« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Is a Black President Too Much Change for America to Bear?
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
Is a Black President Too Much Change for America to Bear?
Ok, let’s drop the nonsense and be real, here. If Barack Obama was White, he’d be at least twenty points ahead of John McCain in every major poll in the country. His election would have been so certain by now that Michelle would have already been sent the keys to the White House–and we all know it.
By any indicator–intellect, character, prudence, demeanor, or competence–Barack Obama is clearly not only head and shoulders above John McCain, but he’s one of the most impressive presidential candidates in the history of this nation. So what American voters have to decide at this pivotal point in our history, is how much do they truly love America. It’s time that we really embrace this question, instead of simply paying lip service to it.
Too many of us love America by rote rather than passion. With some, it’s not so much about loving America, as it is hating everyone else, and others love the American plot of land, but hate the ideals that America stands for. So this November is where the rubber meets the road. It may very well be our last chance to decide whether or not we truly love America, and the American ideal, or decide that the mere thought of having a Black president, is just too much change for Americans to bear? That, is the one and only question before us this election season, and we all know it.
Now, we can continue trying to delude ourselves into believing that the primary issue in this election is experience and not race, but at this point, even the most naive among us can see through that sham. Experience in office notwithstanding, there is virtually no one in this country who’s so dense that they can’t see that Barack Obama, even as a candidate, is the most presidential figure in the country today, and that’s exactly what we so desperately need at this point in our history. So don’t start talking to me about experience–Wall Street was full of experience, and so was the Bush administration. What we need is good judgment, and Obama’s judgment has been sternly tested as he presides over the most flawless campaign that this nation has ever witnessed.
The experience issue is nothing more than a talking point. Some of the very same people who say that Obama lacks the experience to be trusted in the Oval Office, also says that if it became necessary, Sarah Palin is more than qualified to take over the helm. That position is ridiculous on its face. Is there anyone in the country, Democrat or Republican, that’s so delusional that they actually believe that Sarah Palin is more capable than Barack Obama? I don’t think so. While there are still those who claim to believe it, I think I’m safe in saying that every person in America knows better.
On judgment alone, Sen. Obama not only managed to defeat Hillary Clinton, but former President Bill Clinton as well--two of the most powerful political forces in the world today, while Gov. Palin can’t even be trusted by her own running mate to give a news interview. The fact is, and I don’t want to sound sexist, but it is indeed a fact, that any television weather girl could replace Sarah Palin seamlessly, and in a heartbeat. John McCain could be easily replaced as well–they’re both what my late wife use to call "typicals." But consider the amount of effort it would take to replace Barack Obama–if, in fact, he could be replaced at all.
Nevertheless, Sarah Palin supporters contend that her executive experience in Alaska makes her more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. But while they’re saying that out of one side of their mouth, they’re having to defend the complete disaster that Ms. Palin left behind out of the other.
They want to ignore the fact that as mayor of Wasilla, a town of only 6300 residents, Palin, this fiscal conservative, left behind a debt of $22 million ($3492 per resident) as a direct result of her administrative incompetence. During her tenure as mayor, Palin built a $14.7 million sports complex for the city of wasilla, but there was only one problem–she failed to gain title to the property that it was built on. As a result of this minor oversight, the city’s long term debt went from $1 million, to over $25 million. And during her short tenure as governor, she’s left behind a full-blown scandal ("trooper gate") after only 22 months in office. Both issues suggest poor judgment.
And with regard to McCain, notice that once again, we find ourselves discussing Sarah Palin rather than John McCain, who’s at the top of the ticket. The fact that a man with 26 years in office is being overshadowed by a novice running mate with a dubious record, speaks volumes about McCain’s own suitability to be president. Considering his 72 years and the condition of his health, the fact that McCain would choose someone of Sarah Palin’s pedestrian proclivities and modest grasp of world affairs at this precarious juncture in our history, raises concerns regarding McCain’s judgment on behalf as well. How could one watch Sarah Palin’s performance in the Katie Couric interview and not recognize that McCain put the nation’s interest on the back burner when he made his vice-presidential selection?
Then there was McCain’s performance during the financial crisis. Watching McCain flail back and forth during this financial emergency, contradicting himself by trying to play both sides of the issue, and at the same time desperately attempting to maneuver himself into position to take credit for any bailout was a pathetic thing to watch. The nation was facing the worst financial crisis in its history–in world history–but instead of trying to figure out how to best serve the American people, McCain made an absolute fool of himself by trying to gain political milage out of a national tragedy. In addition, he was clearly in over his head and operating in panic mode. But it gave us a clear, though horrific snapshot of what we could expect from him as president during a national emergency. The thought is horrifying.
Thus, the irony in this situation is just short of Biblical in nature. First, as the nation is crumbling around us, the only chance we have of saving ourselves is by overcoming the racism that has been a pervasive part of the nation’s fabric since its inception. Secondly, and just as ironic, is the only person that seems to be qualified to save the nation, is part of a group that has been derided over the years as ignorant, lazy, and without class. Yet, the very qualities that will allow him to save us, is the fact that he is better educated, more intelligent, a harder worker, and has more class, wisdom, and common sense than anyone else available. And finally, Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for president exactly 45 years to the day, after Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.
The irony of all this is much too pointed to have simply come about by chance.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com





Comments (23)
Let's get real, if Obama were white he never would have gotten near the Democratic primaries. A two-year Senator hitting the presidential trail? If a white's preacher was heard spouting "God Damn America", it would have been the death-knoll.
So Obama made it. And is even ahead in the Presidential race. Good for him. Now stop the racist crap. He managed his race, the public has in general evaluated him fairly, and we can stop stirring the pot. Can't we?
Regarding sexist, if you don't want to sound it, just don't.
October 7, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to make this comment. Rev Wright's message is not a Fred Phelps (white preacher). You'd have to listen to the entire sermon and understand his and the churches philosophy. Bill Lehrer did an interview with Wright. I'll find it for you so you understand "Goddamn America." And someone once said (more or less), "take away the expensive suite of Graham (white preacher) and Falwell (white preacher) and you have the Taliban"...didn't McCain (white man) MEET and "pay homage" to Graham this summer. Where's all that coverage????
October 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and "white folks just don't have time to be hanging so many black folks anymore." I simply didn't read enough to get the full context.
I remember Fishbone one night explaining why, "Girl in red, won't you give me some head and shake your ass" wasn't sexist - cause like, if there was a girl in red who came up and the singer was supposed to say, "Don't give me head"? It made oh so much sense.
October 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stay ignorant than...read your smear-Obama emails and get a wealth of knowledge.
I got two men mixed up though, it was Bill Moyers who interviewed Wright:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/transcript1.html
October 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I'm just igorant. I ca't understand what Rev. Wright was trying to say to Deutsche Spiegel. Lost in Translation. Except he was speaking English.
October 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let’s drop the nonsense and be real, here. If Barack Obama was White, he’d be at least twenty points ahead of John McCain in every major poll in the country.
---------------------------------------------------
If Obama were white its unlikely he would have even won the primary. If he were white do you seriously believe 90% of black americans would have voted for him. Or would that vote have been split between Hillary and Obama.
If I began my political career at a political gathering in the living room of one of the terrorists who bombed black churches during the civil rights era would it be enough for you if I said I was 8 years old when those people were killed by his bombs? Would you be defending the terrorist if he said he doesn't regret bombing black churches, he wished he had bombed more?
Race plays a factor, no doubt about it. But you're way off base if you don't think the many flaws in your candidate are the reason people are still unwilling to totally trust him with the presidency.
October 7, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
By reading some of these posts I see how hypocritical some of us have become.
Doesn't it bother anyone that Hillary is sleeping with a man that pardoned some of the Weather Underground members?
Obama doesn't believe in what Ayers believed 35 years ago...Ayers, himself, doesn't believe it either! Ayers book where he makes that statement about 'wishing he bombed more' is a book condemning terrorism.
Blacks helped put Kennedy in the White House. Why is it that people can't close their eyes and listen to Obama...or even Bill Clinton...they inspire people because they are passionate about what they believe. They are fantastic speakers. And when the fuck didn't words mean anything, anyway? Words got us into this Iraq war--words of fear. And those same words of fear are being planted into the heads of McCain/Palin supporters.
I wish race had nothing to do with it but the double standards placed on Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin show all too well. Listen to the msm--I'm embarrassed for them. It's the same as when video footage was shown of survivors down in New Orleans, remember? The white woman taking items from a convenience store was "doing what she could to survive" and the black man was "looting." Nice, eh.
Think people.
October 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
??? Sorry, was there a point hiding in there?
October 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have time to teach you to comprehend...you're on your own.
October 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get real. Desidero is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable posters here. I have to admit that Desi's depth and breadth of knowledge exceeds mine. Its condescending for you to tell him he doesn't know about Wright with out posting any evidence to back up your claim. Condescending comments like that are bound to get you sarcastic replies.
You're the one who doesn't seem to know what you're talking about. One example. "Ayers book where he makes that statement about 'wishing he bombed more' is a book condemning terrorism." I haven't read the book but every review I've read is that he does not reject his bombing campaign nor the use of violence. But what is most interesting is the quote, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." Is not from the book, but from an interview given after the book was published.
I doubt you've read the book either and apparently you're not even paying enough attention to the story to know what quotes are from the book and which ones from interviews of Ayers. You're just spewing bs to spin for your candidate.
October 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Des is intelligent, too. But I think he's ignorant in this regard. He doesn't understand that the philosophy of an oppressed persons may not read the same as those who are not. This is when one must truly empathize with Rev Wright's philosophy--if it is even possible. Imagine telling a Native American that they should "get over it"..."it's history"..."carry on like no one fucked up your worldview." Impossible.
October 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. If you think someone is missing the point than make your point. Being condescending is not a rational argument. If you think someone doesn't get it telling them they don't get it is a waste unless its followed by arguments explaining why and how they're mistaken and what is the different way to get it.
Now when Wright yelled 'Hillary don't know, Hillary has never sat in a classroom and had to work twice as hard as the white boy to get the same grade. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger.' May not be the exact words but its damn close.
You ask for empathy. Doesn't that go both ways? Wright is an educated man, shouldn't he have learned a bit about sexism? Given Hillary's age don't you think she knows what its like to have to work twice as hard as the boy in the next seat to get the same grade? She may not have been called a nigger but she sure was called a bitch and a cunt. Lots of white women have been damn empathic over the years to the plight of blacks in america, Hillary and Bill especially. Do you think it was necessary to demean Hillary to support Obama? Or could an educated man like Jeremiah Wright find a way to support Obama while being empathetic to the effects of sexism?
God damn america may be the most offensive to the working class americans but for me it was the least offensive thing he said. Everything else bothered me much more.
Like, “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” While he dry humped the podium and grunted like he was having sex. Was it really necessary to degrade Bill in that manner to get blacks to vote for Obama?
October 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps not, but it was fun while it lasted ;-)
And meantime, Rev. Wright is a misunderstood hero, while Bill sold his party down the river. Or some such crap.
October 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, I'll play. You said there was a problem with Obama's relationship with Ayers. I pointed out that nobody gives a shit that Hillary is actually sleeping with a man that pardoned some of the Weather Underground. Tell me why you don't care? Isn't that a more recent, deeply-seeded relationship with someone who has actually sided with a domestic terrorist as opposed to Obama's more casual relationship with Ayers that has nothing to do with what he did 35 years ago? Hypocritical some?
And if your opinion is that Jeremiah Wright is the only person to make a ridiculous joke out of Bill Clinton and his behavior with women, your probably wrong. I know I've told plenty of cigar jokes--I just didn't have someone filming me.
Hillary had the guts to say that she would have gotten up out of that church and walked out. But she sat there next to Bill Clinton when he humiliated her and her family, she even enabled him and claimed he wasn't doing anthing wrong and she even went as far as delegitimizing those that told the truth. Ain't that something.
Now, you can whine and call me condescending all you want, that's your opinion. And even that may seem a bit hypocritical.
October 7, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're not playing. You play by answering the questions as well as asking new ones. But you'd actually have had to read and know what you're talking about to do that. This is how you play.
As for Clinton's pardon of Rosenberg. I care about it as well as many of his other pardons. But at least she spent several years in jail and had somewhat paid her debt to society. Clinton had no relationship what so ever with Rosenberg. The most likely explantion, because no one knows why he pardoned most of those he pardoned, is he did it as a favor for a friend who was a friend of Rosenberg. Terrible reason and I disagree with it. I can find the link and name of the friend of Clinton and Rosenberg is you need evidence. Clinton had no connection at all with Rosenberg.
On the other hand, Ayers got away with murder and laughed about the fucking smart ass. "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country." Obama allied himself with the man to the extent that he went to his home to meet with his far left friends to use him and them to further his political ambitions. I guess Obama just doesn't give a shit what he does to get ahead.
Its not my opinion that Wright is the only one to make a joke about Clinton. I don't need you putting words in my mouth just because you're incapable of answering a single question in a debate. I didn't see it as a joke anyway. I saw it as pure political propaganda at its most inflammatory designed to move people emotionally in the most negative fashion.
But I keep hearing about how whites just don't understand the black church culture. So maybe you can explain it to me. I don't think I'm a prude. I used to go to the nude beach in Sandy Hook National Preserve in New Jersey with my wife. But if someone started to dry hump the back of a chair in my house, began to grunt, and shouted about how someone was doing the dirty for any reason, joke or whatever, in front of my children. I'd kick him out of my house. So how about you explain why that's culturally acceptable in a church in front of children?
I'm over 50 years old. Unless you're barely out of high school you either know people who have had to deal with adultery in their relationship, or you don't have any friends who trust you enough to confide in you. In my life I've know many couples who have had to deal with either the man or the women having an affair. In my experience at least half of them stay together. When you grow up and if you actually find people who trust you and confide in you, you'll discover that adultery is much more common than the children's books you obviously spend most of your time reading. At that point you might understand why so many couples work through infidelity to maintain a long term relationship.
October 8, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't your game to lay down the rules--it's mine.
You still haven't answered why I am wrong. Why am I wrong that you and others are being hypocritical about Obama? You have plenty of excuses why you think other people may have done what they've done but you seem to know exactly why Obama does what he does. Why is that? How do you know his motives so well?
October 8, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were white he'd been ahead by about 15 points right now. I hate to even believe there is racism out there, but you read the newspaper articles and the interviews with the man on the street, and what concerns them?
This foolishness. Shameful.
October 7, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If. If. If. If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Obama's political essence includes his racial makeup. He is a biracial man who steps comfortably from one side of town to the other. He is the black candidate who connects with white voters. And his work on behalf of white candidates in 2006 allowed him to network and collect a ton of IOU's (like McCaskill) that helped him big time. No candidate has ever energized the Black vote like Obama. No question, he comes to the table as a major player this early in his national career because race has been a plus factor. And he has used it to unite us, not divide us.
But to me, the remarkable thing is that we may be electing a President whose very existence would have been the result of a crime in most southern and border states during my lifetime (until the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in Loving). Possibly electing as President a man who could have been a piece of property prior to 1865. A man who would have counted as 3/5 of a person in those days, with no rights nor hopes of ever becoming a citizen of his country, as per the Scott v Sanford decision (that Sarah Palin probably never heard of).
Certainly it is true that many voters cannot yet bring themselves to vote for a Black man for the highest office of the land we all love. But our history is full of such failings. It also includes many triumphs that stir the soul. And even though I love my nation and love our history (warts, failings, and all), I love our ideals and our promise even more. And it is when we live up to those ideals that we become truly great and reach our mainfest destiny as a light among nations....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."
October 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if he'd been born in Japan it would have been an absurdity. But he wasn't, he was born in Hawaii. God, let's go back to family trees again, isn't it wonderful? Yuck.
You know there's an economic meltdown going on?
October 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racism is definitely a factor. I visit a lot of factory floors and I encounter attitudes that suggest they'll vote against Obama because of race. It's rarely overt, but it's there.
A second factor is anti-intellectualism. We're facing perhaps the most complex set of problems our country has ever faced, and the "heavyweight" candidate is branded as elitist and the "lightweight" candidate is praised as "one of us." (The lightweight candidate reference is to Palin; McCain has become an afterthought in his own campaign.)
I'd like a bumper sticker for my car that says "Let's Pick The Smart One This Time."
October 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
October 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's black? Who knew. I was so busy paying attention to his plans to help us solve our problems, move America forward, bring our service men & women home, and put our citizens back to work... missed that. Oh is it too much of a change. No. We need a major change and putting the best and brightest in charge again is a good start. McSame & Pinnochio Palin are SSDD.
October 7, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Undeniably, racism is going to have a strong impact on results from voting on 11/4.
But I am not too convinced that would necessarily be the strongest negative faced by Obama. Where some suggest there's a 6-10% racist drag against the Obama/Biden ticket, I don't know that there are figures to show what form of drag may be had from the cross-cultural anti-intellectual bigots.
That we should actually have smart president sure seems to terrify many of the goose-stepping blind sheep maybe more than this particular "halfrican American." And he sure is a smart one, that one.
"Who do you want to drink a beer with" seemed to elect us this bizzaro-world eight years with Alfred E. Bush. "He speaks too much" "goes into too much detail" seemed to be almost as heavy a boat anchor for John Kerry as anything carried on those swiftboats.
So, now we have our populist pal Sarah, our "friend" Dear Old John -- and Obama who has to be careful about being too "professorial" while he gives detailed explanations about his policies.
It might be a small sign of success in equalizing our (superficial) views on "the content of our character rather than the color of our skin" that these tactics appealing to grade school fear of the class "smartypants" creates a drag for a candidate. It's far easier to believe that spending billions drilling for 3% of the world's oil to "free us" from dependence on foreign oil while our consumption is somewhere around 25%.
Facts are meaningless when appealing to unreasoning fears (some of which are fears of race differences as well).
Not diminishing the impact of still-rampant racism, just, er, um, thinking out loud.
October 8, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment