Obama Does It!
Watching Obama last night, I had to shake myself. As he said, it's been a long road since Iowa. And he's not President yet.
Nonetheless, it is fitting to think about the amazing victory he has already won. Barring accident (God knows this is a violent country so that caveat is always in order), the Democratic party is going to nominate a black man for President of the United States.
Yes, he is brilliant, eloquent, handsome and all that but he's also black. And despite the media's reluctance to discuss the race issue, it's there. And it's huge.
But not mostly in a negative way. Of course racists are coming out of the woodwork. I know people in Memphis who believe that if Lieberman wasn't on the ticket, Gore would have carried his home state in 2000. But so what.
Racists and haters are always there. The fact is that when Gore put Lieberman on the ticket, he did a great thing (regardless of Lieberman's post-2000 career). And a wall came crashing down.
But America never had an anti-semitic tradition, not in the way other countries do, so the nomination of a Jew was a nice milestone but not much more than that.
The nomination of Barack Obama is something entirely different. The United States went to war with itself over the issue of race and 500,000 were killed by other Americans. That war was the biggest trauma in our history. By far.
The war ended slavery but racism remained. Less than a hundred years ago, in 1913, Woodrow Wilson tightened segregation in Washington, DC. (Mrs. Wilson saw blacks and whites mingling in a government building and was appalled). FDR, much as he wanted to, could not integrate the armed forces even as this country was fighting for its life. Eisenhower, just a half-century ago, had to send the 101st airborne into Arkansas so that black kids could attend Little Rock Central High. And, as late as 1965, Lyndon Johnson had to force the Voting rights bill through Congress because, 100 years after the Civil War, virtually no African-Americans were being allowed to vote in the states of the old confederacy.
LBJ rightly predicted that his implementation of the Kennedy-Johnson civil rights laws would turn the south Republican. And it happened. The solid Democratic south has been the solid Republican south ever since Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, won the GOP nomination, and carried it against LBJ.
But neither FDR nor Truman nor JFK nor LBJ could ever imagined that just 40 years after the first Presidential election in which southern blacks could vote, the Democratic party would be nominating a black man for President.
Of course Obama's road to the nomination has been hard. But compared to what? This is a country where liberal Democratic Presidents were afraid to endorse bills banning lynching (and a thousand African-Americans were lynched in the 20th century).
In that context, Obama's march to the nomination in Denver has been a cakewalk. Anyone who wants evidence as to why America is great should seize this moment and cherish it. This is a country that breaks our hearts over and over again. But, even more, it is the one country I can think of that, despite lurches backwards, keeps moving forward and confronting the prejudices that have kept people in chains.
The ugliest, most violent and bloodiest prejudice by far has been against African-Americans. Nevertheless, we are nominating Barack Obama for President.The glacier of racism is cracking. It's still there. We'll see lots of it between now and November.
But think how far we have come. Thank you, America. And, thank you Barack Obama for daring to try. I hope there is an afterlife because I pray that Lincoln and LBJ know. And Martin Luther King.
As a member of the "Moses" generation, it is gratifying to see our children emerge from 40 years in the desert to enter the post-racial promised land.
May 21, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you out of your mind?
Vote for your messiah-- but he's going to lose in November because he's not as qualified as Hillary and much less qualified than McCain, just on the books alone.
May 21, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary CEO of youtube downloader free
December 21, 2010 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, MJ, I suspect I'm just a bit younger than you (I'm 47), but the fact that Obama is black doesn't have the same symbolic import to me as it does to you. I suspect it's even less of a big deal for people younger than us. While Obama's winning the nomination says a lot about how far we've come in making race less significant in our society, the lack of interest in the candidate's race among young people may be the most encouraging sign of our progress.
May 21, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. But my kids, and all their friends, are incredibly excited about his being black. They grew up on hip hop (not just the music but the whole culture) and they feel more strongly than I do. Actually, I think a large part of why Obama is doing so amazingly well among the younger the voters (while his opponent skews in precisely the opposite direction) is race. Young people are dying to put the whole race thing behind us, and I think that is a big reason why he is creating the excitement he does.
So I kind of agree with you. The youngest voters want to get to post-racial, post-ethnic, etc, and Obama offers that promise, symbolizes it actually.
And you are also right about us boomers. For most 60's activists, racism has always been a huge issue.
