View Story | 259 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
He can't afford to make black people an explicit theme of his campaign.
Derrick Bell is one of my favorite African American scholars who sometimes writes on white privilege. He has a great theory called the rules of racial standing.
First rule: No matter what their experience or expertise, blacks' statements involving race are deemed 'special pleading' and thus not entitled to serious consideration.
Third rule: Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements abot racial condidtions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The ususal exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.
For every wink that Obama makes about discrimination, it has to be prefaced with four of five statements about how black people need to take responsibility, and there are no more excuses.
We live in a racist society. In some ways, a man like John Edwards has more free reign to talk about race issues than any black man. Then again, they still slam John Edwards for being rich. Apparently nobody is allowed to talk about inequality.
It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:56:46 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Even here at Dkos, disgusting terms like "the race card" are employed whenever he does talk about race.
Talk is cheap Jesse. Look at Obama's record.
Forget Hillary. It's McCain, people. Focus on McCain!!!
by snout on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:01:09 AM PDT
He really took the whole party to task - with no emphasis on any particular candidate. Edwards was the only one mentioned - and merely as an aside on poverty specifically. I think the diarist may be elevating subtle praise for Edwards a little to high.
Obama does have a record - Jackson is calling on all candidates to do more.
Link
I supported John Edwards in 2008 and it made me proud every day
by BWasikIUgrad on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:09:37 AM PDT
That title was also at the Huffington Post, so they aren't the only one who recognize JRE.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Front Page "Jesse Jackson: Edwards Is Only Dem Candidate Not Ignoring African Americans"
I am an Edwards Democrat.
by jsamuel on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:13:16 AM PDT
i copied the title from huffpo and only shortened it to make it fit.
UP News - News from the people, not corporations UP News
by wade norris on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:56:09 AM PDT
Obama has been addressing urban and poverty issues for sometime. His focus on this goes all the way back to his community organizing days, through his IL senate work and till today. Here are some links:
Wednesday, June 06, 2007. Obama Presents Urban Agenda - MSM Totally IGNORES IT. Obama talks about race and urban issues in Iowa Obama's policy/vision page on Urban issues and poverty A clip: Obama: Changing the Odds for Urban America excerpt Campaign page w/ full speech
McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson
by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:09:30 AM PDT
Only partly referencing the issue, but it's a neat example of an activist video.
The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President
by JedReport on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:48:45 AM PDT
especially though, given his endorsement. This is a message to the entire party of course - but also directly to the person who he wants to lead the party, even if the name isn't mentioned.
EENR Blog: Where issues come first
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:21:10 AM PDT
I really like Edwards. But I remain very open to Obama because I want him to lead the country. I just wish he'd say just a little more about racism, even if he has to put it in coded terms.
If Reagan can wink at white segregationists, then Obama can do a little wink of his own.
(Or maybe he's already winking and I'm just not satisfied. I'm getting mixed signals. I have trouble with that.)
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:27:16 AM PDT
comment. The media is just waiting to turn him into ANGRY BLACK MAN.
"[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:29:47 AM PDT
by BWasikIUgrad on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:32:49 AM PDT
there will be some who go that route. Certainly the Republicans will anyways.
The "quite riot" thing was arguably a mistake in wording; it wasn't a mistake regarding issue focusing.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:35:11 AM PDT
that no other candidate in the race faces.
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:46:52 AM PDT
Partially because he's just not from the same "circle" as Jackson and Sharpton, let alone Martin or Malcolm. He's from a post civil rights moment.
I appreciate the efforts of the civil rights movement. But I also understand why Obama needs to avoid saying that he's continuing their work even in spirit.
Obama is either a symbol of unity, or an angry black man.
That symbol of unity is a powerful one, too. I honestly think Obama has an appeal that can even make him electable to quasi-racist people. The kind who says "he's articulate and clean". They want to prove to themselves that they're not racist. Anyone who thinks he can't win is kidding themselves.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:40:46 AM PDT
by Geekesque on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:47:37 AM PDT
continuing their work, and I applaud him for doing so. We should all be walking in their footsteps.
EENR blog, a progressive community focused on issues with a side of fun
by edgery on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:47:59 AM PDT
(not trying to be snarky or challenging. I just genuinely want to see what context he said it in. It sounds like it could be a nice read.)
