement as the prime mover of black conscience in this contest. Who is Hillary Clinton to define who we are? Who is anybody to measure and assess the "blackness" of Barack Obama, using words like "experience" and "leadership ability" to disguise the obvious?
I travel the world. Believe me. The prospect of a Barack Obama presidency is changing the mentality of the global community in a profound way. An America led by a black man would change the world overnight. Yes, it is about race. It can never not be about race. Since the racial card is in this for the distance, I am going to vote race after having determined that Barack Obama is the right man for the job. I will not run from race as the determining factor while blacks like Bob Johnson devalue race as a valid component of eligibility. I don't believe him when he says he hired people in BET because they were good and not because they were black. I think he hired them because they were good AND because they were black. After all, we are talking about a BLACK entertainment network. Go figure.
There is a long line of minorities, women of all races, and people of all ethnicity waiting to ascend to the office of president. It will be a sad day to see a black president finally emerge after a long series of "firsts" for every other group in this country. It won't have the same impact. "Well we've had every other kind of president. Let's try a black man now". Back of the Bus. Last on the line. Bottom of the barrel. This is not our destiny. This would be our fate. We can avoid our fate if we claim our destiny and claim it NOW.
Robert W. Hamilton
It is pure irony that when the torch of presidential leadership is about to be passed to an intelligent, articulate (there's that word), charismatic, young black leader, the question of his race rises to defeat him. This not in the minds of racist whites as one would expect, but in the free speech of discerning blacks like Bob Johnson. Johnson’s refusal to allow race to influence his decision to back Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, is a testimony to the kind of individuality so long suppressed by the torment and ravage of slavery which produced a violent racism in this land, encompassing ALL blacks, good, bad, young, old, ugly, beautiful, intelligent and illiterate. There was a time in our history when white leadership such as the Clinton legacy would not dream of seeking support from a prominent black individual. My, how times have changed.
To listen to this endorsement of Clinton over Obama by Bob Johnson fills me with the sense of a great schizophrenic moment in the history of blacks in this country. Even with his inspiring lecture about experience and leadership ability, you can perceive behind the amused eloquence of Johnson's speech, that his heart is wounded for having to bypass this moment of destiny and hold the hand of the white liberal establishment. What less could you expect out of a successful black entrepreneur? It is a wonder he is even voting Democrat. You can sense this madness; this frustration in the sonorous silence of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You can feel this strain of conflict in the weakened song of Clintonian support coming from the lips of a politically indebted Charles Rangel.
There is a fear of success in many people, for success demands far more energy than failure. Success reveals strength. Success spells empowerment. There is no recipe for handling black success at the presidential level because such an accomplishment challenges the mantras of the Civil Rights Movement, if these guiding elements include a disadvantaged underclass of blacks needing help and assistance to get where they want to be. It takes the beef out of the roll and challenges the movement to find a new reason to push forward. It changes the song from we SHALL overcome to we HAVE overcome. It shouts loudly to the world that America has at last come to terms with its racist past. It signals an end to plantation politics. It ushers in the dawn of a new responsibility for all blacks to end their crying, stop their begging and stand up.
It smothers the fire of black activism and forces a new division between so-called "biological" blacks and what, TRUE blacks?
The irony of an Obama presidency is that it redefines the struggle at the expense of the struggle itself. No more white man to be second-class to. No more white power structure to be disenfranchised by. Becoming is always a psychologically difficult time. Becoming of age. Becoming married. Becoming sober. Becoming parents; Becoming who we can be, as opposed to hiding from that level of potential in self-defeatist and divisive attitudes against our own, comes with a price. Obama is the black man grown up, fully franchised, legitimized and ready to steer the world. Some blacks just can't handle that idea. It has deep psychological and emotional overtones. It is a frightening thing to see your dreams realized sometimes.