May 21, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young people are dying to put the whole race thing behind us therefore they vote for a candidate because of his race.
I love you M.J. I feel so smart compare to your stupidity. Reading you is a guilty pleasure.
May 21, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
My guilty pleasure, alas, is to see a simpleton faced with a complex issue choose to arrogantly celebrate their own simplistic mind.
But MJ, let's not get carried away...electing a man who is half black would be but one step (albeit a big one) on a very long road. But hey, it's good to savor it every now and then, even at the expense of perspective.
May 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ is right. If young people were voting against Obama in hopes of "putting race behind us", that would be ridiculous. But it makes perfect sense to say that young people believe they can help America move beyond race issues by voting for an African American to achieve something no African American ever has in the past. The more hurdles of this kind that are crossed, the closer we get to a society of equality.
May 21, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the idea was that young people don't care about race?
So--- do they, or don't they?
May 21, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think that voting for a person because of their race is as bad as voting against them for the same reason? I don't understand the left's fixation on race. Sure there are racists out there, there always will be. However, just because Obama lost West Virginia doesn't mean that everyone who voted against him is a racist. Obama won Hawaii, Colorado, Alaska and a few other states by larger magins than Clinton won WV, does that mean those states are full of sexists?
May 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Nate, still missing the Great Motherland? Get used to it. This will never be your beloved Soviet Union.
May 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think that voting for a person because of their race is as bad as voting against them for the same reason?
Not even close. We vote FOR people for many reasons
-- because they are like us
-- because they have unique attributes
-- because they are admirable
-- because they embrace our values and policies.
These are all valid, honorable reasons to vote FOR someone. To vote AGAINST someone because of race or gender is despicable.
May 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC, I think intent makes a difference. People whose votes are motivated by the desire to keep their own race in power or to prevent people of other races from having equal access to power are doing something bad. But people who vote to help bring to power a person of a race that historically has been excluded from power aren't necessarily doing anything bad. Voting to exclude is bad. Voting to include mostly beneficial.
Obviously, in a perfect world, race would not be a factor at all in anyone's choice. But given our history, race is a factor, and ignoring race completely isn't necessarily the right fix, even if it sounds fair, because the disadvantages of past discrimination continue to hold blacks back today even if present discrimination is far less significant. Affirmative action recognizes that blacks can't be brought to equal status simply by ending discrimination because past actions against blacks continue to hurt them today. To make blacks truly equal, we will need to continue to address race for some period of time, until the playing field has been truly leveled.
One mroe comment: If you don't understand why race is a big deal to leftists, you don't understand American history very well. Race--and especially the treatment and legal status of blacks--has played a rather significant role in our history. It is at the heart of our most significant conflict--one that nearly tore the nation in two in the late 1800s. And for 100 years after that conflict, the unequal treatment of blacks continued to infect our society like a cancer.
May 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, I don't have my own kids, but my wife and I spend a lot of time with my college-age niece and her friends and we haven't heard them comment much on Obama's race. I think they do like the fact that Obama seems more comfortable with diverse groups of people (including people from other countries) than do Bush, McCain, and Clinton. If I see something different among today's youth, it's their heightened awareness that there's a world beyond mainstream white America. That awareness extends not just to black and hispanic America, but to Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific region. Young people seem ever more interested in--and enthusiastic about--the possibility of engaging with people different than themselves. This is why Bush and even Clinton are so repulsive to them -- they reject the fear and suspicion of the Other that so permeates both Bush's and Clinton's dialogue.
May 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been getting most of the youth vote (under 30). But he is younger and running a "new" politics, post-everything campaign so other factors play into it. If John McCain were black, do you think he'd be attracting the youth vote?
May 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain were black he would be running in the primary against Obama - the Republicans would not have him.
May 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alan Keyes?
May 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, maybe. On the other hand, Obama represents a mainstreaming of black men that is built on the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Alan Keyes absorbing the huge bulk of the racial bigotry out there.
Clinton, on the other hand, has been and is absorbing the gender bigotry. She hasn't had quite the amount of sacrificial lambs to precede her.
That being said, I think this primary was decided by Obama being the more purist and centrist/moderate in a period of purist and centrist/moderate currents. He's a lot more dependent on a centrist/moderate Democratic establishment than his following admits.
