Challenges have the uncanny ability to sharpen our focus. A knee injury will make you more mindful of walking than ever before. Bad food introduces you to taste buds you never knew existed. Adrenaline enables amazing physical feats.
The same is true for political movements. Progressives are smarting now. Many on the left are disenchanted with the President, disappointed in the pending health care legislation and disillusioned about the 2010 mid-term elections. What’s a movement to do?
Real progress
We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Our renewed focus is an opportunity to build a foundation for future success, resilience and empowerment. This means taking stock of the real progress being made in this moment while simultaneously fighting to transition society from its peppered past to a progressive future.
…our predecessors were never so consumed with theoretical debates that they couldn’t see progress when it came…Let’s take a victory, he said, and then keep on marching. Forward steps, large and small, were recognized for what they were — which was progress.
What victories have we won? A few include:
Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, bringing us a step closer to fully realizing equal pay for equal work.
Martha Coakley and others’ recent electoral defeats echo the sentiment of the 2008 Presidential election: candidates who proactively or passively represent a broken status quo will fail. Insiders can no longer combine tepid emotions and bland appeals with party machines and expect victory. They instead must take the hope demonstrated by the 2008 election and marry it to action.
The infinite hope that Dr. King spoke of us present within the progressive movement. Young people are organizing like never before in favor of comprehensive immigration reform reflective of America’s ideals, not its demons. Their hope is moving them to action.
That infinite hope is present in the hearts of millions of ambitious yet unemployed Americans. People are coming together to petition their government to work on their behalf to create jobs rather than give handouts to industries that have turned their backs on their employees. The hope of these workers is moving them to action.
That hope still exists in health care. Amidst the angst of the centrists, the exasperation of many Progressives and the perverse cynicism of corporate and conservative interests, the American people remain thirsty for quality, affordable health care. The current proposals have their differences and flaws, but our communities are speaking up in unison when they demand a health care system that works for them. Listening to the practical, conscientious voice of constituents would have led to a substantive debate that disregarded idiocy while embracing the courageous optimism of the American spirit.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made an unfortunate mistake when he said privately:
Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his light-skinned appearance and speaking patterns with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one…He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.
The comments and the response to the comments have been laughable, disconcerting and indicative of the broader race-related issues that our country continually kicks down the road.
I’m frustrated that the only tellers at the Bank of Apologizing to Black People are still Rev. Al Sharpton and/or Jesse Jackson. Many have used the fact that Rev. Sharpton accepted Reid’s apology as grounds for vindication. Rev. Sharpton is as much a proxy for Black America’s social consciousness as the CEO of Goldman Sachs is a proxy for the interests of community banks. Just like there’s a movement to move our money out of big banks, Black folks should be moving their representation away from Rev. Sharpton and to community voices.
It’s further frustrating to think about how the latent prejudice of our politics has contributed to structural inequity reinforced by public policy.
Perhaps there is more at work than the latent racism that leads to remarks that are at their best in poor taste and at their worst indicative of utter moral failure. The way to work through a controversy like today’s uproar is to put these incidents into a larger narrative about the consequences of entrenched racism and prejudice. Once that narrative is constructed, we can create a solution.
What’s up fam, Long time no see I know. First let me say that I have started law school at UDC so any SuperSpade fam in the DMV, let me know what’s up. Moreover, my partner in crime Garlin got married and would you guess it, moved to DC!!! Suffice it to say that a ton of change has happened in the past couple months and our posting has been….well let’s just get back into it.
So I am really smarting over the Van Jones resignation and the implications it has on the next twenty years of political life in America. President Obama is wrong for allowing this to go through. This has nothing to do with Van’s liberal values but it is pure politics. Jones was ousted in large part to the enraged and deranged rhetoric of Glenn Beck…of all people. I get it you that can’t fight every fight but come on. I will even give you some slack if we are talking about appointments that need the consent of the Senate but this was not the case. Then, the communication’s director of the National Endowment for the Arts, Yosi Sergant is forced to resgin in part due to Glenn Beck. Obama, you can’t allow Glenn Beck to pick off your staff one at a time. This is crazy!!!!
The larger problem is what this says for the generation coming of and preparing to take the reins. What Van said about Republicans pales in comparison to what I hear Republicans have said and say about Obama. The signal being sent though is that if you are left/liberal/progressive, keep your mouth shut. We live in the information where even the most insignificant speech is recorded, and who knows what to think of what is going to happen to all the emails/facebook posts, blogs, blog comments, etc. I say that to say that anyone talking themselves out of politics (or influencing politicians) took the wrong lesson from the Jones resignation. We have to be bold in our principles. Seriously, I don’t know when this happened but “birthers” get regular play over the media airwaves. Where are we?
Let’s be honest shall we?
Have you deleted or re-worded a comment or email because while what you said was perfectly reasonable you didn’t want to be branded as a crazy liberal? -When in conversation have you bashed a liberal idea that you really support?
What rally did you want to go to but you didn’t want to risk being photographed?
My only point is that you are wrong if you are waiting for progressive values (that is the word I use, don’t get caught in semantics) to become mainstream, stop waiting! Politics doesn’t work when you don’t show up so don’t let this moment go to waste. Let principles guide you, not random reactions to the absurd.
Most interestingly, comparing these results with U.S. demographic statistics shows that the percentage of African Americans in each U.S. state is a predominant factor determining increase in call activity and therefore participation in the event, which instead was not necessarily influenced by the state’s proximity to Washington, D.C. or its political leaning.
We will have a new Supreme Court Justice by October 2009, and her name will be Sonia Sotomayor. This is a plain, simple fact.
I waited to write about this because I wanted to see the full range of juvenile, senseless, and viperous statements made be conservative critics of this nomination.
A laughable argument
The most ridiculous and confusing argument against soon-to-be-Justice Sotomayor is that she is unfit to be on the Supreme Court because her personal positions, ethnic heritage, and life experience could influence her decisions. Show me a person who’s life experience doesn’t reflect in their decisions, and I’ll show you a person’s life that is a rudderless, abject failure.
Last I checked, judges are people. Persons even. People, like you, me, your mother, your brother, your neighbor and everyone else you know all have histories, opinions and talents. To deny this is to deny the value of life, family, friendship, education, work, and everything else that happens during our time on this earth.
It is beyond ridiculous then to think that people’s decisions are not impacted by the things that they have seen or that have happened to them. Why must judges divorce themselves from their humanity in the name of something as transient and subjective as the law? Are these people saying that they want law machines and not judges? (Note: I’m absolutely not a lawyer, so I’d love to hear from lawyers on this.)
We elect/appoint people
The actual world and the movie world are different. We don’t live in the world of Terminator or iRobot. When we look for ways to solve problems, to explain happenings, or to interpret law, we look to people, not robots. The idea that judges appointed by conservatives apply no personal thought or empathy when deciding cases is as dishonest and supported neither anecdotally or statistically. The most recent example is [current & most recently appointed] Justice Sam Alito’s comments during his confirmation regarding applying his personal and family experiences to his judgements.
Should disagreement disqualify?
Maybe, maybe not. Disqualify is probably the wrong word, but in the real world, this is about more than qualifications. No one has said that Sotomayor is unqualified because that would be the only argument weaker than the laughable one described above.
Elections have consequences. The should have consequences; that’s the point. It is perfectly legitimate to vote against a judicial nominee because you disagree with their ideology as demonstrated in their record. It is not, however, legitimate to vote against a nominee because they do what all other people do: think about their history when making decisions in the present.
I pray that one day we can have an honest dialogue in our government and body politic without the salacious, counter-productive, dishonest rhetoric. If you don’t like her record, say you don’t like her record. That’d be a lot easier on all of us.
Last week I signed a letterto the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) calling each out for stopping the acceptance of PAC & lobbyist money for one day — the day President Obama comes to fund-raise for them.
Why this is a problem
Private money perverts politics. It destroys electoral integrity by weighting the outcome in favor of moneyed interests. The DSCC & DCCC are perfectly fine with this. President Obama is not. I’m not either.
Campaigns & elections should be publicly financed. Our taxes pay the salaries of elected officials already, so why don’t we pay for their selection too? That way, things won’t get too out of control (we won’t waste money), and we’ll be more likely to hold people accountable (because we literally paid for them to be there).