Given all of this, the Johnson speech has increased my sense of Barack Obama's courage 100 fold. He called it "audacity" and no better word could describe his intention to win the presidency of the United States. That same audacity can be used to describe the opposition of eloquent and intelligent blacks like Bob Johnson who feel duty-bound to support the status quo. Most of what he says about Hillary Clinton's experience is lost on me. All talk about her experience is lost on me. WHAT experience, I ask? Her husband's? She ran a full-fledged battle to win a health care program at the outset of Bill Clinton's administration. She was well intentioned, but roundly defeated. I can't think of any other significant contribution she made to her husband's administration. She moved to New York State to take advantage of an opportunity to run for the Senate. Since then, I can't determine how much better, or worse she has been at this job than Barack Obama has been at his. Bob Johnson says there's no debate about her experience, but to date, I have not seen the list of accomplishments reflecting her so-called leadership abilities.
As I have said before in this space, politics makes strange bedfellows. Given the absence of qualities, Mrs. Clinton is said to possess, and given the intelligence of Bob Johnson, I have to assume he has different reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton. As a businessman, he is no stranger to the art of the deal. Bill Clinton made a lot of friends in the black community as president and moved his office to Harlem when he left the White House. Bill Clinton is calling in markers and black folks are weighing in out of loyalty and commitment more than out of pride and a sense of destiny. This totals up to the sad bipolarism that has influential blacks bowing out of the racial call and turning their backs on Barack Obama. It must hurt, and I can only hope that as Mr Obama continues to convince white America to vote for him, that more blacks across the board will take another look at his accomplishments, his leadership abilities, his experience, and his drive.
I have said before and say it again now. It is ok to vote the color when you have to add that to complete your decision regarding Barack Obama. Nobody would ever vote solely on color. I am not promoting that. What I am doing is including the color; acknowledging the race. I knew it would come down to race anyway. All efforts to avoid the race card have failed while gender has been spliced into the Clinton Campaign effort from day one. If it is fair to vote gender, it is fair to vote color. The Clinton campaign is mining black support by confusing the black issue and maintaining the integrity of the shopworn Civil Rights Movement as the prime mover of black conscience in this contest. Who is Hillary Clinton to define who we are? Who is anybody to measure and assess the "blackness" of Barack Obama, using words like "experience" and "leadership ability" to disguise the obvious?
I travel the world. Believe me. The prospect of a Barack Obama presidency is changing the mentality of the global community in a profound way. An America led by a black man would change the world overnight. Yes, it is about race. It can never not be about race. Since the racial card is in this for the distance, I am going to vote race after having determined that Barack Obama is the right man for the job. I will not run from race as the determining factor while blacks like Bob Johnson devalue race as a valid component of eligibility. I don't believe him when he says he hired people in BET because they were good and not because they were black. I think he hired them because they were good AND because they were black. After all, we are talking about a BLACK entertainment network. Go figure.
There is a long line of minorities, women of all races, and people of all ethnicity waiting to ascend to the office of president. It will be a sad day to see a black president finally emerge after a long series of "firsts" for every other group in this country. It won't have the same impact. "Well we've had every other kind of president. Let's try a black man now". Back of the Bus. Last on the line. Bottom of the barrel. This is not our destiny. This would be our fate. We can avoid our fate if we claim our destiny and claim it NOW.
Robert W. Hamilton
Black
voters in S.C. and all over the country are being tricked by the
white liberal, Clinton-based social strata to think Civil Rights;
Slave roots; in terms of the black identity, in an effort to hurt
Barack Obama. As Mike Dyson pointed out in he Obama Debate, the
movement and the presidency are two separate things. I wish people
would see the Obama campaign as the blossoming of the fruit of that
struggle. Jesse Jackson paved the way. He ran a decent, credible
campaign and organized what he called a "rainbow coalition",
clearly avoiding any reference to "BLACK", but hinting with
"rainbow" the same thing. Jesse made the idea of a Black
President a potent reality. It would be a shame to miss the chance to
cash in on his legacy.
Barack Obama wrote a book that clearly reveals his black roots and indeed they are deep. He may have erred in thinking more people would read the book. I am a witness. I questioned Barack Obama's roots until I read Dreams From My Father, given to me as a Christmas present (2006) by my daughter. It made me a believer as he described growing up black. I identified with just about every single experience he described. No doubt, Barack Obama is "one of us".
