Daily Kos

I feel Jesse's Pain

Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:35:43 AM PDT

I feel Jesse Jackson’s pain.

He finds himself in hot water for recent comments he made, thinking they were off the record, stating he wanted to castrate Barack Obama for "talking down to black people" in addressing his plans for expanding the Bush faith-based social services initiative.

Jackson’s words were, of course, disgusting and unacceptable, and he has – rightly – apologized. I think, though, I understand from where his fury is derived, and it goes way beyond anything Obama may have said regarding faith-based initiatives.

In the face of the rise of what the national media regularly dub the "new" black leadership, generally composed of Ivy League-educated elected officials with more centrist politics or compromising approaches than the most recent generation of black leaders (people like former congressman Harold Ford Jr; Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker; former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk; and of course Obama himself), Jackson is now regularly dismissed among Beltway media/political chattering classes as a decaying relic of the now less useful civil rights era of black leaders. That alone must be a tough pill to swallow. But what causes Jackson to pop-off as he has against Obama is likely more than just wounded pride. It is likely his growing sense that Obama’s entire campaign is turning into one extended Sister Souljah moment, which is something that, were it coming from a white candidate, would stir considerably greater unease among a larger cross-section of black Americans than Obama’s actions have.

You’ll remember that Sister Souljah was an African-American hip-hop artist and activist who, discussing the Rodney King verdict riots in L.A. in an interview during the 1992 presidential campaign, asked rhetorically: "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?" (As she was describing the thought processes of black gangsters, her point – to this day little-understood, given that the quote was almost always excerpted out of context – was that no one should have expected black criminals to direct their violent acts only toward black victims.) In establishing his independence-from-black-activists-cred for the purpose of appealing to moderate white voters, candidate Bill Clinton used a subsequent appearance at a meeting of Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition to blast Souljah for her comment (again, repeating it totally out of context). Jackson was, needless to say, shocked and humiliated that his forum would be used by an invited guest, without warning, as a platform for essentially showing-off his black strawman-tackling skills.

It’s not hard to see how Jackson feels it’s happening all over again, but this time in super-slow-mo.

For, this year’s presidential campaign didn’t begin this year. Or even last year. On the Democratic side, the campaign really began July 27, 2004. That was the night a mostly-unknown black politician named Barack Obama delivered a keynote address during the Democratic National Convention. In what continues to be widely-held as one of the best political speeches in a generation, Obama declared that, "There is not a Black America and a White America... There is the United States of America." I, for one, found this declaration fascinating for two reasons.

First, as a black citizen who knows and is related to numerous black people residing in this country, I think I can safely assert that most black Americans would have had no problem whatsoever, either then or now, with the assertion that there is a Black America and there is a White America, and that often the twain do not meet.

Secondly, it is somewhat ironic that John Edwards, the then-vice Presidential candidate being nominated at that very convention, had built his earlier presidential campaign on the notion that there are, in his words, "two Americas:" The Haves, and Everybody Else. And any American who was conscious at that point knew that, by something other that chance, blacks were quite rare in the former group, and overwhelmingly disproportionately represented in the latter.

There appear to be three possible explanations for why, then, Obama would make such a statement in direct contravention to common sense on this matter:

  1. He was simply ignorant of the reality. This seems extremely unlikely, since, if nothing else, Obama’s life and work in black Chicago neighborhoods should have made clear to him the realness and significance of the race-based divisions in our society.
  1. He was speaking aspirationally – that is, he was describing the America he longs to see. This, or some version thereof, is perhaps the most commonly-expressed explanation for Obama’s remarks. I’m having a hard time accepting that explanation, though, because a man possessing as great a facility with the English language as Obama should have had no difficulty eloquently depicting the America he described as his "dream," his "vision," his "goal," or what have you. He instead chose, purposefully I’d argue, to speak in the present tense and use language designed to give certain listeners the impression that this was the actual state of affairs in America as he saw them. The reason, I believe, can be found under option number 3:
  1. He wanted to put centrist whites at ease. For reasons that require a separate write-up to explain, the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence in presidential elections to white Southerners. This is why ever since President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby aligning the interests of blacks with the fate of the Democratic Party, the only Democrats to be elected president have been white Southerners. Obama probably feels that in order to break that trend, he has to do what Democrats who are not white Southerners tend to have a hard time doing: giving "moderate" whites across the country the sense that as president he wouldn’t give Robin the keys to the Batmobile. Or, to use a more pointed metaphor, he wouldn’t let the inmates run the prison. For the metaphorically-challenged: he wouldn’t let blacks (or more specifically, their sympathies) sculpt our government’s policies. Having black skin himself, his need to satisfy the fears of many whites on this measure is magnified by perhaps a factor of 10.