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:53:42 AM PDT
Obama casts himself as civil rights successor
by edgery on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:57:26 AM PDT
Like I've been saying, I understand why he can't say "this is what I would do as president"... but between his record and that speech, that's a pretty big wink that he's do something about racism as President.
I know you're an Edwards guy, but I appreciate that. I really like Obama too.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:01:12 AM PDT
I'm more a separation of church and state person than I am a supporter of Edwards (luckily, I don't see a conflict). I don't like the preaching part or the "God walks with us" thing. But it's a personal preference and as long as a candidate doesn't contend that his or her religion is better than or purer than anyone else's (see, e.g., Huckabee) then I'm not going to raise more than a brief ruckus over it. ;-D
by edgery on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:11:37 AM PDT
was in his Selma speech. He very explicitly linked himself to the civil rights movement and his own progress up to now and talked about the need to continue the work. His speech got a lot of publicity and he wasn't attacked as "angry".
Back to work now, but I imagine someone has a link for you or should be easy enough to find.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:01:19 AM PDT
I appreciate your honesty and generosity. When Obama, at the JJ dinner said that if not for a few people who had the courage to "...stand up...with clear purpose..." I thought it was a beautiful homage to the civil rights activists who came before him: I was inspired.
by pamelabrown on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:38:23 AM PDT
look folks, I would love Barack to get angry. Hell I am angry everyday. The truth is that the "process" wants us to elect some middle of the road candidate (like HRC) that won't challenge the status quo very much and will be business (and consequently, war) friendly.
If you are talking real change, you are talked about for seeing a UFO or you are cast in the light of the "angry guy"
http://www.cbsnews.com/... This is in the video caption... A Dark Side To John Edwards?
. Listen to him on the campaign trail now, where he sounds like a man looking for a fight. "Hell yeah I'm confrontational and I'm not ashamed of it," Edwards said. "We need a fighter in the White House." Critics say he's changed from four years ago when he was known for his smiling disposition and his refusal to go negative. "If you are looking for the candidate that'll do the best job of attacking the other candidates, I'm not your guy," Edwards said then. Now, Democratic rival Chris Dodd says: "I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew." In New Hampshire today, Edwards insisted his message is still positive. It's not anger, he says - it's passion. "What voters want to see is that what you stand for, what you believe, comes from within here," he said, pointing to his heart, "that it doesn't come from just your head."
. Listen to him on the campaign trail now, where he sounds like a man looking for a fight.
"Hell yeah I'm confrontational and I'm not ashamed of it," Edwards said. "We need a fighter in the White House."
Critics say he's changed from four years ago when he was known for his smiling disposition and his refusal to go negative. "If you are looking for the candidate that'll do the best job of attacking the other candidates, I'm not your guy," Edwards said then.
Now, Democratic rival Chris Dodd says: "I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew."
In New Hampshire today, Edwards insisted his message is still positive. It's not anger, he says - it's passion.
"What voters want to see is that what you stand for, what you believe, comes from within here," he said, pointing to his heart, "that it doesn't come from just your head."
We need more anger in my opinion.
by wade norris on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:54:10 AM PDT
I learned that lesson with Dean.
x
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:13:08 AM PDT
but he was just anti-war. As an Edwards supporter from way back, it is quite refreshing that he has left behind Axelrod's "hope" message and is now talking confrontationally.
The media is painting Edwards already as "angry" because he is talking about taking apart the entire lobbyist system. Taking that down is confrontational, not hopeful. And this time, I think Americans are mad enough to want an angry leader, who is fed up with this sorry state of affairs.
by wade norris on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:28:32 AM PDT
coming behind the civil rights movement. He nor I are from that movement. Many paid the price for us, Joshuas, to move on. That was the distinction of that speech that made people realize, he ain't "Jesse", nor should he be.
This Week With Barack Obama. Because you need to stay informed.
by icebergslim on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:48:34 AM PDT
and I am hoping that he and Edwards will keep us from the status quo in this next election. (aka HRC or any of the repubs)
by wade norris on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:57:47 AM PDT
"angry" is not a word I would use to describe them...but point taken. As much as they are lauded civil rights folks also make people uncomfortable because they are constantly challenging the status quo and never proponents of incremental change.