The strategy of the Clinton campaign is to gather us up as hens and sing "We Shall Overcome" and talk about "Plantation Politics" to a group of dislocated Black Louisianians in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This constant pandering to our slave history and our oppressive state ignores the advances we have made as a result of the efforts of the great leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Just peruse the demographics today. Witness the economic gain; the Political offices held; the corporate picture; the neighborhoods we live in. Things have changed. We HAVE overcome and Barack Obama is proof. We have a ways to go, but so do a lot of groups and people.
Now as the bible said, there will always be the poor. I don't know why that is, but while the poor are here, the best any government can do is ease the burden and increase the opportunities to energe from poverty and attain means of self-support. Who understands this better than Barack Obama? Pointing out the negative aspects of the black experience in 2008 America forces the hand of anyone running for high office who happens to be black. It places undue pressure on Barack Obama to perform as a black man rather than as a man running for president. Endorsing Hillary Clinton because she is more "electable" is actually a confirmation of the past imagery with white leaders like Lyndon Johnson being the only source of true reform for Civil Rights. I say it is time to trust. Time to seize the destiny. Time to stop waiting for the crumbs off the table. Jesse Jackson still supports Barack Obama. His "strategic distance" is a poltical necessity if Obama is the win the white vote and that is the business of the game.
Now I admit that from the beginning, I have considered symbol along with substance. In substance, Obama is a reasonable enough choice to justify the symbol. I will only scrutinize him up to a point. After all, we have the Clarence Thomas affair to warn us against using color as the only qualification to vote for somebody. I have decided, after reading his book and getting to know him, that Barack Obama is as credible a black candidate as we have seen in years or will see for years to come. Now is the time.
RWH
Barack Obama wrote a book that clearly reveals his black roots and indeed they are deep. He may have erred in thinking more people would read the book. I am a witness. I questioned Barack Obama's roots until I read Dreams From My Father, given to me as a Christmas present (2006) by my daughter. It made me a believer as he described growing up black. I identified with just about every single experience he described. No doubt, Barack Obama is "one of us".
The strategy of the Clinton campaign is to gather us up as hens and sing "We Shall Overcome" and talk about "Plantation Politics" to a group of dislocated Black Louisianians in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This constant pandering to our slave history and our oppressive state ignores the advances we have made as a result of the efforts of the great leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Just peruse the demographics today. Witness the economic gain; the Political offices held; the corporate picture; the neighborhoods we live in. Things have changed. We HAVE overcome and Barack Obama is proof. We have a ways to go, but so do a lot of groups and people.
Now as the bible said, there will always be the poor. I don't know why that is, but while the poor are here, the best any government can do is ease the burden and increase the opportunities to energe from poverty and attain means of self-support. Who understands this better than Barack Obama? Pointing out the negative aspects of the black experience in 2008 America forces the hand of anyone running for high office who happens to be black. It places undue pressure on Barack Obama to perform as a black man rather than as a man running for president. Endorsing Hillary Clinton because she is more "electable" is actually a confirmation of the past imagery with white leaders like Lyndon Johnson being the only source of true reform for Civil Rights. I say it is time to trust. Time to seize the destiny. Time to stop waiting for the crumbs off the table. Jesse Jackson still supports Barack Obama. His "strategic distance" is a poltical necessity if Obama is the win the white vote and that is the business of the game.
Now I admit that from the beginning, I have considered symbol along with substance. In substance, Obama is a reasonable enough choice to justify the symbol. I will only scrutinize him up to a point. After all, we have the Clarence Thomas affair to warn us against using color as the only qualification to vote for somebody. I have decided, after reading his book and getting to know him, that Barack Obama is as credible a black candidate as we have seen in years or will see for years to come. Now is the time.
RWH
As
a reply to all, let me say that I too, am happy with the Iowa
results. The real work is ahead. I am looking forward to a good
showing in New Hampshire, a state not unlikely to go Clinton.
As for the electability issue, well, that's just another code word
signifying that the man is black, therefore he can't win. Same
thing with the "experience" word. What experience
does Hillary Clinton have to be president? Because her husband
was president? That gives her the experience to be president?
