"I Am Barack Obama"
Commentary: For every post-civil-rights child who was promised she or he could become the first black president, Barack has been a revelation.
March 17, 2008
|
|
Thenjiwe Tameika McHarris, a 22-year-old political science and Africana studies student at Rutgers, is torn, in more ways than one. Although intrigued by the remarkable success of Barack Obama, she warns her peers, "We must act very critically. If you are honest, and compare his politics to others, you just might question how progressive he truly is."
Thenjiwe's identical twin sister and closest friend, however, is working at cross-purposes. She's vigorously encouraging young voters to vote for Obama while actively coordinating support rallies on his behalf.
I feel their pain.
In many ways, I am Barack Obama. I'm a fortysomething black man who attended prep school, an ivy-league university, and graduate school. I have a wife who is not to be messed with and two young children. I've been the "first black president" of a couple of groups and organizations and have worked as a community organizer.
Which is why I am similarly experiencing my own internal civil war over Barack's candidacy. On one side of my brain stands Barack Obama, the inspirational movement builder, the decent human being, the righteous black icon. On the other side is a less compelling candidate—Obama the centrist, the rhetorician, the ideologically elusive.
This contest for my political imagination is not about whether I vote for or against Obama, much less any other presidential contender. It's about what level of importance policy positions and concrete ideas should hold in elections. No one else in the Democratic and Republican primaries has made such a direct appeal to our emotions and other things intangible as Barack Obama. The positions on which Barack is staking his candidacy—"unity," "change we can believe in," "audacity of hope," and "yes we can"—don't show up on any public-policy score cards.
My Homey, Barack
Much has been made of Barack's considerable charisma and the cult of personality that has grown around his candidacy. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton, watching helplessly as audiences swoon for Obama, have tried, without much success, to undercut his affect on voters by painting him as a candidate without substance. But when I, as a journalist, interviewed him during his U.S. Senate campaign tour throughout rural and exurban Illinois in 2004, I wasn't awestruck. Rather, I identified with him. As I sat in the back of his campaign car plying him with questions, I couldn't help thinking that he could have easily been one of my friends. In fact, one of the biggest compliments I can give Barack is that as impressive as he is, he's not wholly distinguishable from the many poised, socially dexterous, and eloquent black women and men with whom I've gone to school.
But what was perhaps most personally intriguing about Obama was that his unhesitant foray into electoral politics represented the road I had forsworn years ago. Once upon a time I believed, as a community activist, that I could become a social-change agent of the highest order by becoming an elected official. Such was my chosen destiny until working in the sausage factory of electoral and campaign politics turned my stomach and made me seriously rethink that path.
While interviewing Obama I realized here was a man who was not unlike me but who had been walking through the ugly meat grinder of national politics and had emerged apparently uncynical and with his humanity intact. For every post-civil-rights child who was promised she or he could become the first black president, but hasn't been willing to endure the personal and even spiritual deformity the political process subjects people to, Barack has been a revelation.
Clearly, Barack has struck a chord, not just with black voters, but with a broad range of people. I talk to Obama supporters all the time who know precious little about Barack's policy positions and don't seem all that worried about them, because they feel what he represents transcends politics.
The Un-Jesse
The problem is, I care deeply about the primacy of issues and transformative policies, and think others should too. And when I hear about young voters and college students whose political activism was inspired by Barack's candidacy, I'm transported back to my junior year in college, when I cochaired the Jesse Jackson for President Campaign on campus.
Jesse also came to me as a revelation, but in a much different way. Jesse's vision of change in 1984 was specific, textured, and if not revolutionary, had—at least in mainstream political terms—radical elements to it. Like Obama, Jesse was more than a black political figure. He seemed to be more along the lines of a universal freedom fighter. He explicitly identified with the struggle for political self-determination and expression in Cuba, the Arab Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
Domestically, Jesse promised to dramatically cut the defense budget, address the prison industrial complex, fight the root and structural causes of poverty, aggressively prosecute corporate crimes against American citizenry, and deliver universal health care long before the Clintons broached the idea.
Of course Jesse lost, but his crusade still had the effect of inspiring me to put faith in the American political system. Despite pundits who look back 20 years and write him off as a one-dimensional presidential candidate and race man, Jesse had considerable white appeal and support. In 1984 he won five primaries and caucuses, and in 1988 he won eleven, including non-Southern states like Delaware, Michigan, and Vermont. His Rainbow Coalition, although trivialized today, sought to include not just white progressives, people of color, and young, disaffected voters, but also the poor, the LGBT community, family farmers, and labor. People of color and low-income communities where not just along for ride, but were eloquently described by Jackson as co-leaders and stakeholders in a new political force and social movement.