I guess for some folks that makes one "angry"...
"The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg
by grannyhelen on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:33:18 AM PDT
went too far -- according to one poll. especially in the south.
that poll absolutely crushed me. I was like "too far?! how about not far enough?!"
after 40 years, people have finally admitted that it was okay to integrate... but anything else is asking too much. it's really sad and frustrating.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:12:36 AM PDT
especially if you go to Selma...talk about your "two Americas" in action right there, right now, today.
One of my fav quotes is from the movie Bulworth, "Black people and white people have a lot more in common with each other than they do with rich people." Seems very topical right now.
by grannyhelen on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:32:48 AM PDT
...bong comment. The great hope of an Obama nomination is that we really confront and work through stereotyping.
(I'm for Edwards, but Obama would be great too.)
Meanwhile, in related Quiet Riot news:
http://www.lvrj.com/...
He sang of having a funny face and a dirty mind, a mouth like an alligator's and a penchant for getting wild, wild, wild. For a time, he was heavy metal's roaring id come to life, a loud, leering agitator who took the genre to the top of the pop charts for the first time. Early Sunday evening, Quiet Riot frontman Kevin DuBrow, 52, died at his Las Vegas home, silencing one of metal's most distinctive voices.
He sang of having a funny face and a dirty mind, a mouth like an alligator's and a penchant for getting wild, wild, wild.
For a time, he was heavy metal's roaring id come to life, a loud, leering agitator who took the genre to the top of the pop charts for the first time.
Early Sunday evening, Quiet Riot frontman Kevin DuBrow, 52, died at his Las Vegas home, silencing one of metal's most distinctive voices.
by JedReport on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:51:58 AM PDT
was there would be a change in paradigm from Obama:
This sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations. Leaders don't "wink." They lead.
Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:55:49 AM PDT
that still exists in this country?
That's what he's winking about, IMO.
Soft bigotry of low expectations is real, but exaggerated by the right wing so nobody has to do anything about racism.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:07:17 AM PDT
is not real, you dunderhead, it's a Bush-ism designed to get the Emperor In Chief off the hook from dealing with race. Do yourself a favor and avoid appropriating right wing jargon as if it's meaningful. It isn't.
The winking isn't helping, so Obama may as well not touch the subject at all. This is the point behind Rev. Jackson's complaint.
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:14:19 AM PDT
I also said that soft bigotry exists, but it's exaggerated. It it happens every once in a while. Someone treats a minority like they're an idiot. Teachers sometimes give up on kids too easily. (But that's closer to hard bigotry, anyway.)
At any rate, I think winking is the most someone can do in a campaign without losing votes. The hope is that the wink means something -- that when they get into office, they put a plan into action.
That's certainly what Reagan did. One big wink to racists, and things getting really shitty for minorities for a decade.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:19:16 AM PDT
I invoked the term "soft bigotry of low expectations" with ironic intent. Sorry you missed that. There is no such thing as "soft bigotry" except in Bush's warped world view. There is no hard bigotry or soft bigotry. There is only bigotry.
I don't think you are helping your cause much by suggesting Obama adopt Reagan's strategy of speaking in dog whistle terms. I think most progressives seem to be thirsting for something more direct after 6 years of the lyingest shitsack to ever live on Pennsylvania Ave.
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:24:48 AM PDT
in this country.
You can be direct on almost anything. But not that. That's just begging for someone to shoot the messenger.
You're black? You're being divisive and angry. You're white? You're pandering. You're rich? You're out of touch. You're poor? You're promoting victimhood.
Right now, very few candidates are saying anything about race, and then only briefly. At this point, I'd gladly take a wink -- if that wink showed me they really intended to do something about racism once in office.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:30:48 AM PDT
Check your own signature line. You are selling your guy way short.
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:34:14 AM PDT
Electing Barack Obama or John Edwards are totally feasible. Them winning without lobbyist money is totally reasonable.
Having a real conversation about race in this country?