Does that mean when she hits the wall, she'll call on Bill? Is
Bill Clinton trying to edge his way back into the White House as a
shadow president? As far as experience goes, both Clinton and
Obama are short - term senators and that evens the playing field as
far as I can see. The experience offensive and the electability
issue are just smokescreens to hide the real deal. Barack Obama is a
Black man. Let's just all get used to this.
Now why is it that so many white folks seem to think Obama is electable and so many black folk think not? This is a tragic shame that blacks still don't get the point. They still want to ride in the back of the political bus and not sieze the destiny being offered here and now. Why blacks, in mass, would support Hillary Clinton is not a mystery given the "strange bedfellows" nature of politics. Charles Rangel is indebted to the Clintons and has made Civil Rights the issue here, not electing a black candidate. Him and others like him are singing the electability serenade to cover their primal instinct to deny the ability of a black man to run this nation. Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, simply don't seem to know WHAT to do. They too, have grown fat on the food trough of Civil Rights and are afraid that if they don't back Clinton, she won't feel obligated to honor any commitments to a Civil Rights agenda; at least not with any sense of urgency. Those of us who have read Dreams
From My Father,
by Barack Obama KNOW how committed he is to the rights and needs of
the underclass, be they black, white, red, or yellow. He has
far more hands-on experience dealing with day-to-day issues facing
the disadvantaged, the poor, and the elderly. What track record
does Mrs. Clinton have in this area?
Barack
Obama can't afford to involve a high-profile Civil Rights
agenda with his mission to change the way government works in
Washington. To win, he needs the white vote. Is this not a
no-brainer? Civil Rights issues have characteristically been
confrontational, Black vs. White, and the melody of the struggles
lingers on. Openly voicing his support of Civil Rights and
pushing it to the forefront of his campaign is simply not politically
expedient. Jesse Jackson made good use of it in his campaign,
because he didn't have to win. All he had to do was bring
respect to the idea of a black president and expose the existence of
a "rainbow coalition"; people of all backgrounds committed
to the social ideas implied by Civil Rights ideology. To this
end, Jesse's campaign was a huge success. He won in Spirit, and
his legacy is now being realized in the more realistic and winnable
campaign of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is a consummate politician and that's what it takes to win the game at the presidential level. It takes knowing the man and understanding his political concept to realize that Civil Rights is fully compatible with his platform. He is the first truly credible black candidate to seek the office of President of the United States. Who, ascending to this office, has been experienced? John F. Kennedy? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? George Bush? Al Gore was electable and lost. You can't allow these catchy sound-byte phrases to rule the outcome of an election as critical as this one. And YES, it is critical to the history of Black people in the United States. This is our moment. This is our time. This is our prize. This is the the goal of our struggle; the pinnacle of our legacy. To throw it away because of a persistent second-class mentality that still trusts the white establishment and rejects the rise of blacks in a crabs-in-the-barrel manner, is a tragic capitualtion to business as usual. If nothing else, Barack Obama brings the credibility, validity, and exoneration we have so long deserved in our history here. It may seem trite, but that alone is reason enough for every black man and woman in this country to get behind Barack Obama and help him gain the highest office on the planet.
Robert
W. Hamilton 1-5-2008
Jesse Jackson is to be forgiven for his ignorant outburst re. Barack Obama, citing him as “acting white”. For Jesse, that was triple ignorant, because he is supposed to be intelligent. I am not going to make a big issue on this since everybody is given to bad judgment from time to time and letting it go is about the only real way to deal with it. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence should be able to see through the oversight on the part of the Rev. and just sadly dismiss it. The man has a brilliant legacy and deserves a pass even from people like me who wish he would simply retire and write books or something. We have a genuine shot at respect and relevance in the person of Barack Obama. We don’t need a shopworn Civil rights mouthpiece to sabotage the very sunrise the movement has fought and shed blood for over all these years. We’re so busy singing, “We Shall Overcome”, the core of the leadership can’t even perveive the word “shall” becoming the word, “have”.