There would be no Barack without Jesse, yet they are miles apart in what they, as candidates, have regarded as real social change. But we also know Barack is finely calibrated to the reality of 21st-century national politics. In cutting a swath down Middle America, Barack's identification with marginalized communities goes much more unspoken as he instead allows the obviousness of his race, African pedigree, and non-Western name suggest his possible sympathies. When he stirringly chants "yes we can," it's the political equivalent of a well-worded fortune cookie, allowing anyone the freedom to interpret his message in her own personal way.
This is a smart political strategy and is particularly comforting to those who are easily scared off by race-based and ethnic-based appeals. In an era of endlessly subdividing identity politics, Barack's message can appear refreshingly universal. But when Barack or any national candidate fails, for the sake of political expediency, to openly acknowledge constituencies looking to emerge from the shadows—LGBT voters, Asian and Arab Americans, the working poor—the interests of those voters are once again set back and forgotten until the next election cycle.
Despite attempts by Republicans to paint Barack as America's most liberal senator, there is little for voters who identify as "progressive" to hold on to. Except for his stance on the war, which is not insignificant, Barack is largely indistinguishable from Clinton or any other moderate to liberal Democrat. He is averse to risk, downright squishy on issues like gay-rights issues, and when I clicked on GlassBooth.org a couple of months ago, the online questionnaire that claims to help you find presidential candidates who match your views, several candidates scored higher than Barack.
And on the question of a federal response to subprime lending abuses and foreclosure, an issue I've been passionate about since my days running a financial cooperative in Bedford-Stuyvesant, I'm convinced that extensive regulation and government intervention is the only way to curb predatory lending and prevent massive foreclosures. Obama, on the other hand, relies far more on the market correcting itself. Max Fraser recently wrote in The Nation that "As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well."
Personality at What Price?
George Bush is a dramatic reminder that the ideas, actions, and policy positions of a president make a huge difference in our private and public lives. Considering that Bush hawked the "ownership society" while simultaneously presiding over one of the most devastating periods of homeownership loss and middle class wealth depletion this country has ever seen, I long for a president who can usher in an era of regulatory action and corporate accountability. I don't believe any presidential contender is up to that task.
McCain and Obama are both trying to prove they can rise above partisan labels and will undoubtedly swim even more toward the political mainstream. If one of them wins the presidency, this might deliver a change in the process of presidential governing and leadership, but we can't expect transformative policies, whether it be the kind that were once proposed from the left by Jesse Jackson or those enacted from the right by Ronald Reagan.
But if you believe the mainstream press and Barack's campaign narrative, issues are secondary to this election, and anything resembling hardened ideology is a political liability. For example, our country is not just looking for an exit strategy out of Iraq, but for someone who can restore our faith in public service and unify the country with discernible amounts of integrity and nonpartisanship.
Maybe, but I perceive the Obama movement that is gathering momentum across the country in simpler terms. His optimism, energy, and smoothing over of national identity divisions provides idealists and cynics alike with a vision of America and national politics that is scrubbed of ugliness and filled with possibilities. And of all the stuffed suits that have paraded down the campaign runway, Obama's is the only one that appears to be filled with real flesh and blood.
Despite Obama's gifts, other candidates—John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, and even Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney—have also claimed intangible connections with voters. Nevertheless, I remain stubbornly wedded to the belief that issues matter more than anything else. In the meantime, however, Obama has left his mark on me. For the first time in 15 years, I'm considering running for public office.
Mark Winston Griffith is a senior fellow for economic justice at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.

First, Sen. Obama was not "Black enough" to win the "Black Vote". But Bubba Bill made sure that we knew the Sen. Obama was as "Black" as Jesse Jackson (and the media made sure everyone that was color blind new too). Then Sen. Obama was too "Clean" and the Clinton Machine brought in Uncle Bob Johnson to let everyone know that he was not "that clean".
Then Sen. Obama couldn't get middle-income "White America" to vote for him, but I guess Wisconsin, Wyoming, Iowa, and Kansas white folks didn't get the email.
Then the Clinton Machine and the networks came back with the Muslim African photos and Hillary left the door open with her interview.
And Michelle Obama said that "this was the first time in her adult life that she was really proud to be an American." Well, if you asked a few more "Black" professionals and non-professionals, they would probably feel the same way. Our history on race relations haven't been the best from South Africa to Reganomics to Bushwack Wars. Now, there are a few that believe that the civil rights movement had nothing to do with their progress. Just ask Clarence Thomas and Jonathan Carpenter.
And Geraldine Ferraro just vented some more venom about the only reason that Sen. Obama was winning the Democratic nomination is because he is "Black". How about his intellect, his leadership, his triumph against the odds, his inspiration, his leadership with ethics reform, leadership with helping laid-off workers, the number of bills that he sponsored or assisted on, the lack of lobbyist funding ( hint: Clinton and McCain), his total body of work (which the so called investigative media so how can't find or just fail to mention).
Now we're onto Sen. Obama's friend and former Pastor Dr. Wright. Oh, You got him good this time! Now, how much propaganda can be packed with so much punch?
The irony is that everything that the networks have release in these 30-90 second clips seemed so radical. A highly intellectural/smart (by all account) "Black" Minister (former US Marine) preaching so radically about the United States of America and Sen. Clinton.
Hello, did anyone of you bandwagon reporters (one step above the paparazzi) ever listen to the clips or even yet, view the entire sermons? Everything that I heard was TRUE. "Why was everyone hating on Barack?" Yes, Sen. Obama does not fit the pedigree of a serious Presidential Candidate (where is Alan Keys when you need him?), he is half white, but definitely didn't have a silver spoon trust fund. He was the first "Black" to achieve the highest honors at Harvard Law School. He gave up upper six-figure salary jobs to work as low paying community leader. He endured his share of racism as a child, teen, young adult, as community leader, and as a state legislator. Now as a Presidential candidate the entire world can see our true colors. But, he's not running as a racial civil rights candidate.
Yeah, Sen. Obama has heard the "N"-word from time to time. But like most of us people of color that have endured racism, we have excelled INSPITE OF the racism.
The US government did train, fund, and support Saddam and Bin Laden. Does anyone remember the Russian vs Afghan and Iraq vs Iran Wars? Now, it does take a rocket scientist and ex-Marine to draw the lines that Dr. Wright did. Some of you Guys and Girls will pass this off as "hate talk and anti-American", but just do a little research (that does come with the job title doesn't it?).
Please correct Dr. Wright, but isn't the United States of American run by a select few rich Good Ol' Boys, Bush and Cheney. And by most American's wealth standards, they're pretty rich. Did anyone checkout a few of their "blind trust" savings? Did anyone check Clinton's Library contributors? Where did Hillary get $5 million in cash? Where's Marc Rich and his junk bonds?
So, where do we go from here? How about being tied to sexy call girls and prostitution. That will definitely do it. Keep up the Good Work! Come on Howard Wolfson and James Carvel. Give me more of this top notch National Inquirer stuff. That's all the galvanizing that the Obama movement for Change needs!
Mike
Washington, DC
the most. There are few scuples involved. You can say Hillary had an advantage because women are instinctively (after half a million years of self survival evolution) more prone to deviousness, a politician's best friend. But an orator who can give inspiring speeches that excite and also happens to be brilliant (welcome change) and knowledgeable about his chosen field - incidentally about the same years for both experience wise - well, the idealistic and intellectual who are not afraid of change have a phenomena they can't resist and its called Obama. Hillary has a lot of cheek, gall or balls to ask him to take the vice presidency - when he is the basic reason for all the shouting, literally, even if he wasn't ahead in all fields, which he is, the reason people are coming out in masses - and poor old Hillary is falling into the trap of being more visibly manipulative and shrikey, more obviously obsessed and unscrupulous in her comments, the basic reason nobody liked her in the first place. Though she did straighten up her personality, real or not. She is much more pleasant now. But c'mon Hillary, we expected better from you. And where did you get $5 million by the way? Let it go. The country is lucky we have the chance to get someone of Obama's capabilities and personality (yes, despite what you learned in supervisory training, personality does count) as our leader. He could do well to have a hard worker like yourself in there with him, though I suspect, and have seen, that Michelle is no slouch herself. Maybe she can take the role that you played when Bill was Pres. Let the black thing go and tell your husband to do the same thing. Ignore the stupid and I do mean stupid and boring television media. You're a phenomenda yourself, just unlucky to be on the same life track as Obama who is superlative by any honest person's judgment and definition. Let's help, not hinder this country. It is going to self destruct in a hurry if another republican gets in. That is one truth all thinking people know.
I guess you haven't bothered to read any of the national polls, Many Dem's actually vote for Mccain....HUH? May sound strange, but Obama has fallen so far in the polls, that even things dont get worse for the Dems, Mccain will WIN..!!!
GOd Bless America..:-)
Bill
I'm the guy who wrote the piece. the one with "the baggage".
It's so ironic to hear people like Mike professing support for Barack while using the same kind of snarky and destructive rhetorical tactics that Barack has effectively stood against.
I actually agree with you, Mike (and dy foley, for that matter), on the substance, but it was hard to get past your venom, (not to mention your refusal to actually respond to the substance of what I wrote.) You could stand to listen a little bit more to your own candidate who has carried himself with dignity and a dogged respect for others, particularly those he disagrees with. To miss that, is, I think, is to miss the core of what Barack stands for.
For the record, I thought that Barack's speech yesterday was masterful. It was the most frank and effective addressing of race issues that I've ever heard come out of the mouth of a politician. It made me proud and it represented one of America's finer moments. It proved that words really can matter when used to elevate a conversation rather than to dumb it down. It also challenged this country, the press in particular, to deal with the complexity of social issues. It provided more than reason enough for anyone to vote for him. I hope America was listening.
I won't get to vote -- I'm an Australian -- but I can assure you that the rest of the world will be non-plussed if Obama is elected. He alone can rewrite, in a good way, what the rest of the world thinks about the US.
I hear what you say, and you're right Everytime he says 'yes we can', the call is primal. Everyone does invest their own vision into that. It's clever, especially since in his case, it looks credible.
I'm a woman and I've been on the left all my life, but if Clinton wins, I'll be very sorry. I'd prefer McCain to win in that scenario.
All you have to do is watch the situation room on CNN to see how Obama friendly the media is.
I wait in horror to see what will happen to the democratic party if he gets the nomination. The media which is controlled by big buisness and wants a republican government, will slice him into shreds and then where will we be.
McBush and no end to war in Iraq and the same economy.
I think you're right, especially about how he handled the Jeremiah Wright issue. He demonstrated that he was cut from a different cloth than the mainstream
People said his speech was 'courageous' and I agree. It takes guts to stand up for your principles in the face of bullying, to resist being tempted to dump on a soft target because it's easier.
This might cost Obama, in the end, but I hope not. While I was sympathetic before, I worried that what I was seeing was simply an intelligent and charismatic guy selling the same old same old. This shows me we really do have someone different and better than that.
I've never voted Repug and never will, If he doesn't get to run, I'll find something else to do November 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o
"I pledge allegiance to...the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
Call it unpatriotic, but the only recognition the flag deserves is a playing of the Star-Spangled Banner, not a pledge. That song and piece of cloth symbolize something new, but to pledge allegiance to it...*shrug* I am not so sure it is healthy, though I know an utter lack of allegiance is much unhealthier.
As for Obama, his voting record does not coincide to what he lays claim. A message of change and the votes to show it lie with Kucinich and other rare visionaries. Obama has failed in that aspect and unless he is willing to comment on this or address this particular concern, I do not think I can in good conscience vote for him. That is a true shame. His speech about race in the US was raw and factual and rare for an American politician. But speeches are not votes.
So I read and read about Obama and his voting history and I found him to be more of a Hawk than Hillary. He also did not have much of a record working for change or civil rights, his focus was more on working his political career, and playing the middle, so he could pivot a lot. I was disturbed that he'd said in 2004 that his position on the war and Bush's were not that different accept in strategy. Plus he seemed to attack Hillary alot and accuse people of racism, without much reason, and then claim he was above the fray and Hillary was negative. At first she seemed quite respectful of him because he was another Democrats. He seemed to be taking advantage of Hillary's respect for him, and trashing her, until she got tough and started winning. Now it's all rather ugly.
Hillary is not a Rock Star and maybe she doesn't have amazing Charisma, but I have faith she will be a leader who will do everything in her power to restore Peace and prosperity.
Obama wants too much wiggle room and his concept of Uniting seems to focus on working with Republicans, which sounds good on the surface, but their agenda and status Quo is to control oil and squeeze every last drop of profit from oil; and to start more and more war to sell more and more arms. So when I read that Obama is proposing to name a Republican for Foreign Policy in his cabinet and Arnold Schwarzenegger for Energy, I see the reasoning of his political strategy but in fact it's watering down the Democratic party and pulling Democrats Right and will give Republicans Carte Blanche. I don't like that one at all.
Sure I'd like to see Republicans and independents vote based on the issues not in a block, but I'd also like to see more independent voting from rather than people voting in blocks in this race.
You sound like a great candidate for politics and I wish you well.
Yes, he did. And he has been a leader on other issues as well. Government transparency, soldiers benefits, and stopping nuclear proliferation. all timely and relevant issues.
http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/48373
UPDATE:
On, April 1, 2008 United States, District Judge Henry Kennedy, granted Larry Sinclair's Motion for Discovery and signed an Order for Subpoenas regarding Sinclair's complaint/lawsuit!
As, I have stated before, this is a matter of public record! Web links, are not permitted on Oprah com...but, the official Court Document(s) and related information can be easily searched! Just google, "Judge Kennedy Larry Sinclair," "Larry Sinclair Barack Obama" or "Sinclair vs TubesockTedd et al!
These issues and legal documents are public record! I, have no desire to post the explicit and detailed allegations -- contained in the lawsuit -- as they relate to and involve Barack Obama, and his Presidential Campaign!
We, are all more than capable of reading the legal documents -- complaint, motions, etc. -- and discussing the issues, as they relate to the election! Without discussing the specific detailed "allegations" against Barack Obama, as contained in the complaint, Sinclair vs TubesockTedd et al!