Impossible.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:09:46 AM PDT
This is the impetus that pushes our conversations off the rails.
by pamelabrown on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:56:48 AM PDT
They know each other. His daughter was a bridesmaid at their WEDDING. He does not have to speak to Barack through the Chicago Sun-Times, he has his number, he can call him, period. And yes, Barack will respond. And I can bet my paycheck, Jackson, told Barack about this piece in the Sun-Times.
by icebergslim on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:35:22 AM PDT
if the message was clearly getting through by other channels, I really doubt Jackson would be saying this the way he is.
Otherwise why specifically praise JRE and not even mention Obama?
You may not like it and may disagree with it, but clearly Jackson is making a point here - in large part to Obama.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:40:30 AM PDT
for black support. That's why he didn't just make a phone call. It's a demand to the candidates to do more, and for the electorate to expect more. He wants to reward good behavior, but there's very little to be seen.
The truth is that Jackson doesn't have the clout to dangle his support anymore. In some ways I wish he did, though.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:44:05 AM PDT
that makes sense as well. Whatever the reasoning, I'm glad he's saying it.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:49:27 AM PDT
every so - called democratic affiliated "sector" whether environmental, labor, race, gender, affiliation etc. should not get the same lip service as before. Kerry's campaign practically ignored the African American community in Colorado in 2004. And he did ignore the hispanic community - GWB outspent him like 12 to 1 on hispanic radio ads. It was only at the last minute that he advertised with them.
by wade norris on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:01:15 AM PDT
Whose daughter was a bridesmaid at who's wedding?
People with hatred in their hearts never live up to their full potential. It's very sad.
by Nelsons on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:44:45 AM PDT
at Michelle & Barack's wedding. Michelle Obama, especially, is considered like another daughter in the Jackson household.
Every time history repeats itself the price goes up - Anon...Mind Sorbet
by Pithy Cherub on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:51:06 AM PDT
That's interesting. I suppose that was in one of Obama's books that I keep telling myself I have to read. Maybe this winter, before the Illinois primary, I'll carve out some time to read them.
by Nelsons on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:57:40 AM PDT
choose "Dreams From My Father." It's excellent.
Hopemonger
by extradish on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:46:44 AM PDT
at Obama's wedding I think.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:51:15 AM PDT
advocate, back in the day, does nothing without something in return. Not treated right on your job, you want a union, sure Jackson will walk with you, but only if a camera is there to focus on him.
I live in Chicago and we know Jackson well here. He does NOTHING, without something in return.
by icebergslim on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:33:20 AM PDT
Jackson also brings cameras to issues and causes where the media wouldn't otherwise pay one iota of attention.
To say its all about him seems very unfair.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:43:44 AM PDT
considering who is making the charge.
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:57:35 AM PDT
When I was going through my thing, was told to my face, he can help me with a substantial contribution to Rainbow Push. Or, bring the cameras, he will be there. This man was good back in the day. And I know many OTHERS who have had issues, and are told the same thing. You think Jackson shows up because someone called him to? Please. He was so late on Jena6, and I give Sharpton much credit for being onboard at the jump. But Jackson on Jena6. Yeah, he showed up, as the cameras did.
You don't live here in Chi. Many do, and will agree with me on the point of Jesse Jackson.
by icebergslim on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:59:38 AM PDT
at times. He practically threatened Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton, earlier in the year. Moral upbraiding is one thing, another is when you make it about yourself being the gateway into an country's entire racial group.
Jackson as a political animal is almost a different creature. And incidentally, he's seen his influence waining for two decades. Hmm.
Kucinich is ignoring black people? I'm no fan of Kucinich's current career but I find that hard to believe.
Republicans believe in gvmt. intervention for bankers and investors, I believe in intervention for the meek and lowly -- Nulwee.
by Nulwee on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:33:47 AM PDT
"'does not have to jump through hoops to prove his ethnicity.'
"...Obama issued a statement Wednesday saying, "Outrage over an injustice like the Jena 6 isn't a matter of black and white. It's a matter of right and wrong." Obama added he had been consulting with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), one of his national campaign chairmen, on how he should be framing his comments about the Jena 6.
by Nulwee on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:52:24 AM PDT
I WANT him to talk more about race issues.
Remember the bullshit controversy when Obama simply said the words "quiet riot"?
I WISH he didn't stop there.
But I understand why he did.
And the truth is he has a solid record in Illinois on civil rights and improving things for the worst off. That said, I don't see why he couldn't de-racialize the issue, making "the worst off" a theme of his campaign with a little wink to minorities.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:10:15 AM PDT
is enough to quiet his message, why is that a good thing? Shouldn't he be ignoring such efforts to divide?
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:59:29 AM PDT
so it's better to pretend the problem doesn't exist, or exists only in the most isolated minor of circumstances.
he has to be a unifier. if he talks about discrimination too much, he gets cast as "promoting victimhood" as the right wing loves to say. let alone "picking at old wounds". people don't wanna hear that.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:04:36 AM PDT
country, and that somehow four words in January and dedicating the coldest, shortest month to the history of the one group of folks who were brought here against their will based on the color of their skin makes things alright.
This is not a knock on Obama - not at all, he's walking a really difficult line. It's just a general observation on where a good number of people are at (i.e., in denial) and the need to get them to vote for you, regardless.
by grannyhelen on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:40:48 AM PDT
Yet no one complains about people constantly saying Hillary uses "the gender card."
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:15:27 AM PDT
i seem to recall you complaining ...
Obesa cantavit
by wystler on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:32:32 AM PDT
It's a tool the right uses to trivialize people they offend.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:34:48 AM PDT
opposition to Hillary on the basis of her being Bush lite is therefore the same thing as having lunch with Rush Limbaugh.
I don't think Hillary has played the "race card" but I do think she's trying to win over female voters (over half the Dem voters), and she keeps referring to the "boys club" in Washington.
The thing is, I don't here Obama talking about the "white people club" in Washington, even though we all know about it.
by steveng82 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:38:27 AM PDT
Why shouldn't he be able to speak the truth? That's Jackson's point.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:45:18 AM PDT
Obama can't run as the "black President" he has to run as a man whose lived the American dream and made it to the top, overcoming obstacles along the way, one of which was racial biases. The latter one is an issue that appeals to white people.
Hillary can afford to win with 50% of the population being female, so appealing to their gender isn't a real risk, even though women are a minority group (minority in terms of power, less so votes).
But African Americans compromise 9% of the country, so while they are important in battleground states like South Carolina, and thus highly important in the primary, being known as the most popular black man in the country, won't get you elected as President (see Jesse Jackson's failed bid for Presidency).
But the fact is, Barack Obama IS black. He will represent the crowning achievement for African Americans after 150 years of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Obama is playing it smart.
Jesse Jackson seems to be unable to place the interests of his cause ahead of his own interests.
But if this endorsement gets Edwards the Presidency, then I'll be happy. He is a strong number two vote in my book.
by steveng82 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:51:29 AM PDT
And I think the reality of the situation you describe sucks.
But I don't think that's any reason for Clinton not to talk about the very real obstacles women face.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:04:50 AM PDT
that she implies she's the only one fighting to be the first in Washington to be President. There are two "firsts" in the top two spots of the Dem race. Obama can't be as explicit as her, but that doesn't change the reality that she's white, which means she's got far better representation in Washington D.C. than any African American ever has.
by steveng82 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:09:07 AM PDT
in America in any way implies there are not racial problems.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:10:43 AM PDT
say there are gender problems. But when she says "I'm the minority" (ie the only girl running), she's neglecting to point our that her chief rival is a minority too. And she seems to forget her "advantages" (ie being white) while highlighting her marginalization as a woman.
by steveng82 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:14:55 AM PDT
Oh, wait, I remember. He's a black man who ran for president, won several primaries, and didn't run from race when he did. So I think he has every right to talk.
Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
by Drew on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:18:22 AM PDT
by grannyhelen on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:43:12 AM PDT
When has anyone at DKos complained of Obama, of all people, employing the race card. You'll forgive me if I am caused to wonder whether or not your comment is perhaps entirely baseless. I think most of us would appreciate it if Obama made race a more explicit factor in his campaign.
by mrblifil on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:53:27 AM PDT
Obama has been doing this but selectively. South Carolina is a great example.
I think Jackson is asking for more on a national level, particularly from Obama since he endorsed him.
And to disagree with you on another level, Obama would seem to have the freest reign of any candidate to talk on these issues because of his mixed background and the themes of his campaign.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:18:08 AM PDT
Or other extremely sympathetic venues. Obama is choosing his words and his spots carefully. He has to.