Join me, several other prominentBlack & progressivebloggers, and 2,400+ other people in signing this letter and stopping this madness.
I was recently asked to comment on an article by Linda Burnham about how the Left, specifically the anti-Capitalist Left, should feel about and work with the Obama Administration. It’s called “Notes on an Orientation to the Obama Presidency”.
There is real debate about how ardent Leftists, Progressive activists, think-tanks, etc. should approach the government under President Obama. Groups that have felt alienated by American politics and the pervasiveness of Conservative ideology have been frustrated & cynical for the past 60 years. They are not content with incremental solutions to big problems. They are almost offended when with presented with nuanced distinctions in policy or rhetoric that at the end of the day is not demonstrably different from the status quo.
While I find myself in this group much more often than not, there are some real opportunities to make progress on a fundamentally Progressive agenda. We must take proper advantage of these times, lest this once-in-a-generation opportunity pass us by.
The current debating and posturing on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the “Obama Stimulus Bill” is troubling and unproductive. All of the partisan rhetoric and time-wasting by Republicans, Democrats, and the President could have been avoided by framing this bill properly and sticking to that frame.
The bill is going to pass. No one, not even Conservative critics, dispute this inevitability. It would have passed with little opposition if one thing would have been done differently: if they would have called it from jump a Jobs Bill, not a Stimulus Bill.
What’s the difference between a Jobs Bill and a Stimulus Bill?
No Congressperson, no matter how much they hate it, can make a justifiable political argument against job creation. Politicians and pundits can, however, make arguments against stimulus. By the way, what exactly is stimulus? Is it spending? Is it tax cuts?
President Obama and I think it’s the former, but the problem is there is room for debate. There is room for conservatives to attempt [with some success] to recast this bill as a spending bill, which to hardcore conservatives make it the Devil’s bill.
Winning the War on Policy happens when you win the War of Words
The President in recent days has gone on the offensive to defend this legislation. This is the right thing to do. What would have been even better to do was not even talk about stimulus plans in the first place, even during the campaign. After all, saying stimulus plan conjures up images of the Bush “Stimulus Checks”, which barely evened registered on any scale of positive economic impact. When you describe your plans and policies with the same language as failed plans and policies, it gives people the wrong mental images. And it is those mental images that are crucial for achieving buy-in in politics.
I’ll be watching this administration and how it frames policy debates. The Obama team was pretty good during the campaign season at framing. They shouldn’t forget that going forward.
The Inauguration of Barack Obama was an historic, life-changing, captivating experience for nearly everyone who refers to themselves as a citizen of this country or an inhabitant of this planet. Unfortunately, a seat in history’s theater was denied to myself and hundreds of others that wanted to watch the ushering in of an epoch of a renewed American spirit. Amidst the tears of joy, achievement, and progress, existed tears of pain and missed opportunity. Alongside the jubilation, frustration. With triumph, tribulation.
I write here to tell my story of the Inauguration. It may differ from most others that have been written, but all accounts are important. I especially want to thank the angels that were in the crowd to help Ellen and I on Inauguration Day. Warning: this post is very long.
Barack Obama warned us that some would try to make this big election be about small things. My warning is that we don’t let this big opportunity only lead to small change.
Big Opportunity
More than 137 million voters cast ballots this election, up 14% from 2004. 63.7 million (56%) of those people voted for Barack Obama, giving him more votes than any candidate in the history of US Presidential Election history. That is what you call a mandate.
Being the candidate with more supporters than any other President has ever had, Obama has been given a chance to serve more people than anyone could imagine. He can impact the finances of millions of people. He can improve the health of hundreds of millions of people. He can increase the moral standing of a nation in the eyes of billions of people. What a great opportunity to carry out public service and set the tone for the spirit of shared service & shared sacrifice that he so eloquently espouses.
Big Change
To whom much is given, much is required. (Luke 12:48)
The level of support and passion surrounding Barack Obama says more about the people supporting him than about Obama himself. It says that Obama is an inspirational figure, but that was evident before he started running for President. More importantly, it says that people are hungry. Hungry for change. Hungry for a new approach. Hungry for something to do. This is why Obama always talks about this election not being about him, but instead being about us.
With everybody so hungry, the onus is on the Obama team to give us something to eat. I don’t want a snack. I want a full, seven course meal. Legions of people do not organize for incremental change. Armies form to march forth into bold victory.
Now is our chance to make real, fundamental change in very progressive ways. This change will not happen because Barack Obama is a progressive. It can & will happen if we push our government, our newly-elected President, and, most importantly, ourselves to work towards the new kind of politics that Barack Obama helped us to believe was possible.
Let’s be bold. Let’s ask for a lot out of this administration. Let’s make Barack Obama a successful President by ensuring that he keeps his promise to start making big changes to the way America works. We helped him make history on November 4th. Let’s keep making history for the next 4 years.
One Love. One II.
P.S. Homework assignment: Everyone under 30 should talk to someone over 60 about what this election means to them.
That’s going to be the question people are asking one another years from now about tomorrow’s important election.
Will you say you worked hard? Did all you could? Did nothing?
What “Black Leaders” Said
This morning, Sen. Obama held an African American Leadership Conference Call featuring Donna Brazile, Rev. Joseph Lowery, Oprah, Diddy, and others. What those people had to say was really nothing remarkable. Brazile did give another number to use if you have trouble at the polls: 877-US-4-OBAMA. Use it.
What Senator Obama Said
Senator Obama spent much more time speaking with all of us than I expected him to. During his 5 or 6 minute remarks (I expected maybe 2 minutes), he sounded exceptionally calm, thoughtful, and reflective. Wouldn’t it be great to have leadership like that?
He talked about the importance of the journey that he has traveled with his supporters. He talked about the historical importance of his campaign and potential election for Black adults and children alike. He talked about why the “fierce urgency of now” must energize everyone to work through tomorrow to ensure that people are heard and able to vote. He did not give us a stump speech. He did not repeat his closing arguments. Instead, he gave a personal set of remarks that really gave insight onto who he is as a person. And all of this was after he already found out about the passing of his grandmother. Wow.
What were you doing?
I was working. Phone banking. Canvassing. Door-knocking. Posting updates on Facebook. Posting Bulletins on MySpace. Text Messaging. Blogging.
I’m not saying that to brag. I’m saying that to show that we all have things that we can do. It’s not enough to vote. We deserve the leadership we work for.
Barack Obama understood that and empowered everyday people to do more this season than any campaign ever has. Let’s use this collective power to work for better leadership this Election Day, and every day after.
What’s really eating at me though is the way that it passed. In an attempt to make the bill more palatable to members of Republicans in the House, they packed the bill with pork. Sure, this is how business gets done in Washington, but in this case it’s really, really, really sick. See some examples of the garbage in this bill here.
With all of the quasi-economic-populist rhetoric going on as this election draws nearer, why not throw in substantive measures to make this bill more palatable to homeowners, consumers, and everyday citizens? Isn’t that what economic populism is all about?
We need a change in Washington. Yes, I agree that we need a new President, and I think that new President should be Barack Obama. But what we really need is a change in how Washington works. This bill passed the way most bills pass in Washington: too quickly, without enough scrutiny, packed with “sweeteners” for politicians instead of people.
I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.
What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:
Too much agreement
Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
Venezuela is a rogue nation
(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)
7 years ago today the world stood still in the face of tragedy as Americans, Black, white, and everyone else stared in pure horror as we saw real planes crash into real buildings with living, breathing people inside them in real time. Then, few saw it as a teaching moment: a moment that we could learn from. Since then, the majority of us have activated our analytical minds and searched for understanding regarding the events that took place on that day and the series of happenings that led to that disaster.
As we remember that day, those who were injured and killed, those who demonstrated the apex of human bravery, and those who have since perished in events related to 9/11, I ask that we contemplate a basic truth exemplified on that day:
Jesus realized something basic: that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, “Nicodemus, you must be born again.” In other words, “Your whole structure must be changed.”
In other words, many big, huge, terrible, evil things start off itty bitty lies. Lies that went unchallenged. Fallacies that were presented and accepted. Falsehoods that are seen then ignored.
