I am very hesitant to write this post because I understand it will be somewhat controversial. However, I feel obligated to at the very least do my part to make this known.
I just read what could be construed as an outright racist post on a highly read Politico blog. Jonathan Martin has posited the following claim:
While President Bush and Sen. McCain -- not to mention House leaders -- couldn't reel in the House Republicans needed to pass the bailout, a key constituency over which Barack Obama has considerable sway also opposed the bill.
More members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose heavily black districts include many of Obama's most ardent supporters, opposed the bill than supported it.
Few of these members are in, or will ever have, tough re-elections.
Obama, it seems, could have helped deliver some of these votes if he had been more invested in the bill.
So let me get the straight. Barack Obama has considerable sway over the CBC? Why, because he has more melanin than other members of Congress and they do as well. Well, excuse me for saying that is absolutely ridiculous.
If I recall correctly, Obama did not even garner a majority of the CBC's endorsements during the primary season, but now he supposedly holds sway over members of the caucus from all over the country with their own constituencies?
I could understand if the question is why Obama didn't lean on more Democrats. I could even understand questioning why he didn't apply more pressure to the Illinois caucus. But apparently Jonathan Martin believes African American's vote as a monolith and Barack Obama is now the king with magic powers. Is he kidding me? I hope this was snark.
I ask you, would Jonathan Martin ask why John McCain didn't deliver the White Republican vote. How about starting with the Arizona vote of which he "swayed" a big zero.
A reader notes that all eight members of McCain's Arizona delegation — four Democrats and four Republicans — voted "no."
I honestly could not believe what I was reading.
Am I overreacting? Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill. I know the Obama campaign won't touch this with a ten foot pole, but I can. I want to know if this is a RNC talking point copy/paste job that Jonathan Martin didn't think through, is Martin showing his true colors, or am I wrong and he is right? I should have known better than to go to Politico, but now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
My first impression was similar to many of the commenters at Politico. I will leave you with some gems from other readers.
Obama just announced he is suspending his campaign, and will immediately fly back to Washington to, quote, "Deliver my homies."
Posted By: Leadership | September 29, 2008 at 10:04 PM
1.) Rich white bankers blow-up investment banks.
2.) Bill to bail out fat cat bankers fail.
3.) GOP talking points blame black people.
This is like a skit from Chappelle show.
Posted By: important point | September 29, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Uhhh... So, Obama is supposed be able to MAKE people vote with him because he's black? Oh yeah, black people all run together in a pack, right? Black people all think alike, right? The brothas and sistas were supposed to have each others' backs, right? This has to be the most absurd post I've ever seen on this site! And, Jonathan, you've certainly had your share of them.
Posted By: TruthSeeker | September 29, 2008 at 08:27 PM
"Obama, it seems..." Uh, Martin, that news hook you've got there? That's about as firm as a toothpick.
Posted By: someone | September 29, 2008 at 08:30 PM
WTF? If you want to criticize Obama for not doing more get Democrats to vote for the bill, that's one thing. But your suggestion that Obama, because he's black, should have done more/been better able to convince the CBC, because they're black, is offensive.
And, unless you think maybe black people are different from white people, it makes about as much sense as saying that McCain could have had special sway over the over-65 members of the GOP.
Posted By: Shocked and Awed | September 29, 2008 at 08:32 PM