Barack Hussein “Barry” Obama: A post-election analysis (Part 1 of 3)

Maybe it’s time for me to take off the kid gloves again. Maybe it’s time for me to start going after the many mistakes that Barack Obama makes; mistakes which some in mainstream media (and also in alternative media) tend to be lenient about. The campaign is over now, so those of us who didn’t want to negatively impact on his chances for victory can return from that hiatus from objectivity. He won.   

I am quite perplexed by the many problems that Barack Obama often seems to create for himself: there is a pattern here. And because the media tends to be relatively lenient it doesn’t mean that he will forever get away from full scrutiny. Many times I have wondered if Obama really understands what he is getting into. Has this always been about raw personal political ambition? Is this about some death-wish for martyrdom? Or is this truly about “change”? 

We don’t need just another ordinary American president right now: we don’t. We need an exceptional one: like yesterday. Barack Obama is inspirational, and that’s great; he gives many of us hope, and that too is great; since inspiration and hope often brings outstanding outcomes. But that’s not a given; we have got a long way to go.   

Look; to many (myself included); re-cycling ex-officials and workers from the Bill Clinton administration is not quite our idea of change. Floating Hillary Clinton’s name for Secretary of State, when Bill Richardson offers him a chance to appoint the first Hispanic in the role, is nothing short of ludicrous. Especially after the many things the Clintons said about his foreign policy ideas during the primary. How do you square this? Are we still at politics as usual? Is this the change we can believe in? Or is “change” only a word? You know: “just words”? Words that gets you to the White House? And then what: same old same old? 

Surrounding yourself with old white men, who have all contributed to screwing up the world as we now know it, isn’t change we can believe in; it isn’t. If we are all going to hell in a basket, shouldn’t we all contribute? You know; like women of all races; Blacks; Hispanics; people of mixed races, nationalities and/or ethnicities; Chinese, Asians, Indians, etcetera. Aren’t we all vested? Or is it that Barack believes only white men can solve the problems they keep creating for all of the rest of us in the world? This isn’t bout inclusion, new opportunities and empowerment is it? This isn’t about inputs from different perspectives; isn’t it? You could have fooled me! 

Obama’s failure to adequately deal with the economic crisis during the campaign (though he was far superior to John McCain in this regard) and even now, is something that many have been viewing with some trepidation. There are many aspects to Barack’s economic positions that seem dubious; it is obvious that he needs help (and good advice) here. And if he is intent on bringing in people who ran against him in the primary and general elections: what about Ralph Nader? Ralph Nader should be offered a role as economic adviser: immediately.  

Somebody needs to tell Barack Obama that we don’t need another skillful, scheming, conniving, cunning politician. We need someone we can believe in. We need someone who we can believe is committed to real change; not short-change; not small-change. 

Obama has come to office with more universal goodwill than any president in the history of this country. Near all of us wish him well. Many of us (myself included) did good grunt work for him on many levels -without wanting, asking for, or receiving a dime. Many of us (myself included) contributed hard earned money to his effort. Many of us prayed for his health and safety, and experienced butterflies in our stomachs whenever he waded into a crowd. I know he isn’t a messiah, but I strongly believe that his election to this office was what this country -and the rest of the world- needed; for a plethora of good reasons. And yet, no matter what the outcome of this dream journey I will have no regrets. However this doesn’t mean that BO gets a free pass from me when he does something(s) I disagree with. On the contrary: “from whom much is given, much is expected”.  

Recently he described himself as a “mutt” in referring to his mixed racial background; he needs to apologize to all people who are mulattoes. The word “mutt” has too many negative connotations. It was self-deprecating; but it was also a put down to many. It leads to another thing he needs to address now: his self-identity. It is obvious that he still wrestles with a few demons. One is “the missing-father” syndrome; another is obviously his racial identity. This is the same person who used “Barry” as his first name, instead of Barack. And he did this for many many years. 

Look; let me say this for the umpteenth time: Barack Obama is not black. Barack Obama is not white. He is neither white nor black. He is both black and white. A black man who mates with a white woman (as was in the case of Obama’s parents) cannot breed a black child. The offspring will be mixed. The offspring will be mulatto (dictionary term). This is a scientific fact. This is the genetic reality. Barack Obama needs to start expressing that reality: vocally. 

That’s why the census people have came up with the category called “mixed”. It was due; it was commonsensical. There are millions all over the world who fit this category. Barack Obama needs to apologize to all of them. They aren’t mutts; they are no less human than anyone else. There isn’t a single thing wrong with them. Copulation is a fact of life; and like love, it transcends race, ethnicity, nationality, religion and the like. 

Look; this is the same guy, who on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech, delivered one hellified historic acceptance address at the Dems convention. In this speech to the convention, Obama failed (or refused) to even mention one of the biggest problems in contemporary American society: the plight of the black male in the USA. With over one and a quarter million black men imprisoned today, this was a shameful omission. At no time in American history have you ever found five percent of a racial demographic incarcerated. I don’t think it has ever happened anywhere in the world; ever. Well; maybe historians could argue the Nazi/ Jewish holocaust. 

