"It's so in your face how could you NOT see it?"

I have politely asked for anyone to explain to me what I could not see. Your so-called response is not helpful. And, no, I don't necessarily even see a scumbag like Tinker using the words "our churches" as code for we don't Jews representing our district. I have little doubt that this is what Tinker believes but I can't get that from those two words.

Posted at August 7, 2008 1:30 AM in response to Nasty Attack Ad Hits Jewish Dem Congressman For Visiting "Our Churches"

I'm not sure that the Christian prayer was part of the anti-Semitism unless you mean that the ad was designed, in part, to tell Christians, chiefly black Christians, that Jews do not regard Jesus Christ as the Messiah or the Son of God. The reference to "our churches" seems less pointed in terms of exploiting anti-Semitism than in making a blatant nationalist appeal based, in part, on skin color and shared religious beliefs that Jews do not subscribe to at all.

Posted at August 6, 2008 10:29 PM in response to Nasty Attack Ad Hits Jewish Dem Congressman For Visiting "Our Churches"

I read Josh's piece. That is why I asked for some further explanation. Cohen should be reelected. Tinker is just a shill for Harold Ford, his family and corporate interests that do not have the best interests of the folks in Cohen's district at heart. I know they are running on a b.s. black bourgeois nationalist theme (e.g. "our churches") but I'm not picking up the anti-Semitism. What I am asking is for folks who do to help me out here.

Posted at August 6, 2008 9:37 PM in response to Nasty Attack Ad Hits Jewish Dem Congressman For Visiting "Our Churches"

I'm an African American. I don't like the ad and I support Cohen's position about prayers in public schools but I'm not getting the anti-Semitism. I'm not saying the ad does not carry anti-Semitic connotations but I'm missing them. Please elaborate on this point.

Posted at August 6, 2008 6:29 PM in response to Nasty Attack Ad Hits Jewish Dem Congressman For Visiting "Our Churches"

To quote Mos Def: “If white boys doing it well, it’s success / when I start doing it well it’s suspect.”

Posted at July 31, 2008 10:04 AM in response to It's Official; The Press Turns on "Presumptuous" Obama

"The fair way to report this would have been merely to observe that the assassination came up while she was discussing her decision to stay in. This version accurately conveys what happened -- and even allows room for the worst interpretation of her motives."

Is this supposed to be a joke? No member of the editorial board that Sr. Hillary was talking to brought up the issue of assassination. She brought up the issue of assassination. And whether she raised the issue as an example of how things can go awry or as a justification for her staying in the race doesn't really matter. You want to grant her far too much slide action on this tip. It is her cross to bear not the press'.

Posted at June 16, 2008 10:03 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

"The speech itself was good( great by current standards) and he got the facts and so on correct, but it's preemptive elements will live in political lore for sometime; this, I suspect, is what irritates some to no end."

At last, at last! I'm glad somebody else picked up on this aspect of Obama's speech. I have a great deal of respect for Prof. Glenn Loury. I recall reading unpublished papers of his when I was a student at Harvard's Kennedy School more than 20 years ago and I recognized even then where his heart was regarding the black community despite the intemperate remarks he made at times. (I also suspect that Loury's patrons within the Kennedy School were really not to be trusted on issues regarding black Americans and their promotion of him did him more harm than good.) Nonetheless, I don't, unfortunately, find Loury's arguments regarding Barack Obama persuasive or compelling.

I think I know much more about politicians and what motivates them than even smart economists and brilliant social policy analysts like Prof. Loury. I have worked for them, managed their offices and ran their campaigns. Some I liked and some I did not like. I am still close to some and I would cross the street if I saw others coming in my general direction. My point is that I refuse to be seduced by any of them.

They are all opportunists but what distinguishes the mediocre ones, however, from the ones who show signs of brilliance is talent. Obama, in my opinion, has political talent by the truckload. So did John F. Kennedy and to a far lesser degree, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Hillary Clinton has a great deal of political desire but that is not the same as political talent. Right along through here we need leaders with political talent. We have had more than our fair share of ones with political desire.

Posted at April 4, 2008 8:36 PM in response to Further Thoughts on the 'Race' Discussion

Oleeb - I agreed with much of what you wrote. Not everything but most of it. One of the things I disagree with you about is your dismissal of the Obama Campaign as not being a movement.

I suspect that you are paying far too much attention to what the candidate is doing and saying or not doing and saying, and not enough attention to what is going on at the grassroots level of the campaign. An overwhelming majority of the young people I am coming in contact with as a result of our involvement in the Obama Campaign are deeply committed to social justice issues. What has been lacking through much of their lives were the vehicles, levers or means, if you will, to directly influence public policy.

I do not see their support for Obama as a case of one stop shopping. They do believe it is important that he be elected but I think they also see that it is as important to elect people to Congress who would support efforts to eliminate poverty and address other important issues.

Forty years ago, we paid less attention to electing people to office who shared our agenda than we did toward trying to influence those in office to support our agenda. In some cases. we won. In others, we lost. And in too many, perhaps, we had to choose between the two and be satisfied with our choice.

Electing Obama president of the United States is not a panacea for all that ails our country but we should not lose sight of the folks down here on the ground who are part of this effort. I think the lessons and skills they are acquiring in this process, including the belief that non-violent political activity is a force for good, will pay dividends for years to come.

I don't see this current crop of activists as yoking their concerns about social justice to, for example, the future of the Democratic Party. What I see is that if the Democratic Party tries to coopt them and does not push for progressive changes then they will look elsewhere. I think Obama's rise is due in great part to their looking elsewhere for a candidate who they feel expresses their concerns. (At a certain point, you can't keep arguing that what Obama says doesn't matter unless you actually have real contempt and disdain for his supporters.) The prospect of electing Hillary Clinton never appealed at all to them. They could see her calculating every move she made and her aura of inevitability only invoked their suspicions and distaste for politics as usual.

Obama's candidacy offered them something different and, believe it or not, more tangible than what they had seen and heard from Hillary Clinton or even Al Gore and John Kerry. And, no, it really doesn't matter down here on the ground how much of Obama's appeal is related to his blackness, soaring rhetoric and other qualities that the Democratic Leadership Conference and its corporate allies seem so obsessed and angry about.

The reality is that many of the people involved in the Obama Campaign are part of a movement. Folks may not be ready to accept that characterization because this movement differs from what they have experienced in the past or have hoped would arise in the future. Well, okay, contingency can be a bitch but these are the cards being dealt right now. If you don't want to shuffle, that's okay. If, however, you do want to shuffle, then you have to deal. The Obama Campaign is the only real game in town right now. The other two are just make believe.

Posted at April 3, 2008 5:48 PM in response to Why Obama's Critics on the Left are Sputtering

Thanks for your response, Jim. I hate to disappointment you, however, but the "angels of noble black dissent" in America are not going to fade away. Not now and not in the foreseeable future. In fact, the more that we see blacks running military machines, defending war as "birth pangs" and assuming control of various corrupt and incompetent urban political regimes the more necessary it will become for those voices to be speak out and be heard.

If Americans truly desire to turn down the volume of noble black dissent then they will have to work a little harder at ameliorating the conditions that give credence to that dissent. White Americans really do need to understand, whether they agree or not, that black folks are not going to give them thanks for what we already have got. Nobody has given us anything that we had not already earned the right to possess.

Posted at April 3, 2008 12:37 PM in response to Why Obama's Critics on the Left are Sputtering

I think that there are more than a few of us on the left who are not left sputtering at Obama's political ascendancy. We, in fact, welcome his candidacy and appreciate the peculiar challenges he and his campaign are facing. We understand that Obama cannot be elected or even capture the Democratic Party's nomination if he announces, for example, an intention to reconfigure American capitalism in a way that our colleagues desire. Those of us on the left who argue that Obama's candidacy falls short because he has not directly confronted the contradictions in American capitalism and how it feeds on and supports racism are not being realistic about the American political electorate and what is required to become president.

What motivates many of us to support Obama, despite these alleged shortcomings, is the simple fact that he and his campaign have succeeded in reaching out and capturing not just the support, but the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who had become disaffected or indifferent to the American political system.
Too many of our friends and colleagues on the left have forgotten that if folks are not in motion, i.e., if they are not actively engaged in an organized movement, then the likelihood of even making incremental changes in the current system is next door to nil. Those of us on the left who support Obama see his campaign as the best electoral vehicle in more than a generation for addressing many of the domestic and international issues facing our nation.

Some may see our position as little more than a variant form of political opportunism. They may be correct in a sense but our view is that we are simply trying to practice what we preach. If the folks we see as being essential players in a movement for social change are out in the streets, so to speak, then it would be foolish for us to stand on the sidewalks pointing out how their movement and candidate falls short of being ideal. We have to enter the fray and lend our support because the alternatives are so much worse.

BTW, Mr. Sleeper, we do not regard Saul Alinsky as a hero or a role model but that is an issue for another time and place. Thanks for the piece. More folks should read and discuss it.

Posted at April 3, 2008 11:24 AM in response to Why Obama's Critics on the Left are Sputtering