This election cycle continues to recapitulate that of 1976 to me. There was a fellow who took his campaign to his Party's convention that year and easily lost there, was widely panned for it and his seemingly absurd efforts and tactics. He got more than even with his critics in the 1980 elections. He knew which way the winds were really blowing.
May 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have a dream that someday people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"___MLK
This is what escapes you MJ. You admit that for you it is all about race (you say "in a good way", but that's not what MLK was saying at all)
Obama is a good man, I believe. But it is the opinion of many that he is not as prepared to face the responsibilities that lie ahead for the next President as Hillary is. That's water under the bridge. Obama is far more qualified than McCain inasmuch as he shares our liberal values.
But MJ, you never learned the great lesson that MLK taught.
Apparently you do judge people by the color of their skin and you don't even realize it. That's what you don't get. You call people who don't agree with you on Obama as the less qualified racists. You did it to Ferraro. You did it to me. I wouild ask you to judge me by the content of my writing and not the color of MY skin (which happens to be white)
MLK's formulation is a lot less shallow than you think MJ. But bless you, you probably mean well. I've had my doubts but it seems obnvious that you don't get it.
May 22, 2008 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whew! He “won” just in time. Right before a decision on FLA and MI had to be made. Lucky timing, I guess. Congratulations to Obama, though, and I hope he can pull in those voters who may feel cheated and disrespected along with those who feel left out and don’t trust him. It will be an achievement, just as the first woman president would have been, but the identity politics is not going to carry anyone into the WH.
I think the press has made a lot of race and gender, but I don't think there has been a great race divide at the polls. The country is not as hard-core racist or misogynistic as many think.I don’t believe America is foolish enough to install another neo-con corporate administration, but then I was unpleasantly surprised in 2004. Get ready for the real kitchen sink and I hope supporters are right about Obama’s ability to bring in new constituencies (God please).
May 21, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I happened across MSNBC interminable coverage of “Super Tuesday” last night. Tweety was asking one of Clintons minions what the signifignance of 20% of respondents to exit polls in Kentucky indicated they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s black. He pressed the issue stating that if 20% acknowledged race is the prime issue, how many more would feel the same way, but didn’t want to be perceived as racist. The Clinton aide admitted that was a problem and Clinton also faces miscegenation in her run for the WH, which is also true. This country is in deep kimchee with these attitudes and citizen apathy in general.
May 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apathy has been a problem for decades though this election will probably see a much greater turnout and people seem more engaged all around. I don’t disagree that race is a big factor with some voters but the press has gone out of its way to find those with racist attitudes, especially in the hillbilly “Appalachia” states, and surveys have played up the race factor. Recent studies are showing that the Bradley effect is and probably always has been miniscule. There has been more of a reverse Bradley effect with Obama in this primary. Exit polls, where minorities of voters say that race is a major factor, do not automatically reveal racism.
Race is a main factor among some blacks voting for Obama because he can represent their issues better than a white candidate. The same has long been true for Hispanics voting for Hispanic candidates and has been a rationale of some whites voting for a white candidate (or women voting for a woman candidate). It is identity politics and has to do with race but isn’t necessarily racist.
Of course, there are racists and voters who won’t vote for any black man and they may be easier to find in Kentucky than in NYC but they are still a small minority. I remember the open and hostile racism of the sixties and I’m really amazed at how little is around today (and I don’t think it is all hidden). Maybe I'm wrong, but even if 10% of voters won't vote for Obama in November because he's black, 90% would.
May 21, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
we're watching a dream come true
May 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racism is learned behavior. Many in my generation (I'm 64) did not teach our children racism, therefore they did not learn it. Although I don't consider myself a racist, I sometimes include skin color or ethnic origin in my description of a person as if it explained something about that person. My children make no such distinction. To them, people are people, and Mr. Obama is not black (or tan or khaki or African-American), he is Barack.
The freedom train is leaving the station. My generation, including those in the media who are more interested in the implications of the color of Mr. Obama's skin than the implications of his ideas, better get on board. Or get left way the hell behind.
May 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racism may be learned behavior but tribalism is built into the genes. Even animals have it as we know they live in packs and are hostile to intruders. So the cure to racism has to go even beyond getting rid of racial steretypes. As we all know, the Jews and Palestinians hate each other and they are both Caucasian groups, and so do the Sunnis and Shiites. And let's not forget Democrats and Republicans, since those are 'tribes' as well.