Hence Obama’s long-running Watch-How-Many-Times-I-Can-Subtly-Distance-Myself-From-The-Plight-Of-(the non-existent) Black America show. Key stopovers on the tour have included:

The Candidacy Announcement. John Edwards wanted to make clear what his presidency would be about when he went down to New Orleans, put on a pair of jeans, pitched-in with post-Katrina clean-up and rebuilding efforts, and simultaneously announced his candidacy. Edwards was unabashedly associating his would-be presidency with repairing the damage from what is widely-recognized as an extraordinary example of America’s neglect of so many of her African-American citizens.

Barack Obama also wanted to use his announcement to send a message about his would-be presidency. But rather than do something like going to New Orleans – which would have been warmly received by blacks as a powerful sign of what a black president could mean to the poverty-stricken corridors of (non-existent) Black America – or even to announce from his home base in Chicago – which could have been an unofficial call for national psychological investment in America’s disproportionately black isolated urban communities – he went to superlatively white Springfield, Illinois – birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, who held the country together at its most divided moment – to position himself as the Great Uniter (not to be confused with the Uniter, Not a Divider of 8 years earlier) who would transcend, perhaps even erase, the borders that separate us. A noble positioning, to be sure, and an event that, on its own, is hard to argue with. In retrospect, though, it’s clear that this was also just the first stop on the Black People? What Black People? Express. Here’s why that’s clear:

I Gotta Wash My Hair That Night. In February of this year, the annual State of the Black Union gathering convened in New Orleans, without Obama. The gathering regularly collects many of the more prominent thinkers, activists, and elected officials in, and working on, issues affecting (non-existent) Black America. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two candidates for nomination by the party heavily-aligned with the black voting populace, were invited to participate. Clinton agreed to attend, even though she knew she was likely in for a cool reception resulting from her husband’s inappropriate race-based comments before the South Carolina primary just weeks earlier. Obama, on the other hand, decided he had more important things to do, and so offered to send his wife Michelle in his place. Though Mrs. Obama is well-known as a very smart and thoughtful lawyer, she was not an appropriate policy surrogate for her husband, an actual elected official and an actual presidential candidate.

A month earlier, Obama had been a no-show at the meeting of the (largely black) National Baptist Conventions in Atlanta. This, despite the fact that he was planning just a few months later to reveal a plan to expand on George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative, and this audience would have clearly made for a welcoming forum to announce said plans. He did deliver an address via internet, in which he asked the pastors in attendance to help him drive the "Movement." Hillary Clinton appeared in-person, and pledged to double government funding to historically black colleges and universities (of which Atlanta has quite a few).

On April 4, Memphis played host to a 40th anniversary commemoration of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hillary Clinton visited the Lorraine Motel, site of the assassination, and gave a speech at the church where King had given his "Mountaintop" speech the night before his death. Even John McCain, who had earlier in his senate career voted against a federal King Day holiday and who has essentially no chance of collecting more than a single-digit percent of the black vote come November, showed up at the Lorraine, and then addressed King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Obama? He chose to address King’s legacy at a town hall meeting in Fort Wayne, Indiana (a city whiter than Minneapolis) before heading off to the North Dakota Democratic Party convention. Why those locations rather than the place where the event being remembered actually took place? Obama said it was because he felt it was important to discuss Dr. King’s efforts "in places where his work has not come to fruition." That happens to describe basically every city in the US with a black composition greater than 25%. Cities like...Memphis. Clinton, by the way, managed to make the two appearances in Memphis and travel to North Dakota later that day.