Enough!
Barack Obama said this plainly during his Acceptance Speech at the DNC in Denver. It bears repeating and applying here when talking about how we need to stop accepting the lies that politicians tell. (…cough…John McCain…cough…Sarah Palin…cough…)
I don’t like being lied to, and frankly, you shouldn’t either. It’s insulting and disrespectful, and it leads to people getting harmed, hurt, and killed.
So in rememberance of 9/11, its victims, and its survivors, let’s reject lying in our homes, lying in our workplaces, and lying in our politics. Who knows how many lives we can save by just doing that.
Commenter John Paul Reeves left what Brandon & I felt was a thought-provoking comment on Brandon’s Obama Drops the Ball on Energy post. I was responding to the comment, but my response got pretty long, so I felt it’d be more appropriate to write it up as a full post for everyone to be able to read and respond to easily. This is my full response:
@John Paul Reeves,
On Obama’s Religion
As for how I as a Black Christian (not speaking for that entire demographic) feel, I have no “concern” about Obama’s religion. In fact, I bet most people don’t have any concern about Obama’s religion. Frankly, I don’t care what his religion is, and the people who say that he’s a Muslim in a derogatory way are actually not only insulting Muslims by implying that being Muslim is bad, but they are also note acting in a Christ-like manner by bearing false witness against another person. So there are two questions to pose to Christians or anyone else who has a problem with a candidate’s religion:
What’s wrong with voting for a fellow Christian?
What in your Christianity would stop you from voting for someone who was of a different religion if there was a non-Christian in the race?
On Qualified Black Candidates
As to your question on qualified Black candidates that could run for President and VP, the issue is not qualification. There are qualified people of every type: race, sex, gender, ideology, religion, sexual orientation, age, etc. The issue is actually one of prejudice and access.Read the rest of this entry »
Republicans don’t like Community Organizers. Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin ridiculed them specifically in their speeches last Wednesday at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN. This modern crop of Republicans has demonstrated how much they hate grassroots organizing in many ways with their hatred or unionization, their damnation of dissenters inside and outside of the government, and their willingness to ignore the rights, thoughts, and actions of the people of foreign nations that they decide to invadedestroyoccupy “help”.
While these positions on their own are outrageous and not in line with the ideals of the America that Republicans claim to love so much, it is consistent with another thread of modern-day Republican rhetoric and practice: racism.
For every generation leading up to [and including] the current one, the only foray for Black people to better their lives collectively has been through community organizing. When I say community organizing, I don’t just mean the highly visible ones like Malcolm & Martin, I mean the invisible ones that most of us will never hear or speak of that sacrifice their time, treasure, and talents so that people’s day-to-day lives are better and that their voices are heard. This is the path that nearly all Black politicians have taken to attain the capital needed to even run for office, let alone win. For one to minimize the work of organizers is to minimize the thoughts, actions, and efforts of all minorities and underrepresented groups who wish to uplift themselves individually and as a whole.
I’m finally at a place where I can write a full on post about what I’ve seen thus far at the Convention. It’s been interesting. In order to stay up to the minute on what I’m seeing, follow The SuperSpade on Twitter at http://twitter.com/superspade, where I’ll be sending updates from my phone on various events.
My shuttle ride in from the airport was 2.5 hours long. I shared that shuttle with an Obama volunteer, 2 Hillary Clinton delegates from Virginia, and a woman from Real Democrats in DC. What I found in them all were women that were ostensibly passionate about democratic and the Democratic Party, but who underneath were actually angry and disappointed in their party’s treatment of Hillary Clinton and how the party selects its nominee.
Some of the arguments made sense, but others had a strange hint of ‘my discrimination is better than yours’, even if it wasn’t intentional. For example, the Hillary folks never liked the caucus process, and I never really understood why. Now I do. They felt like caucuses gave some voters the chance to intimidate other voters in certain districts. Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be confused: that is code for Black voters scared away white voters in Black districts. It’s just like calling Barack Obama arrogant: the “pc” way of saying that he is out of place.
They did have a different take on why her time as First Lady should count as experience: the analogy was a family-owned business. In many cases, the husband’s name is on everything (loans, bills, etc.) and the wife may not even be on the official payroll. Nevertheless, she contributes to the business operations (management of paperwork, employees, travel planning, etc.) and also is effectively a consultant on business strategy and decisions (e.g. Should we open another store across town? Should I hire an intern? etc.). This I think has merit, since I KNOW that I consult significant other when making business decisions. The nuance of this though was probably lost in the election mayhem.
Something has to be done to bring these women to the table. When I asked the woman from Real Democrats who she wanted held accountable, her answers were:
The Democratic National Committee for ignoring their complaints on caucus practices
The Obama Campaign for doing that and taking these upset voters for granted
None of these women had plans to vote for John McCain. They said that most of these women in their movement were hardcore Democrats that wouldn’t cross over; they’d rather stay home than do that. The problem is, crossing over and staying home have the same effect. I pushed her on this point and here response was “no stance, no respect.” Truer words were never spoken, even if I don’t like this particular context.
The really scary part: Hillary doesn’t control them
The press and the Obama campaign keeps saying that Hillary Clinton needs to “get her supporters in line.” These women were very clear when they said to me that there was nothing that Hillary Clinton could do or say to change their position. Nothing. What that means is that this thing has legs all its own, and their going to keep kicking and screaming.
I asked Cliff to talk with me about John McCain’s record on issues of relevance to Black voters. With all of the talk in the news over the past couple of days about race in this election, his answers are interesting to say the least.
The Interview
The SuperSpade: In your view, what’s been the most instructive example of John McCain’s ideology to civil rights?
Cliff Schecter: First Garlin, thanks so much for providing these questions. And now onto business.
When it comes to Civil Rights, it’s an easy one. While he has hired a white supremacist to work on his campaign, employed the man who created the racist ads against Harold Ford Jr. in 2006 and voted against MLK day, the one that sticks out is the Confederate Flag. And here is why: McCain has even admitted himself that he threw African Americans under the bus for political reasons in South Carolina in 2000. McCain blatantly changed his position on the Confederate Flag when he thought it would help get him votes–to appear more racist.
In January 2000, McCain said that “The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It’s a symbol of racism and slavery.” Yet, three days later, after talking to consultants and deciding that winning was more important than civil rights, he changed his tune to “personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage.” When the campaign was over, he admitted that if he had “answered honestly” he feared that he “could not win the South Carolina primary.” So winning is what mattered. Not as important an issue in this country as the ongoing inequality and racism that African Americans are forced to endure.
Artists are important to movements.Their creativity gives movements vibrancy. Their notoriety gives movements visibility. Their passion makes movements inspiring.
The myth of the post-racial society is becoming more and more pervasive. The problem is that it is itself based on a conservative, racist mode of thinking about race in America that equates progress with individuals. Using this as a measuring stick, makes it possible for the Fox News’ of the world to attack individuals and Black folks collectively.
If instead we saw that progress can only be meaningfully defined as collective improvement, we would focus on solving the root causes that lead to individuals making the choices that look stereotypical. Who knows, maybe CNN will go at it like that? I doubt it.
This is important because how candidates and Presidents deal with the media is indicative of how they will deal with the people at large. By Obama rejecting Fox News, he is rejecting their practices as an organization,which is a win for tolerance and open-mindedness. I fervently applaud such actions, and you should too.
On Obama’s Trip
I haven’t said anything about Barack Obama’s current trip to Europe and the Middle East for a few reasons:
Everyone else is talking about it, so there’s not a lot of new news to share
It is reactive action. Obama has been very good about taking ownership of issues, national defense in particular, away from the Republicans. For a generation, it has been true that if the debate was about national security, then Republicans & conservatives automatically won. Obama has done quite a bit to change that, but this trip was a step backward because the action was based on the acceptance of John McCain’s completely idiotic premise for critiquing Obama’s war policy. The premise is that Obama is “naive” and that he “doesn’t really know what’s going on”, both of which are wrong. The critique was that he needed to “see things for himself”. By taking the trip, he accepted these. Instead, I would have liked for him to define a different narrative that shows how strong he is and has been in terms of the correctness of his judgement, one that exudes pride in America taking the position as the worlds wisest diplomat with Obama as President. I digress…
I want Progressives and Democrats to stop accepting Republican/Conservative frames of issues. This is the reason that we are always on the defensive. It’s time to go on offense.
The SuperSpade is partnering with Color of Change, Brave New Films, MoveOn.org, and now rapper Nas to outline just how racist Fox News is and how this racism has been used to stir up fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Barack Obama.
We encourage everyone to sign this petition that Color of Change created to show your support for shining light on the many, many, many examples of racism at Fox. Over 620,000 people have signed on already.
The petition itself will be delivered to Fox News HQ by Color of Change, Nas, and other supporters on Wednesday, 23 July 2008. Make sure you sign it to be a part of this action!
Also, listen to this Nas song from his latest album that talks specifically about Fox News.
I am happy to kick off Black on Black Thought. This week, James wrote about CNN’s Black in America special (that will highlight life in Black America in all its complexity) and considers whether or not this series will over saturate America with “race talk” and its possible impact on the 2008 election. James basic conclusion is that we are reaching a saturation point in our “race-talk.” I think we are far from the point of saturation.
Last week I recorded an interview for the Day to Day show on NPR. I was asked a series of questions relating Barack & Michelle Obama’s “terrorist fist bump,” as well as the election as a whole and whether or not there was an understanding of the Black experience in white America.
That interview is set to air on Thursday, 25 June 2008.Check your local listings to find out when it’s on in your area so you can hear it live. For those that can’t here it or those who are in places where there’s no NPR, I’ll put a link on this site as soon as I have one.
What’s up fam, I will be out of town for work this week but I wanted to drop some lines before I leave. I have been thinking about Obama and the ramifications of his being elected President. An old adage in the Black community is that “The army ain’t no place for a Black man.” Of course, scores of Black folks and people from all types of backgrounds have served with distinction in America’s armed forces. And just so you know, if Obama is elected President, he will be presiding over wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Commander-in-Chief. It is hard enough for any President to end a war and I fear that his not serving will place tremendous pressure on Obama to show how much he bleeds red, white, and blue. Obama’s perceived need to show how much he loves America can and will be spun into continuing (and perhaps emboldening) the military-industrial complex.
Obama’s stance on the military includes the following excerpt from his website,
Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
I have no doubt that on the strength of Obama’s oratory and conviction, thousands of young people will be inspired to serve in the armed forces but what will happen when Obama calls on you or your loved ones to serve? Can you envision there being more trust of the armed forces with Obama at the helm? I think that it is possible but not likely. Many liberals decry war and its ravaging impacts but will war appear to be more noble knowing that you are serving under President Obama?
Yes, The SuperSpade is brand new again. I’ll write about that specifically later, but I am elated that the first post on this new website is about a genuine Black History, American History moment.
[After giving his wife dap,] Barack Obama stepped to the podium and declared himself the undisputed [by everyone except Hillary Clinton] Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. In the same moment, he made broad statements about who he is, what he wants, and what he believes, and coupled those with thanks to Hillary Clinton and harsh words for hs Republican opponent, John McCain. I actually don’t think it was his best speech of the campaign thus far. But nevertheless, on the biggest night of his political life, he did not disappoint.
1) First off, why is there not more coverage of the relief efforts of people impacted by the earthquakes in China and Myanmar? In case you hadn’t read, nearly 70,000 people died in this earthquake and millions more are now homeless. To help put it in context, imagine instantly losing 7 people in your life without being able to say goodbye and multiply that grief by 100,000. I guess coverage of the earthquake is worth far less than what the DNC RBC planned to do with the Michigan and Florida delegates. Read the rest of this entry »
I am so mad these primaries are happening the week of the Michigan Policy Summit happening May 10th at the Lansing Center. Chris Matthews just broke it down as to how Hillary lost the Democratic nomination.
He said that ‘change’ worked in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles because people were upset about the war in Iraq. Matthews said that the only way to be a real change candidate was to be opposed to the war and if Clinton opposed the war, Obama would not be able to lay claim to being the change candidate. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I don’t usually write on stuff like this, but I was struck last night and got to thinking about whether talent is enough, or whether the right person always wins. And in the event that the wrong person is winning, is there a way to correct that?
I saw two of the most talented individuals participating in the vanguard of American cultural expression that is American Idol get sent to the elimination round yesterday, with one of them having to be sent home. If that show had an electoral college (the judges?), that probably would not have happened.
R. L’Heureux Lewis, better know to SuperSpade readers as Dumi, is one of my intellectual heroes. Since I met him at the University of Michigan, he has always challenged me to look more deeply into issues and events to understand how to more effectively respond.
Last week, he was on the Bill O’Reilly’s The O’Reilly Factor discussing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his recent statements. I can summarize it like this: Bill O’Reilly doesn’t really understand anything he said.
This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.
Barack Obama gave a speech on race this morning in Philadelphia that many consider to be his most direct campaign speech dealing with the “issue.” Given the pretext of the speech, the talk seems to be one that was forced into necessity more by the media, Obama’s supporters, and detractors than by Obama’s desired to address race Blackness in this campaign and in this country head-on. I have always felt that had this been something that Obama wanted to do out of his own volition, he would have done so long ago, thus pre-empting the ignorant racial undertones of attacks made against him, and laying a foundation for healing in this nation that started with race and class, and grew to overcome the entire of spectrum of challenges this nation and this world face.
Nevertheless, the time has come for this conversation between Barack Obama and the Democratic American electorate. In this speech Barack Obama succeeded in opening the door to a legitimate, meaningful, and potentially productive dialogue of understanding, empathy, and unity among people from diverse backgrounds and experiences. By Barack Obama actually publicly acknowledging that not only is there a race issue, but one that must be dealt with, he is responsibly using his position and status and recognition to create an atmosphere of abundant possibility and environment of empirical hope that builds much needed problem-solving momentum in all areas that change must occur.
During this election cycle, I’ve seen the candidates I’ve supported strongly fall by the wayside for various reasons. I contributed money to both the Kucinich and Edwards campaigns, as I saw those candidates as the two that most closely exemplified my brand of Progressive, populist politics. I have done work on behalf of the Obama campaign, building websites to organize supporters for him in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa out of respect and admiration for Obama and his supporters, many of whom are friends of mine. This, however, is the first bit of hope I’ve gleaned from Obama. My challenge to him and others who support him to take ownership how race is framed and use this opportunity as a stepping stone to reconciliation, to actual, effective, visibile change in the hearts, minds, lives of everyday people, and to a brighter future for all to enjoy.
Will Obama’s speech on “the larger issue of race” tomorrow be the speech I have been begging him to give for over a year?
I have wanted Obama to outwardly embrace his Blackness from jump. Not in a confrontational way, but in a confident way that lets everyone know that it is alright to be Black. At the basis of all of the race-based attacks on him is the idea that there is something wrong with being Black. Sadly, the Obama campaign’s approach to managing this part of his identity, while above-board and admirable, does little to reject this notion. Talking past is not addressing an issue.
Vote and share what you think Obama should say in his speech on race and the campaign tomorrow.
No I don’t think this should be the case. However, a recent development has occurred whereby a woman that posts regularly posts on dailykos has resigned for what she deemed as unfair bias against her preferred candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is an excerpt from her open letter to the blogosphere.Read the rest of this entry »
Last year, a big question around this event was whether or not Barack Obama was going to attend the event. He did not, but he was doing something that was much bigger: deciding to and formally announcing his run for the Presidency. Now, one year later, in the midst of a very competitive primary season, Obama faces the same question: will he go? Should he go?
Obama is not attending. Tavis Smiley is on record saying that he’s cool with that. Roland Martin at Essence Magazine thinks this was the right decision. His primary argument is that Obama must “look forward, not in the past” and that Obama “can’t be defined as the Black candidate.” He thinks that Obama should send his wife Michelle, and continue campaigning in Texas and Idaho.
I think that’s a terrible move and completely wrong, and here’s why.
Barack and Michelle Obama should both attend the Black State of the Union event. Any criticism of their attendance of this day, arguably the most important discussion of the state of this country’s Black affairs, would not only by unfounded and irresponsible, but easily refutable.