In other words, too many live as if belonging to one group makes other groups 'enemies.' This is the mindset that underlies even racism, and is a longer term problem that we face if the human species is to survive and prosper.
Education is the only way we will save mankind.
May 21, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a fighter!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO5soX3iLtk
May 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to ever know how much effect race and gender issues have had on this primary election. There are too many other variables to accurately distinguish the effect of prejudice. For some crazy reason, I keep thinking that what's important is a candidate's record, positions and personal character. The argument is winding to its foregone conclusion. And while the die-hard Hillary supporters waive the haggard remnants of her prolonged and misguided kitchen sink attack, all I keep thinking is what a breath of fresh air Obama will be as our President. His record on the war, his honesty, his straightforward approach, and his crystal clear message that he'll be a true messenger of working class people are the reasons I support him. For all I care, he could be a purple ferret.
May 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ
I have to disagree. I think race was an issue but not the most important one by far. I simply think Obama ran a better campaign. He has a better organization, better fund-raising apparatus, much better ability to motivate volunteers, a better strategy to compete throughout the whole primary season and a consistent unified team. Obama understood that a lot of Americans were angry with Republican policies and the rancorous nature of politics. He came with different policies and a polite respectful demeanor. He is a better speech giver, but she is better in debate. She lost because of the old nuts and bolts of campaigning. She lost on the ground.
Some whites (a few more in WV and Kentucky, a few less in Iowa and Oregon) might have shunned him because of his race, but I think at least as many were attracted to him because of it. I think a lot of people like what he said, like the manner in which he said it and he had an organization on the ground able to get many of those people to donate and vote.
May 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Richard Nixon said after winning election to the presidency in 1968: "I'm going to stop that damned (Vietnam) war, because if I haven't ended it in six months, it will be MY war."
President elect Obama will have the same, reasonable six month opportunity to end Deputy Dubya's occupation of Iraq. If he procrastinates any longer than that, the debacle will become inexorably and justly HIS. And if Barack Obama does not understand this finite and perishable opportunity to rapidly withdraw the trapped American military from the territory and airspace of "sovereign" Iraq, then he does not understand the first damn thing about "the fierce urgency of NOW."
May 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 21, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Obama is a saint. I voted for him because of what he is not. He is not the one who voted for the Iraq War and Kyl-Lieberman and he is not the one who promised to obliterate tens of millions of people.
Chris Matthews says Hillary lost the nomination because of her war vote. I don't know if that's how she lost the nomination, but that is how she lost me.
May 21, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately for Obama, he didn't have to make that vote. If he were already in the Senate, I suspect he would have voted the same way as Hillary. Once he was in the Senate, he voted to continue to fund the war.
May 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does not surprise me that Obama has done well in the Democratic party. With McCain being such a poor candidate and the Republicans being so unpopular at present, this is an ideal time for Obama to win the Presidency. Hopefully, he will do so and have success. I’ll take any racial advances we can get.
Of course, growing up in Mississippi, I've seen plenty of racism and plenty of rising above it. What I notice about the non-deep South United States is that many people are not fully aware of their continued racial naivety, despite their lack of racial prejudice. That minority politicians are as capable as anybody, they comprehend. But they actually do not fully realize that minority politicians are just as prone to cynicism and political shenanigans as non-minority politicians. They haven’t quite completed the circle that leads to unbiased observation. They are so used to seeing minorities mistreated that they can’t help but see them as victims, even when they are not.
May 21, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headlines read: “Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement”.
To that I say, Hillary is an oxy-MORON!
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it was all about race for you. How disappointing. Well, could you please keep it to yourself? You may have noticed that Obama tries not to call attention to it. He wants to be elected on his merits, not his skin color. And drawing attention to it doesn't help any more than drawing attention violent "accidents" does.
May 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, you have a real problem with race. Get help.
May 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In USSR Psychiatric hospitals were often used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka
I'm afraid that if people like M.J. Rosenberg come to power, dissents like Otto might face a similar fate.
May 21, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But "afraid" really doesn't cover it, does it? Terrified? All the time? About everything and nothing? Trying to sleep with all the lights on? Jumping every time the floorboards crack or the dog snores? Terrorists with nuclear weapons under the bed?