This is not to say that Obama never appears before gatherings of African-Americans. He addressed the NAACP convention last July, and addressed multiple MLK Day events in January, including a speech at King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. But it is worth noting that MLK Day is a national holiday. To fail to show up then would be to beg for a lambasting in the court of public opinion. And the NAACP convention is a ritual event for Democratic Party candidates. Obama’s absence there would have been unforgivable.

The State of the Black Union, the Baptist Convention, MLK assassination day – those are more "discretionary" events, from which absence will be easily given a free pass by the vast majority of white voters. And he decided to take that pass.

Say What? Now, Obama has done some "discretionary" events, too. But in at least a couple of noteworthy examples of such events, he has said some, well, fascinating things:

  1. In a Selma, Alabama speech at a commemoration of the anniversary of the bloody 1965 voting rights march across that city’s Edmund Pettus Bridge last year, Obama tried to connect with both the Camelot Era Kennedy mystique and with the civil rights movement by claiming that his father was brought over to the US from Kenya by a Kennedy Administration-sponsored air lift that had been inspired by the actions of the Selma marchers.

In fact, Obama’s father had come to the US in a separate airlift two years before the Kennedy Administration even existed. And Barack Obama was born four years before the Selma march.

The revelation of this fabrication demonstrates the risks attached to Obama’s reluctance to embrace (the non-existent) Black America without reservations or qualifications during his campaign. Had he merely stuck with attributing his political existence to the gains of the civil rights movement, he would have been on solid ground. But his overriding need to anesthetize whites before injecting the sharp needle of race led him to muse out loud about his fantasy relationship with one of American presidential history’s greatest heroes. First Lincoln, then Kennedy.

  1. In the same speech, Obama offered that African-Americans were "90% of the way" toward the goal of racial equality, a calculation that flies in the face of just about any relevant statistic on black-white disparities that you can find. Again, Obama’s experience on the South Side of Chicago must have informed him that his "90%" statistic is wildly off, and later in the very same speech he himself rattles off a string of examples where the racial gap far exceeds the remaining "10%", so the only explanation for such an utterance is some sort of quasi-catatonic trance he must force himself into with each attempt to apply a rhetorical balm to the still open sore that is black-white inequality in America. Telling the naked truth, while certainly more discomfiting to white audiences, would have carried the benefit of keeping such absurdities as these from escaping Obama's mouth.
  1. In February, Obama spoke before a black audience in Beaumont, Texas. Assuming the role of nutritionist-in-chief, Obama criticized the parenting skills of some black parents: "Y'all have Popeye’s [fried chicken] out in Beaumont? I know some of y'all you got that cold Popeyes out for breakfast. I know. That's why y'all laughing ... You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school."

While proper nutrition is obviously key for optimum development for children and adults, so is having the funds and the time to provide something other than the previous night’s leftovers for breakfast. For the chance to make his point – to have his own Pound Cake speech  – Obama conveniently ignored that many black parents do not find themselves in that category.

This was but one in a string of admonitions toward black people to shape up that Obama has been dishing out over the past year or so, from suggesting to black businessmen in Chicago that a good economic development program for the black community would be getting people to "stop throwing garbage out of their cars" to his Father’s Day tongue-lashing for absentee fathers. The nuggets he dishes out in these diatribes have the dual benefit of being (mostly) true and of being endearing to those whites who like to deny the impact of racial discrimination on African-Americans. And it is that latter role that all the finger-wagging is meant to serve. For, as charismatic as he is, even a President Obama will have little more luck browbeating folks into changing their personal habits than Nancy Reagan did in getting kids to Just Say No. That’s just not his role. But he makes for great copy to those looking for someone to whip those aberrant black folks back into line – people whose votes Obama feels he needs in order to get elected.

Stay calm, black people! In November of 2006, Sean Bell, an African-American resident of New York City, was gunned down by NYPD officers in a hail of 50 bullets as he tried to drive away from a nightclub he had been visiting with his friends – despite the fact that was unarmed and was not engaging in any criminal activity at the time. In April of this year, the officers involved were acquitted at trial of all criminal charges stemming from the shooting. It was the latest in a string of incidents in which unarmed African-Americans – almost always, they are African-Americans – have been shot by police officers in New York and around the country.

Asked about the verdict by a reporter at a press conference, Obama warned that,

"Resorting to violence to express displeasure over a verdict is something that is completely unacceptable and is counterproductive."

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, released a statement expressing sympathy for the family of the victim.

Obama’s response here was perhaps the single most offensive utterance of his candidacy. It smacks of an effort to assume the role of zookeeper for the tamed animals that black New Yorkers are meant to represent. There had never been even a hint that violence might  follow the verdict. The last such case of comparable notoriety in New York, the Amadou Diallo shooting of 1999, resulted in impassioned protest, but no violence. It had been more than a decade-and-a-half since a notable violent response to such a verdict had been seen, and that was following the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles. That Obama’s mind would even go there – to the exclusion of any acknowledgement of the victim – is a disturbing sign of the extent to which he has embraced what he sees as his mission to reflect the mindset of anxious whites whenever he speaks to African-Amercan-themed issues.

I Pray He Goes Away. Then there’s the Reverend Wright fiasco. Much has been written about this, so I’ll simply point out that the majority of (non-existent) Black America – including forward-thinking younger adults – agrees with the sentiment, if not the exact facts, of most of the Reverend’s "YouTube" statements that (non-existent) White America found so shocking. That is all.

Georgia on My Mind. Finally we have the revealing case of Georgia's 12th congressional district. The district, 40% African-American, is represented by Democrat John Barrow, who is white (NOTE: there is NOTHING wrong with having whites represent African-Americans. That is not the point here). Barrow is a textbook "Blue Dog" Democrat, or "Democrat In Name Only" (DINO), who supports, among other things, the war in Iraq and Bush's tax cuts.

So how fascinating was it to learn that last month Obama took the unusual step of involving himself in the Democratic primary for that district's congressional race to endorse Barrow? Especially when you consider that Barrow's opponent, a woman named Regina Thomas, is a popular state legislator and a genuine progressive who is against the war, against Bush's FISA revisions, and generally for the things that the progressive/netroots wing of the party is for. Also, she is black.

Why did Obama take the step? Plain old-school quid-pro-quo: Barrow endorsed Obama earlier than Thomas in his bid for the nomination, so now it's payback time, regardless of bad Barrow's politics may be. Remarkably reminiscent of the bad old way of politics that so many of Obama's supporters were led to believe would be banished with Obama's rise. Oh well.

As for black Americans, they have made it clear that they will go all the way with Obama, no matter how much he dumps on them in public. It seems that the allure of a first black president is too great for many black folks to actually hold him accountable for how he becomes such. Even if that sense of racial solidarity is not returned on Obama's part.

In a comedy performance more than a decade ago, Chris Rock – Obama supporter, and very intelligent man – made fun of black folks who reacted to the OJ Simpson verdict as if they had personally won something.

"I’m still checkin’ my mailbox, waiting for my OJ prize!"

I can’t help thinking of that routine when I hear black folks talk in near-orgasmic tones about Obama’s victory in the Democratic nomination. For, while his ascension has been historic, it could very well be debated how great it has been for black Americans. Yet it seems that for a huge chunk of (non-existent) Black America, racial affiliation is enough for them to lustily support Obama, even as his approach to capturing the White House involves legitimizing some of the most destructive stereotypes of us as a people. As Rock himself put it introducing Obama at a Harlem appearance during the campaign, "You [black folks would] be real embarrassed if he won and you wasn’t down with it. ‘I can’t call him now! I had that white lady. What was I thinking? What was I thinking?’"

I’ll tell you what I’m thinking: there was only one Democrat in the entire field who I heard using "Sister Souljah moments" throughout the 2008 campaign. And it wasn’t Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Richardson, or Dodd. It was Senator Obama.

And even though I may be an Ivy League business school-educated post-civil rights era African-American, I don’t think that’s cool. Not at all.

Tags: Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, African-Americans, Sister Souljah (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 36 comments

  •  Seems you are distorting the context of (12+ / 0-)

    Obama's 2004 speech when you take the single "black America" line out of context.

    It is clear when you read the entire speech, or at least the two paragraphs below, that Obama is speaking about something different that you are. He is talking about what connects us as a people and you are focusing on what makes us different.