That said, I think he can talk about the "worst off" without once mentioning race.
In fact, if I were running for president, that would be my platform when it came to racism. A lot of talk about poverty, some healthy talk about access to bank loans and education, and a big wink to minorities across this country.
Like how Reagan winked at segregationists, but inverted.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:22:15 AM PDT
Des Moines, two days ago.
More and Better Democrats: Help Build An Obamajority.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:31:01 AM PDT
But I doubt that led to any statement about "what I would do as president"... usually, that's where Obama criticizes black people for not doing enough themselves.
Not to say that it isn't everyone's responsibility. Obama has often said that it's both failures in government and individual failures. But he's careful about which he gives more weight to.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:48:49 AM PDT
and I think the time, and the seriousness of the election, demands it. Its not something that should be given a nudge and a wink.
It doesn't have to be framed as a racial "us" vs. "them" and Obama certainly knows this.
And all the stupid attack that will come, will come regardless of what he says, if he's the nominee. He should take the issues on head-on.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:31:03 AM PDT
Race is the one issue that you're not allowed to take head-on in this country.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:49:50 AM PDT
who do you really think can?
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:53:27 AM PDT
And even then he can't say so much as to alienate white voters.
The truth is that most people don't think discrimination exists anymore.
The story of Jena 6 was about black people getting a different justice system than white people.
When it finally hit the mainstream media, it was just another story of interracial hatred.
And that's how we end up spending more time on bullshit like whether Imus crossed the line, instead of hiring more black or female or latino CEOs. We spend more time on Kramer than the drastic gap between schools from area to area.
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:58:35 AM PDT
just about every time a diary on JRE and New Orleans comes up, there's always assholes that pops in with the whole "nice photo-op" types of comments because he has the audacity to be surrounded by black folks.
Certainly not an easy issue for anyone to confront.
by okamichan13 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:06:18 AM PDT
Because the idea has hit critical mass that racism is gone, and any inequalities are the result of individual failures, not systemic ones.
So anyone who even MENTIONS racism is seen as excusing individual failure. Promoting victimhood. A pander. A photo-op.
(Obama has said a few times that it's both individual failures and systemic failures. I think that's as far as he can go without risking it. That said, maybe someone CAN fix racism in this country without entirely talking about it. Maybe. I say that only because we don't have much of a choice.)
by danthrax on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:10:24 AM PDT
Once elected, a President has much more freedom to act on behalf of an underpriveleged socio-economic group.
Ask Sec'y of Education to look into NCLB. Who's getting left behind? The poor. The Blacks. The Hispanics.
Ask Sec'y of HUD to look into home ownership and loans. Who's getting screwed? The poor. The Blacks. The Hispanics.
Ask the Atty Gen'l to look into sentencing practices. Who's getting the longer sentences for a given crime? The poor. The Blacks. The Hispanics.
You get the idea. A President can take on race head-on, by getting the Government to examine the ills of the Country and fix them with a combination of bold action and National dialogue.
John McCain: Like Hope, But Different.
by malharden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:33:17 AM PDT
by pamelabrown on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:12:33 AM PDT
cutting across racial lines b/c poverty affects people of all races. Maybe I'm not taking something into consideration, but I don't see a downside to Obama making poverty a central part of his campaign given this.
by grannyhelen on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:45:18 AM PDT
with Sharpton and the rest of that group of 1 issue voting block. If Obama started playing the race card he would be a fool. Sharpton and Jackson have more to lose with an Obama win than anyone.
I wish they would stop putting their careers before their common sense. Look at Obamas record... when he left Harvard he could have had any million dollar job in the best law firms in the country... but he chose to go into the black community and be an organizer and the others how to be effective in those communities.
Obama is the rainbow in "rainbow coalitian", Jackson should be ashamed of himself.
Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
by bluecayuga on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:45:07 AM PDT
and interesting "rules" that seem pretty true (unfortunately).
Now for my pet peeve:
John Edwards has more free reign
A Queen reigns, you give a horse free rein.
It's my own personal vendetta against the word "reign". I see it everywhere!
"Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do not do that thing." ~Dwight Schrute
by Liberaljentaps on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:07:12 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 259 comments