A noted civil rights leader weighed in the Democratic race by calling on the Democratic National Committee to seat delegates from Florida Michigan.
The AP reports that “In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed “great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted.” Refusing to seat the states’ delegations could remind voters of the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries,” he said.”Read the rest of this entry »
According to The Stranger, as well as a caller into the Thom Hartmann radio program (great show), robocalls are going out to some in Washington telling them that the caucus in on Sunday, not Saturday (the actual date).
The calls apparently came from Meyer Associates Teleservices, a St. Cloud, MN-based direct marketing company. This company has done extensive work for the Obama campaign in Illinois, New Hampshire, and other states.
This is sad, and I really, really want this to be untrue, but the evidence is not looking that way at this point. I want honest, ethical politics, not this stuff.
Conventional wisdom and polls strongly suggest that Democrats are virtually guaranteed victory in November 2008. And as we come down from Super Tuesday, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will have to continue to compete for delegates maybe all the way to the Democratic convention. However, if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I am all but certain that John McCain will win the general election for a number of reasons. 1) There are throngs of Democrats and progressives that will never vote for any candidate that voted for the war. 2) I have had extensive conversations with Obama and Edwards supporters that will never vote for Hillary. 3) McCain would do a better job winning over Independents even though he may not have full throttle support from social conservatives. No matter the outcome, there will be widespread motivation to either vote against Clinton by voting for McCain or sitting at home.
If Clinton wins the nomination Obama will be under tremendous pressure to open up his rolodex of donors and supporters to stomp for Clinton. This will put Obama in a difficult situation because Clinton would not pick him as her running mate and the bulk of his supporters will want to see him run again.
What’s up fam, we have a special guest contributor today in the form of Clarence Wardell, a colleague from my days at U of Michigan who is a political activist when he is not working on his Ph.D. in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Enjoy!
There is a scene in the movie “Something New” where Sanaa Lathan’s character and Blair Underwood’s character have an exchange over their exasperation with having to constantly deal with the “black tax” in their respective careers. The “black tax” is the notion that a Black person has to work twice as hard as a White person to gain the same level of recognition and compensation within the work environment. Whether or not it continues to exist in some circles is debatable, but whether or not such a figurative tax ever existed is undeniable. Given such a standard once existed it is hard to completely erase it from the memory of a people, even when faced with stark evidence that it no longer does. Read the rest of this entry »
Now let’s assume Obama wins the nomination and shoot, goes on to be the next President. What do you think would happen to the civil rights–donor–industrial complex?I am not sure but I think along the way, it will be increasingly difficult for Black “leaders” that came out early for other candidates to 1) go negative against Obama like Andrew Young, who claimed that Bill is blacker than Obama and 2) making the transition to supporting Obama if and when he wins the nomination. My hope is that Obama’s candidacy will bring young folks out the shadows and fill in leadership vacuums by doing real work. Read the rest of this entry »
I am excited that Obama won although to be honest, I never expected him to lose. Regardless, this is a historic time and I am happy to be a part of the process. (full disclosure: I have donated money to the Obama campaign) I think the real story from Iowa is the coveted No. 2 spot and I think this bodes well for Edwards and my prediction is that Clinton comes out of Iowa but Obama pulls out of South Carolina because hopefully the Black folks in SC will feel safer voting for Obama.
Regardless of who gets the nomination, real change starts with you.
Kucinich asks IA supporters to caucus for Obama
by kos
Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:57:21 PM PST
in 2004, Kucinich instructed his caucus supporters to cast their lot with Edwards, playing a role in killing Howard Dean’s presidential ambitions. This year, he’s abandoning Edwards for Obama.
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”
Funny that Kucinich endorsed the war-supporting conservative Edwards in 2004, but has now ditched the far more progressive 2008 edition. I’ll never understand that guy.
Now in 2004, Kucinich clocked in at 4 percent in the entrance poll, while he’s polling around 1 percent this time around. Then again, he polled at around 2 percent last time and doubled that in actual results. So if history repeats itself, that’s two percentage points at stake. Not exactly decisive, but definitely helpful. This thing is so tight, that every percentage point will matter.
More important will be the five percent Biden seems to be getting, and the seven percent Richardson is polling.
I have a feeling that Biden’s supporters are more the Hillary type, so maybe Richardson will get to play kingmaker.
Barack Obama will be giving a talk at Googleplex in Mountain View, CA today, in which he will lay out a comprehensive, 5-point technology policy:
Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets.
Create a transparent and connected democracy.
Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure.
Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving public safety.
The most important piece of this is the second point of creating a “transparent and connected democracy.” Making government data and information available in standard, accessible formats is a brain-dead simple solution to the problem of not knowing how to access government information. The appointment of a US CTO is a good strategy because it would mandate someone with technical knowledge and experience actually make technology decisions [instead of people like Ted Stevens].
My hope is that other candidates will lay out thoughtful, progressive approaches to technology policy so that we can use this as another differentiator.
Don't vote for Clinton because she's a woman or Obama because he's Black; vote because you agree with them. Vote on thingsthatshould matter, not things that shouldn't.
Minority owned and operated newspapers and radio stations play a critical role in the African American and Latino communities and bring minority issues to the forefront of our national discussion.
I am glad to see Obama be explicit here about the impact of media consolidation on minority communities. It is clear that the interests of minorities are not a particularly high priority in this administration, I hope that everyone's interests matter to the next President.
In recent months, our nation's attention has been focused on the racial strife in Jena, Louisiana, and the disparate treatment of six African American youths. As Attorney General, will you commit the investigative resources of the Civil Rights Division to ensuring the fair treatment and execution of the law in cases such as the Jena 6, as well as the recent acquittal by an all-white jury of eight prison guards accused of killing a young black male at a juvenile detention center in Florida?
I am happy that Obama is showing some character here. It is called the Department of Justice, so he is calling for Justice to be served to everyone everywhere. I want to see more, concrete Civil Rights-related statements like this from Obama.
Let me tell you why this not only insufficient, but it is another example of [democratic] politicians’ lack of backbone on the issues that matter in America.
Going forward, we have to fix our criminal justice system. Whether it’s Jena 6 or Genarlow Wilson, it’s long past time for us to admit that we have more work to do to ensure that our criminal justice system is fair. We must ensure that both victims and defendants can receive equal justice under the law, regardless of race, wealth, or other circumstances.
I don’t know about you, but Obama always seems to hold back in presidential debates. Thankfully, Obama showed us a glimpse of heart during the AFL-CIO debate. Enjoy the video.
Shirley Chisholm is a hero to many because she was the first Black woman to run for president. This was a tremendous act for women and Black people in this country.
In what I think is her most interesting quote, she said the following:
“I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being black,” she told The Associated Press in December 1982, shortly before she left Washington to teach at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts. “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black. Men are men.
I’m interested what people think here. Is society more sexist than racist, as Chisholm suggests?
With a white woman (Hillary Clinton) and and a Black man (Barack Obama) both having a great chance at being the next president, this election season could potentially bring such a question to the forefront, for better of for worse.
Senator Obama raised about $5 millionmore than Senator Hilary Clinton this quarter from 258,000 donors. This is a big deal because what this shows is that even if Obama doesn’t win the nomination (though I hope he does) he has all but assured his viability as VP candidate regardless of who wins the nomination. The man is a force to be reckoned with, period.
“At least $31 million of Obama’s total is for party primaries,” whereas Clinton has not reported her primary/general election breakout, which effectively means that Obama has more money for the primaries. Obama, if any of your staff are reading this, don’t get comfortable and know this is a marathon, not a race. I should note I threw up the fist when I read this article.
My colleagues at the Northwest Progressive Institute pointed to a disturbing story about a document put out by the Obama camp. It was basically a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton’s India supporters. I would never have expected this from Obama. Read the rest of this entry »
Many people have never heard of Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic Congressman from Ohio. Kucinich is running for President in 2008, and is considered to be one of the most progressive candidates on the Democratic side. In my view is right on on most of today’s issues: Iraq, the media, health care, and others. I think he did very well in the debate this week. All in all, a guy I’d vote for.
Below is an open letter to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, created by Color of Change, which The SuperSpade has signed officially (along with otherBlackbloggers). The letter is encouraging the three of them to stand their ground and not participate in the CBCI debates. If you are interested in signing it too, let us know so we can add you to the list.
It takes a lot for most politicians to be explicit about something. Anything. These two are definitely no exception. The strange similarities between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton’s stances on Iraq continue, but they took a turn for the better yesterday. Instead of dancing around the idea of having a firm date for US troop withdrawal like they did in the past, both of them voted yesterday to set a 31 March 2008 for US troops to be out of Iraq. While it is sad that these two candidates are some of the last to have some Iraq sense knocked into them, this is actually a good sign for anti-occupation efforts.
Apparently, there has been a lot of controversy over Senator Barack Obama’s statements regarding affirmative action. The statements were part of a larger interview Senator Obama had with George Stephanopoulos on his show, This Week. I have an opinion on what he said but I will let you read the transcript of the interview first.Read the rest of this entry »
I was simultaneously excited and dismayed when I learned that Senator Obama is receiving protection from the Secret Service. I was excited because I was reminded of the first season of the hit show 24, where the character, Senator David Palmer was on the campaign trail to become the first Black president. (Yes, he ended up winning)
On a more serious note though, I was dismayed because of the symbolic irony. Senator Obama raised $25 million dollars and boom, an elite Secret Service detail. But when I think about Black men in America, we are not safe from the government in the form of Driving While Black, higher insurance rates, inadequate health care, under funded schools, poor infrastructure, and in some cases, Breathing While Black.
I am thankful for the extra protection provided to Senator Obama and his family. I pray for his safety in his comings and his goings. Nevertheless, what does it take for a Black man in America to get basic protection from the government? Is the irony just lost on me?
Again, why is no one from the CBC not saying anything? Do they even want to sponsor a debate? Their silence is driving me crazy.
Thanks again to Color of Change and all the other online communities that worked together to put pressure on the candidates to back down from participating in this debate.
It seems that Sen. Clinton’s camp wants Sen. Obama to keep his day of glory minimized to one day. When Sen. Clinton released her first quarter fundraising numbers, she originally did not reveal the breakdown between primary and general election funds. But given the ground breaking news of Sen. Obama’s announcing that he only raised $1 million dollars less than Sen. Clinton, her hand was forced.
SUre enough, it appears that Sen. Obama’s funds raised for the primaries surpassed those of Sen. Obama. Here’s an excerpt from an ABC article,
ABC News has learned that the $23.5 million Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised for his presidential campaign for use in the primaries is more than that raised by the Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Of the $26 million Clinton has raised in the first quarter of 2007 for her presidential campaign, approximately $20 million is to be used in the primaries and caucuses, sources told ABC News.
So Rev. Jesse Jackson has endorsed Senator Obama for President. Given the close friendship between Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and the Senator along with hometown loyalty, it is smart politics for Rev. Jesse to endorse Senator Obama. It might take a bit longer for Sharpton to come around and that is fine. And while Rev. Jackson has lost some of his former luster, he is a symbol of Black American leadership and in politics, symbolism matters.
And we loved him cause, in him we, saw some of us
He walked like ussss, talked like ussss – Jay Z
From the song, Meet the Parents
I think the excerpt above epitomizes the appeal of one, Senator and Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. It simultaneously, explains the vigor by which individuals will defend and support Senator Obama whenever he is attacked by mainstream media or leading political figures. So are people too sensitive when it comes to Obama that they can’t at the same time hold him accountable?
In some of my conversations with other Black folk, I have often heard that we must take care to be just as objective in our analysis of Obama as we are towards other candidates. And I agree with this logic up to a point. I think that it is unwise to bottle the excitement that the Obama campaign is generating. The only way that the Democrats will take the White House is if new voters are mobilized, young people, and so-called independents and right of center Republicans switch sides. But even if Obama does not win the nomination, who else do you think is capable of mobilizing these crucial groups?
Having said that, I know it seems like many people have drank the Obama Kool-Aid without knowing the flavor as it were. But that is OK. And here’s why. If we, (as activists who try to achieve positive change with as many people as possible) are really honest, we don’ think there are enough “conscious” folks who are willing to do the grassroots work that will inspire real change. In my opinion, we should think about Obama’s campaign as a way to pull people into the movement that would otherwise not be engaged.
So my fear is that in our quest to make sure that we hold Obama accountable, we miss out on tapping the groundswell of excitement that can be used for things that have nothing to do with politics. In so many ways, Presidential elections have very little to do with the actual candidate. While I agree that we should Obama accountable, we should first ask if we are holding each other accountable. When that happens, we can achieve greatness regardless of who holds the White House.
For those that missed it, you can listen the interview here. A big Thank You from The SuperSpade to Ben & Cenk of The Young Turks and and Air America Radio.
If you watch the above video, you will find it hard not to get sick of the hateful words used towards Black people numerous times on this network. My question is, why the CBCI thought this was a good idea in the first place? I am assuming the people who made the decision actually have watched television before.
Maybe the CBCI was desparate for viewers? I don’t think that any of the cable news networks (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) would turn down airtime with Presidential candidates, so that can’t be the excuse.
Maybe the CBCI felt that partnering with Fox News gives them the opportunity to address some of these statements that have been made on the air? This can be done without partnering with them so that can’t be the excuse either.
What’s really messed up about things like this video is that non-white, non-male political hopefuls have to deal with ignorance like this all day every day for the entirety of their public political lives. A white male candidate normally has to only deal with people challenging his political views and ideology, while occasionally dealing with questions concerning is spirituality or sexual orientation. Compared to questions about your gender, race, intelligence, etc., these questions are easy.
Lastly, some commenters on the story at the top think that not partnering with Fox News is equivalent to censoring? That is beyond ridiculous. Censoring would be saying that Fox News could not spew hatred. Refusing to partner, which is what is being requested here, is saying “you can say what you want, we just won’t work with you.”
I like Al Sharpton, and I agree with him on many issues. While I think that Sharpton is being a bit extreme and is jealous of the attention that Obama is receiving, I do think he has a point. He raises an interesting question with regards to Black people and how we think about politics, especially when Black people are on the ballot with non-Black people:
Why shouldn’t the black community ask questions?
A lot of times when a candidate that is Black is a candidate, I find myself often wanting to give that person the benefit of the doubt on a lot of issues. I don’t think that I’m alone.
I think that it is not only irresponsible for me to vote for the Black candidate solely because they are Black, but I also think that it is disrespectful to the candidate. I see it as basically saying to that person, “I will let you use being Black as an excuse for me to not give your positions any sort of thought.”
Wouldn’t we be mad if someone outright said that? Sadly, if you don’t give thought to all of the reasons you vote for a person, that is exactly what you’re saying. If we don’t respect our people’s positions enough to give thought to them, who will?
This got me thinking: What if someone called Barack Obama a n–ger? Would more people be upset over the “N-word” more than the “F-word?” Why would the reactions be different?
Sadly, I think the reaction would be larger over the n–ger (think Kramer reaction times 1000).
I say sadly because it always amazes me how much selective bigotry exists among people. Why is it alright to disrespect one group, but not alright to disrespect another? Why is it alright for me say something and alright for me to get mad about you saying it? Why do people who battle against discrimination discriminate?
For example, why were so many Black people actually happy to see Middle Eastern people discriminated against and racially profiled after 9/11? If anything, we should have been the most compassionate to them.
I’m not preaching; I used to have the same problem, and I’m dealing with that. We all need to deal with this within ourselves.
Here is my real-time analysis of G. W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. This is a shortcut for anyone that did not watch the speech on TV or listen to it.
This actually started well. Hearing this reminds me of how historic it is for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to be the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman ever in the United States Congress. I wonder if Mr. Bush was sincere in his words to her during his opening remarks.
Decisions are hard, and courage is needed…The will to face difficult challenges…Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities…
These guarded statements are said to try and disarm his opposition within the Democratically-controlled Congress. What these statements basically mean is, “I will give lip service to working together, but expect nothing different out of me and my administration.”
3 Economic Reforms that deserve to be priorities…Balance the Federal Budget…We can do so without raising taxes…What we need is spending discipline in Washington…Earmarks…Entitlements…Commitments of Conscience…Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security…
The stuff on “earmarks” is a joke because those will not go away any time soon since Republicans and Democrats use them all the time.
Conservatives use the term “entitlements” to deceive people. They need to do this so that they can make you feel bad about the government doing things for you. They play up this farce so that people feel bad taking things from the government that they select & elect. Funny how there was no mention of corporate entitlements in the form of war profiteering or the Bankruptcy Bill a.k.a. the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act (which a certain person voted for, and that really bothers me).
The future of opportunity requires that all of our citizens have affordable and available health care…For all other Americans, private health insurance provides the best option…Standard Health Insurance Tax Deduction…Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care available to all Americans
I don’t even know why this man fronts like he wants all Americans to have health insurance. If so, he would at least put a dent in the 40+ million people who don’t. He and his friends still think it is a bad idea to realize Universal Health Care through what’s called a Single-payer system. Basically, single-payer means that only one party negotiates for the price of health insurance and services: the government. Every citizen would then have their health costs covered through what they pay in taxes. This would result in higher taxes for the citizens, but those increased costs probably would not add up to the amount that people overpay for health services every day, month, and year. The idea of trying to get everyone to go private is as ridiculous as the privatize social security plan that he had a while back (and still has). This is also consistent with the way that the “war” in Iraq has been privatized. These pro-business, anti-citizen types always think private is the answer so that they can take money away from public institutions and services.
Extending hope and opportunity in this country requires an immigration policy that is worthy of America
I won’t say much on this. I think that Bush’s guest worker idea sounds a whole lot like new school indentured servitude. For those that don’t know, this was the precursor to slavery in this country. I do not think that the parallel is coincidental.
Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years…
How??? His mandatory fuel standard statement was weak at best, especially in the midst of his administration and its energy policy.
Global climate change…
He can’t say global warming because that does not exist. So rather than being a flip-flopper (we know how much he hates those), he has decided to use a different term: global climate change. This is his backwards way of admitting that there is a problem. I guess a small first step is better than no step at all. Is the next step for him to watch this?
To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy…
This was the opening statement to his surprisingly long section on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy. There was too much B.S. here to sift through. Take a look at some of our analysis to get an idea of the truth. Suffice it to say that this strategy is questionable at best.
Darfur…Fight AIDS on the continent of Africa…Dikembe Mutumbo…
He really mentioned Darfur? That’s a surprise. Too bad he didn’t refer to it as a genocide. Again, I guess a small step is better than no step at all.
It is sad, but the “fighting AIDS in Africa” phrase is being rendered absolutely meaningless. It gets paid so much lip service that people forget that there are actually humans living on the continent of Africa who exist for reasons other than making someone feel good being a philanthropist.
There are a whole lot of people who have said thatthey are running for President in 2008. While d@mn near all of them would be better than the current occupant of said office, this “choice” leads me to wonder: what would the perfect president/presidential candidate look like? Before I weigh in on a specific candidate, I think that this is an important question to think about, and I would encourage all voters to do the same (we’re all voters, right?). I want to take a look at what makes an ideal candidate to me.
1. A Leader that is a Servant
2. A Thinker and a Doer
3. A person of Integrity
4. A Populist
First, Presidents must be leaders. Sure, that is obvious, if you have a simplistic definition of a leader as “the person ‘in charge.’” To me a leader is really a servant. They serve their constituents, the people that they are “in charge” of, the people who put them in that leadership position. They meet the needs of people and organizations. They solve problems. They put forth a concerted, honest effort to make things better. My ideal candidate would subscribe to the servant definition of leadership. They would not see leadership as a title, but as a responsibility. They would not see leadership as an opportunity to exert power, but as an opportunity to induce positive change. They would not see leadership as work, but as service.
(The question then is, who would this servant be serving? In the context of the President of the United States, this person should be serving the citizens of the US. The modern-day election process has made this…complicated. Elections cost money, and most of the time elected officials end up serving the people that pay them money during their campaigns, and them alone. This problem is only solved by taking the money out of politics and returning elections to the voters, but I digress.)
Secondly, Presidents must be both thinkers and doers. Effective Presidents cannot be one or the other, but must be both. The current holder of the office represents the antithesis of thoughtful action. For example, Herbert Hoover was a thinker and Richard Nixon was a doer. They were both failures as Presidents, Hoover due to his impractical yet unwaivering belief in the Efficiency Movement and its theories, Nixon due to his short-sighted and dishonest decision to do just about anything to stay get re-elected. An example of a thinker and a doer is Franklin Roosevelt, who [was by no means perfect but] rethought this country’s economic landscape and laid the foundation for what we now call the Middle Class. My ideal candidate would create through thoughtful action. They would understand the implications and nuances of any actions that they take, and determine how to deal with them before acting. They would be proactive, not reactive. They would consider and consult with all stakeholders in any action that they take.
(One could argue that this is not much of a test because even Nixon thought about what he was doing before he did it. The truth is, this can only apply to leaders that can be trusted, which is the next part of this ideal leader.)
Third, and most important, Presidents must have integrity. Not only do they need to be trusted by the people of this country, but they need to be trusted by everyone throughout the world. They need to be consistent but not bull-headed. They need to be fair but not weak. They need to be conscientious but not indecisive. The difference between someone who has true integrity and someone who is simply a loyalist is that everyone trusts the person with integrity. Those that agree and those that disagree with a person with integrity both know that they will be told the truth, and they also know that a lesser person would likely not be straight with them if they were not on the same side. Nowhere is this more true than in foreign policy, where American distrust is something that far too many nations have in common across the globe. I go back to consistency as part of the integrity of a leader because people have to be able to trust you to do the right thing no matter the situation’s degree of difficulty. My ideal candidate would be trustworthy in the eyes of all Americans and citizens of the planet.They would see the truth as a non-negotiable necessity and not a sliding scale. They would see full-disclosure and transparency as a tool of a functioning democracy and not an enemy to their plans. They would see honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable, as a sign of strength and not of weakness.
(No caveat to this one, other than the obvious one that says it is difficult to find a politician you can trust.)
These first three traits are indeed pretty broad, and I think pretty easy to agree on.
The fourth and final trait my ideal president[ial candidate] would embody is a belief in populism, which means that they believe that people, not entities, should run this nation. They believe that power and influence should be driven by people and what they want, not money and what it can buy. They listen to everyone and are willing to make decisions that will help those that need it most. They are not afraid to ask themselves or other people to sacrifice to benefit another human being. They are empathetic to people’s needs and able to articulate those needs and ways to address them. My ideal candidate empower people by making their voices matter, for real.
That’s my leader.What embodies your ideal candidate?
Senator Barack Obama announced his intentions to file presidential exploratory committee and said he would talk announce more details on February 10th. This means that for all intents and purposes, the Senator will be running. I am excited about this campaign because if win or lose, we may be able to realize a paradigm shift for thinking about race, class, and opportunity. I hope that the ensuing debates over his running will spark substantive debate over his proposed policies.
And a note to my Black people:
1) Please don’t decide you like or dislike the Senator because of his identity
2) This is a critical time that we really start to collectively stamp out the crab bucket mentality
3) White people liking Senator Obama does not mean that he is a sell out
4) Read his books, study his voting record, go to his website, and be conscious of what sources are informing your opinion of him
5) Senator Obama is not the leader or spokesperson for all Black people and be critical of people that paint him in this light
6) Pray for the Senator and his family
7) Senator Obama will make mistakes. He is human and therefore fallible. Don’t hold him to unrealistic expectations
Many thinking people of color have pondered the following circumstance: Being a minority, it is not often that you have members of your government who look like you. Usually, if/when one of your brethren is elected or appointed to public office, you feel a sense of pride. The question is, if that person does not have your best interest at heart, should you be proud of them?
The goal of this discussion is not to argue whether or not these individuals have the “best interests” of Black people in this country. I would like to examine the merits of the notion that by simply being in prominent positions, these people are doing a service to the Black community.
On the surface, I agree that there is some nominal value in a Black person being in a visible position. The argument here is that the image alone is defeating stereotypes and opening doors for other Black people in the future to ascend beyond those heights. It may broaden the perspective of a young Black girl to see a Black woman serve as our nations chief diplomat. It may be inspirational for a Black boy to see a Black man on the Supreme Court bench. Black children can catch a glimpse of their possible future when they see Black professionals. Without these images, maybe children would see such things as unattainable. They would think that their only choice in life was to go the Hustle & Flow route. Seeing such things can give a person a lot more to look forward to.
However, this view is problematic because it does not take into account what it takes to transform possibility into reality. It’s one thing to see a Black professional, and a whole different thing to consistently interact with a Black professional as a child. It’s one thing to see a Black judge, but it’s a whole different thing to understand and observe how that judges decisions improve and protect your life and rights. I contend that there is little value in Black figureheads. They are no more than paintings on the wall: nice to look at, making absolutely difference.
Think about it. Why is it that we get pissed off whenever people speak of quotas? Two primary reasons. First, people see that the motivation for hiring/awarding contracts to/whatever-ing the “beneficiaries” of said quota is selfish and dishonest. Secondly, they realize that that selfish, dishonest motivation makes the act of hiring/awarding contracts to/whatever-ing MEANINGLESS!!!! That means that motivation and intentions must matter.
With that said, that is why it is important to be mindful of not only the motivations of the persons who are in these positions, but of the people who put them there as well. If the person in such a position has no motivation to at least care about or take into consideration the interests of his/her brethren, they might as well not be there claiming to be “trailblazing pioneers for their people.” Likewise, if the appointers of said position are doing so in sinister plots to divert attention from other actions and policies, I’d really rather they didn’t.
I’ll close by giving some examples. Please comment on the thoughts above and add to the list below.
At the start of the show, Charlie Rose showed a clip of Gates asking Whoopi Goldberg why finding out her family background was so important. Whoopi replied, “Because we are the only people who have had their history stolen.” I was floored. And not because I didn’t agree with Whoopi but for all the Black history I have read in trying to connect and understand my people, I still feel that emptiness like someone stole something from me.
Therefore, I felt like I was learning about my own family’s history when I saw Roots and as Gates presented his findings to each participant. It was so interesting to see how giddy and anxious each person was to learn about their own history. And Gates made an interesting point by saying that everyone who participated was more interested in their genealogy rather than the genetics. That is to say the participants were not so interested in what percentage of their blood was White, Indian, etc., but rather they were more interested in the stories surrounding their family histories. Whether the stories were good or bad, you could almost sense the peace that befell each participant as if their life journey was now complete.
Another interesting point that Gates touched on was the implications of Blacks not knowing their family history. I think one obvious implication is the disconnect that exists between Africans and African-Americans. The other is the sense of destiny. I am always enamored when I hear people say, “I come from a long line of….”, or “My great great Grandpa used to…”. And after reading Barack Obama’s autobiography, I thought the best part of the book was when he went to Kenya to connect with his relatives on his father’s side. Like Obama, I think everyone, Blacks in particular, has a burning question that sits deep in their soul. Who am I? And life is sprinkled with clues to help answer that question. This is why I am inclined to think that if most Blacks knew for a fact which African country they were from, you would see more of an interest in Black people learning their history and being proud of their background.
I could be wrong but when you look at Black Caribbeans, the majority of the ones I know represent their country with a zeal that is electric. Now listen or watch any music video and you will see Black Americans representing their city or their block with the same amount of excitement as Black Caribbeans show for their country. Now just imagine if you heard rappers (who knew their ancestry) talk with pride about Mali, Angola, or Ethiopa? I think that would be very empowering because I am tempted to believe that it would be difficult to talk abut an African country while at the same time talking about drugs or killing. And again, I may be wrong.
But in any event, I suggest trying to trace your genealogy by at least asking questions of your older relatives. Because most of us probably can’t afford to get DNA analysis done of our families but at least through Henry Louis Gates, we can get a glimpse of what it may mean to find out our ancestry.
And just in case you were wondering, Gates asked the geneticist if he had any Indian in his bloodline, the geneticist said, “No, not one drop.”
African American Lives is showing on February 1st and 6th at 8pm, check your local listings.
The Washington Post ran a story Sunday about the changing DoJ Civil Rights Division. In summary, the article is informing us that over the last year, the Civil Rights Division has been losing veteran lawyers and handling less “Civil Rights” cases. That means that instead of working on Equal Opportunity Employment breeches, they have been spending time on immigration matters. Now, I’m not against immigration, but I do believe that if the division is spending 40% less of its time handling the types of cases it was created to be involved in, then there are some serious issues present.
Nevertheless, this has been the case over the past 5 years. Since I believe wholeheartedly in coincidences, I’m going to refer to it as a coincidence that the change in focus of the division as well as its personnel bleeding have nothing to do with the current administrations attitudes towards Civil Rights. Right. The two are unrelated.
Let’s pretend, however unjustifiably, for a few seconds that it is not a coincidence. Then, maybe, I would not be suprised to see that the Civil Rights Division would need to shift focus away from issues such as intimidation of minority voters and disenfranchisement of low-income Americans. Had the Civil Rights Division served its historical purpose, there may have been real investigation at the federal level into the attrocity that became Election Day 2000. I wonder how this administration feels about Sen. Obama’s new voter intimidation legislation? We can’t possibly waste precious resources in the Civil Rights Division prosecuting individuals based on that; there are too many immigrants to harass.
I digress. Instead, lets go down a more pratical road. The SuperSpade is about practicality. How does this information point to personal action(s) that can be taken? This, to me, adds to the infinite list of reasons why voting is important. Brothers and Sisters, all of us who have had illegitimate run-ins with law enforcement, or know someone who has, feels as though their Civil Rights have been violated. Students wanting to attend non-HBCUs that were refused admissions due to factors outside of their control feel as though their Civil Rights have been violated. Individuals who never recieved call-backs, job interviews, or job offers due to the nature, spelling, or pronunciation of their names feel as though their Civil Rights have been violated. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Civil Rights Division on 9 December 1957. This office was established to address issues discussed earlier in this paragraph. Granted, as times change, the definitions of Civil Rights expand, but I am not a fan of the core focus being forgotten. We need our people to be proactive and work towards electing to our representative democratic government individuals that represent our views. Anyone who has encountered the above and didn’t like it has concrete evidence as to why they need real representation.
The age old problem, however, is the “my candidate lost, so what’s the point now” phenomena. Let me offer a suggestion through a simple analogy. Anyone who cooks (especially as badly as I do) knows that it’s hit-or-miss. When what I attempt to prepare does not come out as intended, I am presented with two options: throw it away, or work with it. Lets examine both options:
1. Throw it away
I can discard my food and therefore invalidate the time it took to prepare it, the resources it took to gather the ingredients, etc. This does, however, afford me the opportunity to start over again from scratch. However, I will again need to set aside the needed time and ingredients to prepare the meal a second time; a situation that may or may not be possible now. Not to mention, this effectively makes the meal twice as expensive.
2. Work with it
It doesn’t taste good. Why not? Is it bland? Add some salt. Is it cold? Put it in the microwave. If you were not able to get what you wanted on the front end, you can work with it on the back end until you have something edible.
The same logic applies to voting, or any other form of positive action. If your candidate loses, you have the same options: you can throw your hands up in the air and give up. This way, you’ll end up pissed off because you got racially profiled, again, and have no real legal representation, agian. Or you can work on improving your current situation despite them, while at the same time building up a stronger opponent to the now incumbent to challenge them in the future (which could turn out to be you). Black folks are better than any people on the planet at being triumphant in the face 0f adversity. Why give up because the person you voted for lost. We have more heart than that.
About The SuperSpade
The SuperSpade: Black Thought at the Highest Level, is a forum that presents critical, intellectual perspectives on the current issues, seeking to elevate the level of Black political thought. The goal of this space is to provide actionable commentary on social, political, and personal issues affecting the daily ... Continue reading »
I was recently asked to comment on an article by Linda Burnham about how the Left, specifically the anti-Capitalist Left, should feel about and work with the Obama Administration. It’s called 
This is part of the bi-weekly 
This is part of the bi-weekly 