    A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

    Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

    •  I really like this speech (0+ / 0-)

      But I know for a fact, there's institutional challenges, for all men and as we go along, prayerfully together as one Nation, there are individuals who wield power and they are not... impressed with a speech, or your education.

      Speaking to power is not easily followed, but calling that power and authority out is none the less the calling of many and rubbing power, the wrong way will produce and adverse reaction.

      Obama is a Politician and it’s showing more today than yesterday, but still we all trek on together, there’s more in front of us than behind, but it will take telling the truth, even to the pain leaders an listeners alike, that is going to cost you and the leader something.

  •  I'm NOT an ivy league educated Black Man (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Woody, dannyinla, burlydee, soms, fedupcitizen

    I'm a state college educated white man.  I've traveled a bit around town, around my state (CA), around the nation, and around the world.

    Edwards is correct that socio-economic status divides us.  I agreed with a lot of what Edwards said, but I worry that dividing the nation into two groups is not the way to solve the problem.

    With no stars in my eyes, I think that this election will be historic for many reasons.  I think (hope) that Barack will win.  I think our country is heading down the toilet and that we are running out of chances to fix it.

    To fix it, we need everyone (or most everyone) to work together.  I don't want a "black president".  I want a president.  I support Obama because he may be the last best hope we have... not because I'm trying to make a statement.  I think there are a lot of people in this boat.

    However, to win the election, Obama needs to convince the center that HE wants to be THEIR president, not a "black president", which might scare them.  The opposition will amplify any whisper of that to a deafening (and for some, terrifying) roar.

    I think that the cards are being played carefully and well.  I think the country is "all in" on this hand. While I see your point, I don't see undue harm.  Am I missing something?

  •  Now Obama's back to not being black enough (7+ / 0-)

    He can't be all things to all people.  If you are looking for a messiah, go visit a church.

    Your disappointment seems to stem that he didn't do a large number of symbolic things.  He didn't make enough symbolic gestures.  Who cares?  Because Hillary or McCain go speak at a site and Obama doesn't, that now disqualifies his years of work on the South Side of Chicago?  What is even your point?  

    Look, HRC lost.  Get over it.  Why compare Obama and HRC on race issues? To cause divisiveness?  To start an argument?  These "I hope Obama lose" diaries are getting real old.

  •  Thank you for this diary (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Woody, AbsurdEyes

    I learned a lot. I'm a white woman.

    When Bill Cosby addressed the issue of "black family values" (so to speak), I thought he was off the mark. Just as I think Obama was off the marking, and I understand Jesse's being upset with him.

    The way I see it, having grown up in the south and known poor blacks and poor whites, the problem of single moms, crime, etc., is not about race. It's about poverty, lack of access to basic social needs, and lack of education.

    That these social problems keep being constructed in ways that make them about race really helps our nation avoid responsibility.

    That's my 2 cents.

    "If religion is the opiate of the masses, then fundamentalism is the amphetamine." Miz Vittitow

    by MillieNeon on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

  •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Shhs, soms

    The bottom line: Jackson is better and resentful that he himself isn't the nominee of the Democratic party. He is like that actor who once had a very successful career years ago who can't accept that he no longer has the same allure. Or he's like that NFL Quarterback who once won Super Bowls, but who now has lost a step and doesn't have the same talent, and who can't accept that his career is in decline.

    I can totally understand where Jackson is coming from. It must be very traumatic to one day be at the peak of his influence to then wake up the next and realize that he doesn't have the same support or influence that he used to. Jackson is in that position now.

  •  It's an important debate to have (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    BeaRational

    Personal responsibility vs government responsibility.  Everyone should take responsibility for their own lives, but that doesn't mean that government should be absolved from their responsibility to the poor and minorities.

    This should never be discussed in the middle of a political campaign because it can't be discussed seriously

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      The Third Way

      to discuss personal responsibility in almost a vacuum has to be very difficult to the so called "old" guard.  It's not like the work they devoted their lives to is done and inequities are over.  Just the stats about the number of black men in jail is telling.

      All people who disagree aren't bitter or jealous or devasted about their personal power or influence in a selfish way.  I believe they believe they are still contributing to important causes and issues and it is not helpful to sweep the root causes of issues under the rug.

      •  Bea, a great comment again! (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        BeaRational

        The so-called old guard is caught in a difficult situation, they grew up in the time of Jim Crow and they still see a lot of institutional racism, and they want Obama to speak out on that.

        I think Obama wants to broaden the discussion to not only instutional racism, but also personal responsibility, it's not an either or situation as so many have tried to frame it, it's both.  We all have to fight against institutional racism where we see it, and we all have to take as much personal responsibility as possible.

        Finally, as progressives we have to make sure that government never forgets the poor and minorities.

        Anoyone can disagree with the language that Jesse Jackson used but underlying that, are important issues that we all need to debate.

        Thanks Bea, for your clarity.

  •  Obama annouced his candidacy (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    murphy, iowabosox, elie, soms

    in the place where he had been a state senator, in the state where he is US senator.

    As a resident of IL, I found it much more appropriately symbolic that he declare in Springfield. He represents the entire state, he was elected to the senate by a huge majority, which included downstaters, many of whom are white.

    And all of us in IL claim Lincoln as our guy ("Land of Lincoln" on all the license plates.)

  •  WOW!! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    elie, soms

    To much food for thought here!  You've set all of the little hesitancies in my mind about our candidate to spinning and reminded me why I was originally an Edwards supporter.  

    But I'll stick with the brother now and judge him after his first term.

    BTW, I think Jesse was miffed because Obama was stepping on his toes about absent and non supportive fathers (of out of wedlock children).

  •  Re: Kennedy-Obama connection (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Woody, dannyinla, elie, soms, fedupcitizen

    It's a little more complicated than you portray.

    JFK was approached when he was a senator regarding bringing young people from Africa:

    The bond began with Kenyan labour leader Tom Mboya, an advocate for African nationalism who helped his country gain independence in 1963. In the late 1950s, Mboya was seeking support for a scholarship program that would send Kenyan students to US colleges - similar to other exchanges the US backed in developing nations during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Mboya appealed to the state department. When that trail went cold, he turned to then-senator Kennedy. Kennedy, who chaired the senate subcommittee on Africa, arranged a $100,000 grant through his family’s foundation to help Mboya keep the program running.

    "It was not a matter in which we sought to be involved," Kennedy said in an August 1960 senate speech. "Nevertheless, Mr Mboya came to see us and asked for help, when none of the other foundations could give it, when the federal government had turned it down quite precisely. We felt something ought to be done."

    One of the first students airlifted to America was Barack Obama Sr, who married a white Kansas native named Ann Dunham during his US studies. Their son, born in 1961 and named for his father, has only once mentioned his Kennedy connection on the campaign trail.

    "[T]he Kennedys decided: ‘We’re going to do an airlift,’" senator Obama said during a March speech in Selma, Alabama. "We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. This young man named Barack Obama [Sr] got one of those tickets and came over to this country."

    When you give it the full context, it's pretty clear Obama knows that JFK was not president when his father came to the US, nor did he represent that to be the case.

    Link to Guardian article.

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM PDT

    •  excellent point (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      elie, soms

      I always appreciate when people use facts to counter a diarists fabrications or errors.

      •  Isn't this the Tavis Smiley event?? (0+ / 0-)

        The State of the Black Union

        Good that Obama skipped that egomaniac's event.

        •  Although Tavis can be a pain (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dannyinla, soms

          I watched The State of the Black Union the past couple of years and have found it to be informative.

          That's not to say I always agree with everything all the participants say. I don't agree with everybody I saw at YKos, either.

          Tavis, however annoying he can be from time to time, often does do valuable work and his influence should not be discounted.

          Let's get some Democracy for America

          by murphy on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:36:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Name calling only shows your lack of intelligence (0+ / 0-)

          While I felt is was a good event, I didn't think at the time, Obama needed to be there but not because of Tavis, Tavis was a lightening rod to the event and it showed.

          Today, I wish Obama had gone, he could of shown all America the lenght and breath of black America and I suspect that lenght and breath(s) was why he didn't show up, tactical, yes.

      •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dannyinla, soms

        I didn't know the details myself until this diary, which has many errors that I know about in it, spurred me to check for the facts on this particular issue.

        Of course, since Google is our friend, it only took a few seconds to find a factually accurate account of what actually happened.

        Let's get some Democracy for America

        by murphy on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's another questionable "fact" (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          soms, fedupcitizen, JoanMar

          The diarist takes offense at Obama's reaction to the Sean Bell verdict.  Not knowing the question that Obama was asked, it's hard to place his response in context (was he, for example, asked specifically about the prospect of violence after the jury verdict?)

          The diarist - attacking Obama for acting like a zoo keeper - states that "(t)here had never been even a hint that violence might follow the verdict." He goes on to attack Obama:

          That Obama’s mind would even go there – to the exclusion of any acknowledgement of the victim – is a disturbing sign of the extent to which he has embraced what he sees as his mission to reflect the mindset of anxious whites whenever he speaks to African-Amercan-themed issues.

          Only one problem - the diarist is wrong that there had not been even a hint of violence after the Sean Bell verdict.

          Here's the NY Daily News quoting one of the surviving shooting victims - sounds like he was concerned about violence after the verdict too.

          Whispering from his hospital bed, police shooting survivor Joseph Guzman yesterday called on New Yorkers outraged by the death of his pal Sean Bell to refrain from violence.

          "I don't want any violence," Guzman said, clad in green hospital pajamas and with his pregnant fianc饬 Eboni Browning, looking on. "No violence, man. No violence. Not in my name."

  •  Hasn't Jackson been (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Woody, burlydee, soms

    at best lukewarm and at worst unsupportive of Obama since pretty much the beginning? It seems to me that Jackson, very much like Wright simply cannot accept that a black candidate is the nominee of a major party which proves enormous progress in our country's race relations. The Obama candidacy and possible presidency  negates Jackson's raison d'etre as an agitator and proponent that there's some permanent racial war going on. That's not to say there are no problems, no one is saying that-- but to Jackson and others, Obama will never be "black enough"...he must put black people and black issues first as if it was some kind of duty. Obama isn't running for president of black America, he's running for president of everyone, including black America--he has not ignored black issues, but to some it will never be enough. Was Hillary also running for president of women or everyone? Some feminists were just not satisfied with her either because they wanted her to be a candidate about women first and foremost. Some people will never be satisfied...

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM PDT

    •  Nothing Obama's said or done (1+ / 0-)

      Says he’s replacing Jesse, or any other black leaders in the trenches, only white America and brain dead minorities believe Obama is a black leaders.  

      As a matter of fact, everything Obama has said a done, tells me he is distancing himself, from being pigeon holed as a black only anything.

      For all who have followed Jesse Jackson’s and many other black leaders in leadership, stop and read a book or two and find out who has been the at the forefront of many of minority America's accomplishments... I'll wait... don't see Obama... don't see any of the white progressive of the today... I'll wait, keep looking.

      Times up, a little help many of those old leaders are in Congress and in the community, there called activist, organizers and they haven't come down from the ramparts, they toil in obscurity, stand the breaches.

  •  I disagree with Jackson Sr. & this diary! (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    elie, burlydee, soms, JoanMar

    You assume quite a lot about Jacksons' intent and argument.  Jackson said that Obama was "talking down to black people."

    I will not devalue Jacksons efforts in the cause for black people but I do question just how effective he has been lately.  

    Clearly Jackson Sr. has envy for Obama otherwise he would not have commented about gutting him in such a vicious manner.  If it were simply about the issue of speaking about black issue he could have voiced his objection without the viciousness.

    The State of the Black Union was offered Baracks most valuable surrogate in Michelle and Tavis declined.  At that time Hillary needed to make amends with the black community and Barack was running for President of the U.S. and not President of Black America.  Further  Barack continuously addresses the issues of black and poor of all races.

    I am in agreement with Kevin Powell  who wrote an op-ed in the NY Post July 11th  IT'S TIME FOR NEW BLACK LEADERS & this statement is clearly more indicative of the problem that Jesse Jackson has with Barack Obama.  

    Obama was an enigma to the old black guard because they did not create him, and because they could not control him. This is the root of the generational split in black America.

    It is also evident in the statement of Jesse Jacksons son.

    "He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself."

    The Truth is nonpartisan!

    by fedupcitizen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM PDT

    •  You don't get it and it sound a long way off from (0+ / 0-)

      YOU EVER GETTING IT... Jesse is not envious of anything Obama has done.  I' am an Obama supporter, but he doesn’t walk on water and man need to... progress your mind back to how we got here, it was leaders like Jesse, who organized and Marched and addressed the very issue Obama seems to want to champion.

      Only difference is Obama acting and talking as if they are the holy grail and all that was built before and has continued under as the Press like disparaged, "Old Black leadership", Obama's standing is not worth his education at Harvard, if he stay this course, he will become an out cast in the black community and with out the black community, Failure is looming large.

      So my advice and yes I' am giving it to him... Obama, had better, at some point speak to black people like he understands history and how it really is today and tell white people, yes he wants them to be comfortable with his presidency, but he has to make it plain to all the people, many Minorities are not where there suppose to be in our Society and it not because of video games and Pop Eye's Chicken alone.


      Obama must speak to the institutional race problem and the shoulders he's standing on... White America wants to be patted on the back for the progress so far, sorry Charlie, no time, to many in jail, too many drugs and dealers, too many homes and lives lost, got no time to make any one feel good about a job undone.

      Jesse has and is still fighting a FULL WAR, not just focusing in on what makes blacks feel like failures and white feel like is the answer.

      Don't let white supporters tell yeah, your right and blacks problems are there old leadership, that a lie from the pit of hell, black America has come a long ways and has a long way to go, we started from way behind, with less than nothing and we've had too fight five steps up to make it, and black and minority communities are battling hard, what we don't need is... those who have made it, telling us, see I did, you can too, just forget your oppression and smile, make everyone feel like, what color, I don't see I' am black... doing that is saying to me I don't exist as I really am.

      •  You assume a lot more than Jackson stated... (0+ / 0-)

        Jacksons statement was about faith based initiative and Obama speaking down to black people as captured by the Fox hot mic.  His statement was a personal dis.

        His apology afterwards tried to put a better face on his criticism and he went on to discuss the issue of the role of government in the issues of the black community,

        If Jackson wanted to make the issues about institutionalized racism he could have easily stated it as such.  He did not.  He spoke about castrating the presidential candidate while sitting and waiting to be interviewed by Fox news.

        There is institutional racism and classism in this country and Obama addresses these issues as well; however, there are some things government cannot solve.

        Why can't Obama address personal responsibility in the black community?  I  differ about the war Jesse Jackson is fighting...he has been a voice but often he is selfserving in my opinion. He is paid corporate blackmail fees that do not make it to the community.  

        Jackson is free to invoke black issues as a campaign concern but that is not what he did.  Jackson made his envy the topic.

        So...I get it...I do not agree!

        The Truth is nonpartisan!

        by fedupcitizen on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:08:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One of the reasons I *like* Obama (5+ / 0-)

    is that he gets it. What does he get? It's not about race, it's about class.

    When asked about affirmative action, he said it should be class-based, and pointed out, "My daughters are the children of affluent, Ivy-league-educated, politically connected parents. You really think they should get special consideration over a poor unconnected white child whose parents dropped out of high school, based just upon their skin color?"

    Bruce is still God, but Michael Phelps is moving up the rankings.

    by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

  •  he has to reach out to white people first (0+ / 0-)

    You may not like that, but it's a political necessity.  Obama's a politician, not the patron saint of blackness.  He has to do what he has to do to get elected.  And let's face it, he's already got the black vote in the bag.  But winning over enough white voters to beat Hillary and then McCain's was hardly a sure thing.  He's doing what he has to do.

    Put it this way, which would you rather be complaining about for the next four years?

    1. A guy who "isn't black enough" became the first black president?

    Or

    1. Soul Brother #1 got beaten by Hillary, sparking another 10-15 years of "America's not ready"?

    Let Obama do what he has to do.  Even if he doesn't do enough for the community once he's in office, he does plenty just by being in office.  Because once he's there, it opens the door for so many other African Americans at every level of government.  Plenty of them will be "black enough," even for you, tgnyc.

    McCain/Graham 08: It Takes a Nation of Whiners To Hold us Back

    by schroeder on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM PDT

Permalink | 36 comments