That having been said, let’s give Rev Jesse the benefit of the doubt for a paragraph or two. Maybe he perceives in his latent intelligence, a distancing on the part of all the candidates regarding the Jena Six. If so, he is not suffering from cataracts. Mychal Bell is no hero. Once again, a la Rodney King, the exalted Civil Rights Movement is coming forth to protect the rights of a criminal. Yes. Mr. Bell is currently bent on making the wrong choices in terms of response to perceived injustice. He has a criminal record and made an non-MLK King Jr. response to the noose-hanging, or whatever it was that moved him and his buddies to beat that boy down like they did.
The attempted murder charge would have been incurred in NY, my home state, and I can’t speak for any other state. I know if you beat a man in the head, strike a man in the head, or stomp and kick a man in the head, the truth is, that death CAN be a result. What they did to Barker was not spiritually defensible, if calling on the legacy of Dr. King was to be the subsequent course of action once the courts got involved. The correctional system in NY State is filled with folks who made a bad decision and used violence to right a wrong. Attempted Murder is a charge designed to give the Prosecution the highest card in the deal to come. In most cases the charge is whittled down to aggravated assault or something both sides can be happy with, so attempted murder is routine, especially in the case of a beat-down such as was administered to Mr. Barker.
To ask the politicians running for the highest office of the world to compromise their strategy by snuggling into bed with the act of criminality is blatantly unfair and unmindful of the necessary game these people must play if reaching that office is truly their goal. When Jesse ran, he ran to make a point and he did well, but no one really expected him to waltz all the way to the presidency spouting rhetoric and idealism about human rights and rainbow equality. Jesse opened a big door for Barack Obama, but Mr. Obama is serious about becoming THE PRESIDENT, so give him his right to set his profile with a dash of wisdom and plain old common sense. This Jena 6 deal will run its course. The calls to the Sharpton-Jesse duo should have gone out from the moment the nooses were hung. Decency and non-violence should have prevailed and the matter would have taken on a character worthy of the legacy of Dr. King.
The trial and sentencing of Mr. Bell is indeed unfortunate and I hope there can be a more just decision made, but courts are what they are. When you beat a man into unconsciousness, you run the real chance of killing him. Lord knows we withstood many beatings, killings, lynchings and much torture in years past. Martin Luther King could have called for righteous wrath and beat-downs, but he didn’t. He reached deep into the Bible and the example of Mahatma Ghandi to craft the wisdom of nonviolence. He called the choice “nonviolence or non-existence” and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his depth of insight. Mychal Bell damaged his own credibility with his decision to meet hatred with hatred and there is only so much a Martin Luther King Jr.-inspired response can do for the lad. I wish him well, and remain solid behind my support for Barack Obama.
That having been said, let’s give Rev Jesse the benefit of the doubt for a paragraph or two. Maybe he perceives in his latent intelligence, a distancing on the part of all the candidates regarding the Jena Six. If so, he is not suffering from cataracts. Mychal Bell is no hero. Once again, a la Rodney King, the exalted Civil Rights Movement is coming forth to protect the rights of a criminal. Yes. Mr. Bell is currently bent on making the wrong choices in terms of response to perceived injustice. He has a criminal record and made an non-MLK King Jr. response to the noose-hanging, or whatever it was that moved him and his buddies to beat that boy down like they did.
The attempted murder charge would have been incurred in NY, my home state, and I can’t speak for any other state. I know if you beat a man in the head, strike a man in the head, or stomp and kick a man in the head, the truth is, that death CAN be a result. What they did to Barker was not spiritually defensible, if calling on the legacy of Dr. King was to be the subsequent course of action once the courts got involved. The correctional system in NY State is filled with folks who made a bad decision and used violence to right a wrong. Attempted Murder is a charge designed to give the Prosecution the highest card in the deal to come. In most cases the charge is whittled down to aggravated assault or something both sides can be happy with, so attempted murder is routine, especially in the case of a beat-down such as was administered to Mr. Barker.