Nothing to be concerned about. Just resign your membership in the Neoconservative Movement and you'll start feeling better right away.
May 21, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tank Hussein Ard,
Thank you for your advice. Do you think it's not too late? Would the Party forgive me for being a member of enemy of the people group?
May 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you really want my advice, I'd say it's hopeless. Look into making an appointment with Dr. Kevorkian.
May 22, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it will be exciting to have a black nominee for President!
It would be even more exciting if he were better qualified and had more defined progressive credentials. But you can't have everything I suppose.
May 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ--
I live in Dallas and thought I'd relate a very right-wing, southern-boy, conservative perspective.
Not from me... from my barber.
He's a nice enough guy but he's ultra-republican and knows that I'm the opposite and if I don't lead off the conversation with something like sports, he'll get things going on a political topic. This of course is an uncomfortable situation in no small part because I'm sitting prone in the chair and he's circling me with a pair of razor-sharp scissors, so I feel it's prudent to temper my disagreements.
This last Saturday, I did not lead the conversation and of course, we got into a political discussion and specifically, the race for the White House.
He asked if I thought Obama would win the demovratic nomination and if so, would he beat John McCain. I responded "yes" on both counts, to which he excitedly offered to make a wager.
My barber "takes action" on wagers though they're usually the sporting kind. With football over and basketball soon to be, there's not much "action" so we made the following bet:
I gave him 2 to 1 odds that Obama would win more than 4 (four) states, and this brings me (finally) to the point I'm making in response to your post.
He believes that racism is alive and well in America. I do as well, but I contend it's A) not as prevalent in more than 45 states and B) not necessarily a stronger sentiment than avoiding 4 more years of sucky leadership.
Now it gets more interesting. My barber has another "side" business, and that is being a consultant to lawyers looking to seat friendly jurors. Being a barber, he's become quite an expert in sizing people up, and he apparently does very well in his alter vocation.
He truly believes that McCain will win by a landslide and Obama will be lucky to win 1-2 states. Again, I disagree completely but his conviction is strong.
A main hole in his argument is that while he may be a people expert, his expertise might not extend beyond the state lines of Texas. He doesn't really travel anywhere else to my knowledge, so all of his experience might be limited to the Lone Star State, which I don't think many expect Obama or any democrat to win.
Regardless, he's not a foolish guy and the debree of his certitude is remarkable.
Well, that was a long post to state very little, but it underscores your point about how huge race will be in this election.
Just my two cents.
--TexasLou
May 21, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have a dream that someday people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"___MLK
This is what escapes you MJ. You admit that for you it is all about race (you say "in a good way", but that's not what MLK was saying at all)
Obama is a good man, I believe. But it is the opinion of many that he is not as prepared to face the responsibilities that lie ahead for the next President as Hillary is. That's water under the bridge. Obama is far more qualified than McCain inasmuch as he shares our liberal values.
But MJ, you never learned the great lesson that MLK taught.
Apparently you do judge people by the color of their skin and you don't even realize it. That's what you don't get. You call people who don't agree with you on Obama as the less qualified racists. You did it to Ferraro. You did it to me. I wouild ask you to judge me by the content of my writing and not the color of MY skin (which happens to be white)
MLK's formulation is a lot less shallow than you think MJ. But bless you, you probably mean well. I've had my doubts but it seems obnvious that you don't get it.
May 22, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing MLK wanted from any of us was cold indifference to racism and its victims. He was too smart not to understand that the latest variant on racism, the new way to be racist, is to pretend that racism is not a virulent poison in American life. On the other hand, he would be ecstatic that a black man has gotten has far as he has.
But I believe you get it. You definitely get it. And so does Ferraro. You get it but you sure as hell don't like it.
Your skin "happens to be white." NO SHIT!
May 22, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note that when only 20 to 30 percent of whites in a state vote for Obama, well, clearly the racists are coming out of the woodwork. But when only 10 to 20 percent of blacks vote for Hillary, hey, that's inspiring! And note that when voters are asked whether race played a role in their decision, the assumption is that only whites are at fault.
.
If Obama is launching a "conversation" about race, let's indeed make it a conversation, not a lecture. It's not immediately clear that the racism here is predominantly a white thing.
May 22, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v manager windows 7, build your own iscsi san
April 8, 2011 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability software
May 4, 2011 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink