http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Oh Hell No.

We've discussed the impending sense of anxiety those sympathetic to white supremacy, white hegemony, white superiority--whatever you want to call it, feel when they look at a brilliant and successful black person who succeeds despite the odds and puts the lie to their very faith (and white supremacy is more a matter of "faith" than anything else) but you have to be stunned by the unbelievable ignorance of Kathleen Parker's latest column for the Chicago Tribune, even if you read that gay-baiting mess in the Post today.


The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column, the backlash would be enormous. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically—and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century—there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

[...]

Yet, white Americans primarily—and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially—have been put on the defensive for their concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.


What Parker needs is a history lesson. (PAUSE Let's not forget about Native-Americans. PLAY) There are white men on our dollar bills, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that black men bled on battlefields in the pursuit of American independence. Before our ancestors were more than three-fifths of a person they fought to share a dream that would be denied them for hundreds of years later, that promissory note MLK talked about. They fought to preserve the Union even before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Our ancestors fought in World War I only to come home and be lynched in uniform. We fought in World War II, despite the fact that units were still segregated, and we were still treated as second class citizens under the law.


Full blooded? This nation's history is full of the blood of our ancestors and their sacrifices, and the only reason I can't "trace my bloodline" back to prove it is back then we were listed next to pitchforks and lanterns as farm equipment. Full blooded? How could we be full blooded anything? That choice was taken from us--we wear that reality in our skin tones and hair textures. You may have forgotten but we haven't.


Make no mistake, racists at every level tried to prevent our ancestors from fighting, because the very act of sacrificing for this country made it as much ours as it did theirs, despite the centuries they would spend trying to deny it. Those denials continue.


So Parker wants to play Patriot Games? Let's go. No one loves this country more than we love this country, because we loved this country even when it didn't love us. Nobody can say that like we can say it. This isn't about Obama's father being from Kenya--Parker's racialized understanding of what is "American" is as exclusive as possible. No one was talking about "full-blooded Americans" when Joe Lieberman was running for Vice President; she is talking about any American who does not share the color of her skin.


I said more than a year ago that this election would be an argument over what we define as American. Parker and her "conservative" friends want American to mean "white". What I forgot, and what they don't realize, is that history has already settled everything.

His bold legislative work on the Illinois Death Penalty, and how he made a difference between life and death:
http://www.icadp.org/page236.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.pena... /

His sponsorship of a bill that brought health insurance to 150,000, including 70,000 uninsured Children, again, during his time serving in the Illinois Statehouse:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712170003

His work on both the Immigration bill during his time in the US senate and his sponsorship of Ethics legislation (something he did both while in the State House, and in the Senate) that called for some of the most impactful reform regarding lobbyists since Watergate (as he likes to term it):http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/200...

and his sponsored and co sponsored Bills in the U.S. Senate.......which include worthwhile bills dealing with a wide range of issues, from Election reform bills to the Cooperative Proliferation Detection reduction Act (w/t Sen. Lugar) to Internet database transparency Act.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271 /
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/Novembe...
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c /


And...

While cruising through the internet the other day, I stumbled across a blog post for a major publication that was shocking because of its blunt honesty. Those of you who consume the mainstream media know that on certain topics, particularly race, there is a lot of hemming and hawing, but very little blunt honesty.


Anyway, the post, which you can find here, was about the hurdles Obama will have to jump to get votes in areas where folks can't fathom supporting a black man for president. It's a topic most of us are familiar with, and it's one that's been discussed rather frequently in this campaign.


Here's an excerpt from the blog where the reporter is talking to a guy in Kentucky about Obama's chances in the state. The guy is explaining he won't vote for Obama.

Race,” Patrick said matter-of-factly. “I’ve talked to people—a woman who was chair of county elections last year, she said she wouldn’t vote for a black man.” Patrick said he wouldn’t vote for Obama either.

Why not?

“Race. I really don’t want an African-American as President. Race.”

What about race?

“I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That’s my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did.” He meant that it went Republican. “Now what caused that? Race. There’s a lot of white people that just wouldn’t vote for a colored person. Especially older people. They know what happened in the sixties. Under thirty—they don’t remember. I do. I was here.”

Not that's some blunt honesty for you.


Black people commonly say that we would rather an openly racist person to one that hides in the shadows, but, man, when you see that crap out in the open it is pretty jarring. I mean, it's one thing when somebody is racist and they have no power over your lives, but an openly racist person that can affect your life is a frightening prospect.


For me, the scary part is that once you've established that someone or some people are just blatantly racist, what's your next step. Can you really appeal to the better nature of a racist? If you become angry and denounce their racism, will they even care? They may try to avoid the public scorn, but will it affect their hearts in any way?


It sounds good to say that open racism is easier to combat, but really combating any injustice depends on the person committing the injustice feeling some shame, or having the power to get vengeance. I'm not sure either of those dynamics exist in a case like the one involving the guy from the New Yorker article.


How do you battle entrenched racism, particularly when folks believe that their racism is justified and reasonable? This guy, and many like him, clearly believe that black progress is a threat to the livelihood of white folks, and nothing anyone says will convince them otherwise. No statistics, no experts, no personal anecdotes can convince most racists that their racism is an incorrect emotion.


So, I wonder how we as a country, particularly we as black folks, should proceed. Clearly, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves and hope that racism will disappear on its own. Not only do we not have the resources to do that, but studies have shown that some prejudices can be erased with exposure to new experiences.


But, is it worth our time to engage and discuss racial issues with people who have clearly embraced a way of thinking that will never allow black folks to be full and equal members of society? How are we supposed to hold a conversation with someone who has clearly stated that they believe that black politicians are only out to help black folks? Even if we ask them what that says about white politicians, will they even care?


In the black community, we often liken ourselves to crabs in a barrel who pull down any other crab attempting to escape to a better life. We ruefully chuckle that this mindset is a "black think." Yet, clearly, that's one of the biggest lies every told to black people or told by black people. It's a human reaction to view the progress of others as a threat to our own progress. It's perfectly human to react with fear and lash out when we feel that chance for the "good life" is slipping away?


Obama has argued that if we improve the conditions of all Americans, we won't have to worry as much about racial strife because prosperity breeds unity. Yet, I wonder if the prosperity only hides the fault lines that have existed and may always exist. I wonder what it takes to change the core of a man or woman.


Honestly, I'm just wondering.




http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/

Never thought I'd say this but maybe he does need her to win. POLITICO.

An Obama-Clinton ticket would definitely be out of the ordinary. But 2008 is not an ordinary year. Here’s why the skeptics may be wrong. Five reasons why Barack Obama should offer Hillary Rodham Clinton the vice presidential nomination — and why she would take it. 1. It’s not his choice. Clinton’s support among her most loyal partisans, women’s groups especially, is as intense as Obama’s is among African-Americans and young people. The pressure he will be under to unite the party by selecting her may be insurmountable. Without Clinton, Obama would have to spend enormous amounts of time and political capital bringing blue-collar voters, Catholics, Jews and Hispanics on board. There would be no better signal to potentially wary constituencies than bringing their preferred candidate into the fold. Hillary and Bill Clinton could be tasked with bringing these folks home, allowing Obama to focus on growing his base and reaching out to independents and disaffected Republicans. 2. It’s a character test for him. Obama does not like Clinton. Who cares? Dwight Eisenhower did not like Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy did not like Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan did not like George H.W. Bush. Obama’s ability to rise above personal sentiment will be an early and decisive test of whether he really has the ability to transcend divisions and be the uniter he says he is. Multimedia The Deconstruction Zone - May 8th 3. The Sicilian hug. If the Clintons have an independent power base — and they do, even in defeat — it is better to have Hillary Clinton under close watch in the White House than in the Senate (and, in Bill Clinton’s case, in foreign capitals around the world) making mischief. 4. It’s an unbeatable merger of strengths. Obama is nothing but disciplined in pursuit of victory, and he and Hillary Clinton might be, as Bill Clinton said, an “almost unstoppable force” (even if he was envisioning a different order on the ticket). The combination would align nearly all of the top operatives in the Democratic Party around the same goal and would swamp Republicans with the most potent fundraising operation in history. The ticket would start off with a paid staff of approximately 1,500 people, and an organization from the national level down to precincts in every state in the country. While John McCain is recruiting county coordinators, precinct captains, etc., Obama-Clinton would on day one have an operation that would surpass what Bush-Cheney assembled in 2004.