To ask the politicians running for the highest office of the world to compromise their strategy by snuggling into bed with the act of criminality is blatantly unfair and unmindful of the necessary game these people must play if reaching that office is truly their goal. When Jesse ran, he ran to make a point and he did well, but no one really expected him to waltz all the way to the presidency spouting rhetoric and idealism about human rights and rainbow equality. Jesse opened a big door for Barack Obama, but Mr. Obama is serious about becoming THE PRESIDENT, so give him his right to set his profile with a dash of wisdom and plain old common sense. This Jena 6 deal will run its course. The calls to the Sharpton-Jesse duo should have gone out from the moment the nooses were hung. Decency and non-violence should have prevailed and the matter would have taken on a character worthy of the legacy of Dr. King.
The trial and sentencing of Mr. Bell is indeed unfortunate and I hope there can be a more just decision made, but courts are what they are. When you beat a man into unconsciousness, you run the real chance of killing him. Lord knows we withstood many beatings, killings, lynchings and much torture in years past. Martin Luther King could have called for righteous wrath and beat-downs, but he didn’t. He reached deep into the Bible and the example of Mahatma Ghandi to craft the wisdom of nonviolence. He called the choice “nonviolence or non-existence” and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his depth of insight. Mychal Bell damaged his own credibility with his decision to meet hatred with hatred and there is only so much a Martin Luther King Jr.-inspired response can do for the lad. I wish him well, and remain solid behind my support for Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has spoken wisely in the matter of Nukes against terrorism. Nuclear weapons are virtually useless on the battlefield. In silos and on Nuclear Subs, they present a formidable threat, but intelligent strategists know that the use of a nuclear weapon is a lose-lose situation. For others to speak out against Obama for tipping his hand is a clear pandering to dishonesty and plays the enemy stupid. Our nuclear arsenal has made us a paper tiger, and terrorists the world over know that. This is why they can attack us with impunity. They know we cannot use our nukes. That opportuinty went out with Detente and the end of the Cold War.
I don't have to list the ramifications of a nuclear assault. The result is clear. They are simply too destructive and leave a lasting effect that can choke life out of much of the planet. Only a madman (or woman) would resort to using this weapon. It is not even tactical in retaliatory usage. The US is fast assembling an array of very powerful conventional bombs and tools of warfare. We have what we need to fight terrorism without going nuclear. For the other candidates to accuse Barack of tipping his hand unnecessarily is to beg the question. For any candidate to hint that they would NOT rule out the use of these weapons is to cater to insanity. There is a spirit of vengeance and violence in this country that feeds on the idea of a nuclear option in this war. To remain silent about the use of these weapons is to pander to the vote of those who like the idea of a nuclear exchange in the Middle East.
Obama, once again, is testing honesty in a venue where style outclasses substance. The War on Terror is being fought in urban areas in the midst of innocent civilians. The best strategy is to continue to learn how to fight this war within the boundaries created by the definition of terrorism. It is a long war and there is no need to hint at the use of nuclear weapons by refusing to rule them out. Obama has simply told the "enemy" that they can expect firepower and bombs wherever they may be found. The use of nuclear weapons would help their cause by making the US look like the ultimate bully. Not to mention the cleanup and reconstruction once the deadly radiation has dissipated. That could be decades if the exchange gets out of hand.
I'd like to invite anyone who has the time and the means, to go visit the Atomic Bomb Museum either in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, Japan. I visited the Nagasaki museum in 2001. Just to relive the horrors of an atomic bomb attack would remind one of the dead-end strategy represented by the use of nuclear weapons. We have an intelligent, honest candidate in Barack Obama who is willing to wield integrity in this campaign. Any candidate that refuses to rule out nuclear weapons in the war on terror is either a liar insane, or just out to get votes.
I don't have to list the ramifications of a nuclear assault. The result is clear. They are simply too destructive and leave a lasting effect that can choke life out of much of the planet. Only a madman (or woman) would resort to using this weapon. It is not even tactical in retaliatory usage. The US is fast assembling an array of very powerful conventional bombs and tools of warfare. We have what we need to fight terrorism without going nuclear. For the other candidates to accuse Barack of tipping his hand unnecessarily is to beg the question. For any candidate to hint that they would NOT rule out the use of these weapons is to cater to insanity. There is a spirit of vengeance and violence in this country that feeds on the idea of a nuclear option in this war. To remain silent about the use of these weapons is to pander to the vote of those who like the idea of a nuclear exchange in the Middle East.
Obama, once again, is testing honesty in a venue where style outclasses substance. The War on Terror is being fought in urban areas in the midst of innocent civilians. The best strategy is to continue to learn how to fight this war within the boundaries created by the definition of terrorism. It is a long war and there is no need to hint at the use of nuclear weapons by refusing to rule them out. Obama has simply told the "enemy" that they can expect firepower and bombs wherever they may be found. The use of nuclear weapons would help their cause by making the US look like the ultimate bully. Not to mention the cleanup and reconstruction once the deadly radiation has dissipated. That could be decades if the exchange gets out of hand.
I'd like to invite anyone who has the time and the means, to go visit the Atomic Bomb Museum either in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, Japan. I visited the Nagasaki museum in 2001. Just to relive the horrors of an atomic bomb attack would remind one of the dead-end strategy represented by the use of nuclear weapons. We have an intelligent, honest candidate in Barack Obama who is willing to wield integrity in this campaign. Any candidate that refuses to rule out nuclear weapons in the war on terror is either a liar insane, or just out to get votes.
It
was the book Dreams
from my Father that
transformed my opinion of Barack Obama. I,
like many blacks, was holding out for a "valid" slave
descendent Black to be "first" in the White house. I
Prejudged Obama. What all of us experience is the conflict
stage. We all have to come to terms with who we are
individually, and who we are as blacks. That is a tough road to
travel, and many of us simply suffer silently. Obama had to
endure his own share of identity shock through his bi-racial
parentage, his absentee father, life in Hawaii as well as
Indonesia, and going to school where both blacks AND whites took
him to task about who he was. He received all the same outward
epithets and slants that any black person gets just for being black.
He was routinely called into account for his measure of "blackness"
from both sides, and he ultimately took it upon himself to go find
his father's people.
Once
in Africa, the entire connection of being from Africa was brought
to light as he traced through the cities and towns of the
motherland discovering long lost relatives living and dead, putting
the pieces together to reconstruct his ancestral past; So many
pieces long scattered by the passage of time and indifference.
With both parents deceased, it wasn't an easy task. He has to
be commended for making the effort and telling us about it with his
gifted skill as a writer. The political/economic reality of
Africa under siege from Europe is the link back to the slave trade
that brought us "legitimate" blacks to this country.
In that link, the Obama validation is won with an indelible stamp of
approval. He is as much a product of the rape and plunder of
Africa as any of us are. He is a real player in the struggle
and his background qualifies him as a true child of America with a
Blackness fully accountable and ready to deliver genuine concern for
issues that face us.
The economic issues are obvious, but for every Black who has gone ahead of the pack and become affluent, there is still that gnawing identity crisis that hits home when you see all those stranded and helpless black folks beaten down by hurricane Katrina. Obama is the metaphor for the millennium black who MUST make a pact with the America that enslaved him if he is to continue to rise and prosper. Many of us are getting "paid" today, and some paid in a big way. Yet there is still that daily reminder that we are who we are, individual by individual, and this election season is making it painfull obvious that we can't agree in group omn who that is. We can never agree, yet it will always be there for us to ponder, and that was the feeling I got from Barack Obama describing his encounter with the face in the mirror.
There
is a mandated value in working things out within the system and
refusing to be conquered by the inner hatred that stems from the
slave days. We have to overcome that obstacle, and Obama is
fortunate to have a White mother because he can never hate white
folks out of hand. To hate what you are is madness. His
"blend" so to speak is his calling to bring Blacks into the
mainstream of the American promise without alienating
whites who may have identity issues of their own which we never
consider. That's the long story.
What
impressed me most about the book is his ability to write with such
clarity and feeling. It was like reading the best of novels.
RWH 3-5-2007
If
the issue is simply the fact of a Black individual being president of
the United States, that in itself is a valid reason to vote for
Barack Obama. Now true, this may be seem, among intelligent
people Black AND White, as the last reason to vote for him, but I say
this: Blacks in America have a legitimate opportunity to say
YES to our legacy. YES we believe that we are capable of
running this country and representing it before the world.
YES. We have arrived. YES the dream is now a waking
reality. YES We HAVE overcome. No more "shall".
YES we ARE the man. Obama's victory would be our victory long
in coming.
This
is not a barnstorming preacher seeking to politicize his
self-righteousness. This is not an isolated Black
attention-seeker looking to make a point. Barack Obama is a
real candidate with enough experience to know that the people of this
country are not getting heard on the national level. This is a man
willing to work with the system, and prove once and for all that
the our founding fathers set up a nation that was truly destined to
serve the best ideals of humanity far into the future of this
planet. He has a good platform, is young, and could wake up this
country like no other politician since John F. Kennedy. AND he
is BLACK. This is our chance as Blacks to say yes. It IS
a good thing to vote for Obama because he is Black. Many people
will be doing just that anyway, so let's be open. Let's go
ahead and encourage this. Let's turn a presumed liability into
an asset of hope.
Plenty
of voters white and black will vote against him because of his race.
That is a sad truth. Sadder still for the Blacks who will make
that their decision to vote against him. There will be "crabs
in the barrel" who will not want to see one of their own make it
to the top. Booker T. Washington said it then, it is true today.
This is no time to be trusting Hillary Clinton. We need her
liberalism (maybe) but she's not our mommy. We need to hold out
a Secretary of State role for her or an ambassador-ship to some
foreign nation, but we do not need to follow her maternal overtures
into the White House only to end up waiting to be served while her
money takes precedence over her agenda. We have one of our OWN
in the race. Many Whites are on this bandwagon.
This
is not a vote against white people. It is a vote against
racism, bigotry, government deadlock, misapplication of federal
money, and moribund attitudes that maintain the racial status quo
each and every time we elect a president in this country. It is
a vote for change. Every Black person in America should send at
least $100 to Obama's campaign. Every Black Person in America
should get at least five White friends to do the same. Every
White person in America should follow suit by getting their
Black friends send this man money. More or less as
circumstances allow.This is the time to close the deal. Get
behind this man because our heritage demands it.
The
blood of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Medger Evers, the
murdered civil rights workers down through history, and all
other human beings who died in the struggle cries out for this
level of justice. It is not only timely for a Black President,
but right. A Black president will brighten the future of Black
children coast to coast and around the world. Black kids need a
wider spectrum of "Can Be" when planning their lives. A
Black president will say YES, we are more than entertainers,
preachers and sports professionals. We are leaders of the free
world. We can make policy that affects the global future
We can be trusted with the decision to use nuclear force. We can
lead the world and set in motion the eradication of that force. We
can respond to the hunger, deprivation and misery in the world with
humanitarian aid. We can bring all parties to the table and open
a new era of dialogue among people of different religions and
opinions. We can make policy that works in the United states to
answer the domestic needs of our people Black, White, Red, yellow,
whatever. We can make the rainbow a colorful truth, not a
distant mythical figure of speech.
We
can show history our time is here. The pot of gold is the
presidency of the United States. The worst thing a Black voter
can do is vote with his head only. This is a time to apply the
heart and soul and stand by our man.Barack Obama himself would more
than likely disagree with the above. That is his nature.
That is his legacy. That is his right. Many well-thinking
intelligent people will disagree with me and that is ironically a
good thing because Barack Obama has the substance to overcome the
racial issue that will make or break him in this election. The
sad fact is that the racial issue is a real issue. If we could
vote for Senator Obama without thinking about his race, wouldn't that
be grand!? Yet the media has already made this a confirmed
impossibility. We have no choice but to take a stand on his
racial identity.
We
can't afford to be color-blind. In the future, it will be our
best course, but as long as color becomes our disadvantage, we must
use color to win battles defined in part, by color. Since color
IS an issue in this campaign, thanks to the media, let's make the
best of it. Let his race work FOR him, not AGAINST him.
Content
on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community
members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved
by the campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment