You're Not Still Mad At Us...Are You?
Obama supporters take heed: flag pins matter. Reverend Wright matters. Even your candidate's middle name matters. Here's why:
When ABC's debate questioners were pounding on Barack Obama over his lack of an American Flag pin and whether or not his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright "loves America as much as he does," they were pilloried for essentially doing a good job asking bad questions.
But the reality is they were doing a bad job asking one very important question, one those much-discussed working class White voters are thinking about even if they haven't quite put it into words.
It goes like this: Are you, Senator Obama still upset with America and by 'America' we mean... us? For slavery and discrimination and all that other stuff? Because down inside we know you have a right to be a little mad (even though we think you should have gotten over it by now--I mean you went to Harvard for goodness sake!) but we don't want a Black man who feels that way to be President. Nothing personal.
This is mostly speculation of course, I'm not White and even if I were I couldn't speak for everyone. But think about it. The Angry Black man is an old stereotype, but he is still out there. Obama's Main Street appeal was based in part on replacing that rage with calm intelligence and a desire for accomodation. Rev. Wright and the rest of it stirred up all those old fears again.
Is Obama a Muslim? Maybe he secretly hates America. Maybe he hates us.
Thats the issue George Stephenopolous and Charles Gibson were trying to get to in their clumsy way. And its the issue Obama must address and address now. Its not trivial. In fact, for him it could be the difference between winning and losing.
posted by Derek McGinty @ 4:15 PM
6 Comments
Links to this post
6 Comments:
I can see and agree with that, and like you I can't speak for everyone. I'm white BTW
I think the speech Obama made was effective in dispelling some of that, but his comments recently in PA did a lot of damage IMO.
What was it? "clinging to guns" or something like that? The so called "elitist comment"
I felt that one did more damage than the pastor.
And while I'm talking about some flame and brimstone pastor that preaches hate (which has no place in the house of God "for any reason") it reminds me of the polygamist pastor in West VA, same delivery if you ask me... They could be brothers ( or at least "cousins" ) the way they both sounded.
Anyways... I watch the two sermons on Sunday morning (wusa9). No hate, just good sense.
As for Obama? I think he's a good guy, but he's not my pick.
When Stephanopolous came to Washington on the Clinton haywagon in 1993, he made plenty of enemies among the political elite by being a partisan hack. As White House Press Secretary, he was quoted in Federal Executive magazine as saying: "We don't need Daniel Patrick Moynahan's support...(for Hilary's healthcare plan)we'll run right over him."
We all remember what happened to the healthcare plan in Congress.
Stephanopolous left the Clintons and went on to enjoy relative success as a journalist, but at heart, perhaps his performance at the debate was simply a product of his sense of obligation toward Hillary.
Not understnding Gibson's motivation, one can only surmise that his and Stephonopolous' behavior does in fact reflect suspicion of Obama as a member of the masses of Black Americans. In that sense, their behavior is similar to Time magazine darkening O.J.'s picture.
By failing to distinguish Obama, with his spectacular oratory, impeccable education and 15 years teaching experience at the University of Chicago, from Tyrone on the corner, they denigrate all Black Americans and diminish the quality of the debate.
If Obama hasn't proven over and over again that he is above the fray, then maybe America doesn't deserve a leader of his caliber.
This has been one of the most nitpicky political races that I've ever had to suffer through... and they're not even in the actual Presidential Race yet! At this point, I barely even want to vote for Obama, Clinton or McCain (is Nader still running? Maybe I'll waste my vote on him if he just doesn't talk...). The Clintons, above all, are beginning to tick me off with their childish games. Maybe they need to think about the endless ammunition they're giving the Republicans to pick them or Obama apart during the General Election before they open up their flytraps again. Maybe they should think about the big picture before they start with the attacks and ruthless political agenda targeting a MEMBER OF THE SAME PARTY!!! If I would have to break out the construction paper and crayons to draw this out in its simplest form, here goes.
Hill & Bill... YOU MAY LOSE!!! Face facts, it's a big possibility. Now, if you've basically done the Republican's job for them with your horrifyingly negative campaign against Obama, what do you think is gonna happen in November? Do you want a Democrat in office or just you? Are you more interested in ending our involvement in Iraq and helping the underclass the previous regime snubbed their noses at or is it more important to you to get back into the Oval Office? If you're just thinking about you, what if the people choose Obama? Eight more years of S.S.D.D.?
McGinty Man, with your keen insight you hit the nail over the head. White folk want Black folk to pretend like slavery never existed and that even though most Blacks find the corporate latter greased with lard, we were just inferior and born with an intellectual deficit.
Obama should stop wasting his time pandering to mostly redneck voters who wouldn't vote for him, even if he were the second coming of Christ.
The more people talk about the negative, the more negative people feel. When the positive is communicated the result is positive...
So when people talk race, which would be a better approach?
I don't mean sweeping it under the carpet, I'm more inclined to acknowledge and move on to positive racial discussions. Like contributions instead of accusations and past deeds.
I think Obama does as well, in order to benefit his campaign. I agree with that even though I won't vote for him (I'm republican).
Wright on the other hand makes the connection current, keeps the furor alive and is damaging Obama's campaign.
It's not Obama... it's Wright that is "wrong"
I feel bad for Wright in a way after hearing of Obama's recent reply in the media.
Wright has done a lot of really good things for "his community".
I think the difference here, the one Wright cannot understand... is that Obama is not running this race for that community, he is running the race for a "Nation".
Your original post (OP) is pretty accurate in that there is a social segment that is still racially divided (both sides), but also those who have 'acknowledged' and moved beyond the history of differences.
I call it the evolution of a Nation, or in simple terms we are growing up (or trying to).
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html
I looked at this and learned a lot about the man, but I see what I always see... condemnation of mistakes we have made before we understood the consequences of our actions.
Some would say we should have known better, but that is not always true when you consider the context in full.
Still I see most of us moving past all of that, and hopefully the rest of us can as well.
Wright is keeping the past current and that is why I say he is wrong. Not completely wrong, we need the lessons. I think for many it revives the past though, and that is why it is bad.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home