This is the same man (Barack Obama) who when confronted with the specter of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, at a crucial juncture during the primary, skillfully delivered a brilliant -yet meaningless- speech about race; a speech that totally eviscerated the opposition’s hit-men. Barack Obama is a stunning orator; in fact he is a brilliant orator; but we have had brilliant, talented and gifted orators before. Have we so quickly forgotten Mario Cuomo?  

Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on ‘race’ was meaningless only because it wasn’t totally genuine: there has been no follow-up. There has been no real “conversation on race” as he called for. It was brilliant in its tactical dispensation, but it was short on practical results. He has never dared to thread down this road again. 

As we watch him assemble his cabinet, I could only hope that it ends up reflecting the rainbow world we all live in. If it doesn’t, I -for one- will be rather disappointed. 

Stay tuned-in folks.  



Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/20/2008 - 8:42pm.
Rock, I am glad that you wrote this post. What you are saying is so true and real. I am still trying to figure out what Obama meant about change and thus far by his body language see none. You happen to be one of the blessed that can see the big picture and are not fooled. If you ever run for office in any of the five boroughs I will definitely be part of your team. While he is not being diverse in his selection only pushes us back. He is not breaking the structure.
PlatinumAngel's picture
Submitted by PlatinumAngel on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 12:21am.

Of course he's regurgitating the Clinton administration. The man has no experience. 

Imagine how 'disappointed' you'll be when it finally sinks in that the only way the man can deliver any of his campaign promises without a crippling tax increase is to send the deficit into the stratosphere.

If only you Obama supporters had actually thought this all through BEFORE the election.



Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 1:16am.
Before you guys get bent out of shape, let me reiterate that John McCain was never a voting option. Especially after the disastrous Bush administration; plus his general bellicose nature and his stand on the Iraq War. Further, given the Republican Party and what it now stands for, plus the way McCain ran his campaign, there was no rationale for even considering him. He was AWOL on the economy and seems to know very little about economics: period. This isn't the same man that was displayed over the years in Congress; he morphed into something dispicable. As I said in this column, no matter how Obama fares, I will have no regrets for casting my vote his way. And I did think this through thoroughly, long before casting my vote. It was the first time that I voted for the democratic party's presidential nominee. Prior to this I voted three times in a row for Ralph Nader. As best as we can we just have to try to keep BO honest; that's all.

Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 5:58pm.
Let's see what happens.
PlatinumAngel's picture
Submitted by PlatinumAngel on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 7:57pm.

"He (McCain) was AWOL on the economy and seems to know very little about economics: period."

I agree that Obama's campaign was run better than McCain's - by far. And by about a hundred million dollars.

Since you apprently feel that Obama was 'present'? on the economy, I ask you to please explain the details of his economic policy and how he intends to accomplish his goals? Personally, I found THAT information to be absent during the campaign, but if you would enlighten, it would be appreciated.

 



Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 8:12pm.
Platinum Angel: the Obama website has all the info you need; no? He made a tax cut for over 90% of the people (all making less than a quarter million dollars per year) the cornerstone of his economic policy; no? Plus he will tax those making higher; rescinding the Bush tax cut for the wealthy.

Submitted by Chris Owens (not verified) on Sun, 11/23/2008 - 11:13am.

Hi, Rock!

Your post is searingly painful in many ways because it does hit the nuggets of doubt that many have.  (Your highlight of the "mutt" comment is greatly appreciated; it was definitely stupid.)

That being said, however, we are in a new place in this nation and we have to exhale a bit and give the President-elect a chance to get started.  I, too, believe, for example, that there is no excuse for every Cabinet shortlist of four not containing at least two women and multiple candidates of color.  In the end, however, nothing would be worse for Obama than a significant early stumble in the eyes of the media and the electorate at large.

Ralph Nader as an economic adviser would be a stumble.

Patrick Gaspard as White House Political Director is not a stumble, it's a coup for the left -- and that sends a big but little-noticed message.

Clinton as Secretary of State is an open question.  I really don't know why SHE would want to do it, but the Obama offer does make sense on many levels.

Let's be critical of the issues and the policies, if necessary, but let's allow the President-elect his space.  This was not a gubernatorial election, nor a Mayoral election.  This was a "change the world" election -- and that will still happen.

Now, Rock, assuming Clinton becomes Secretary of State, why should David Paterson NOT pick Rep. Nydia Velazquez to succeed Clinton in the U.S. Senate?  Velazquez has federal experience, support from women and Latinos (and would get much more, of course), and allows Paterson to lay the groundwork for a real Black-Latino coalition NOW that could impact upon the 2009 NYC municipal elections (Thompson-Carrion?) and certainly help David in protecting his left flank in 2010.  So tell me something new, Rock?


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Sun, 11/23/2008 - 1:14pm.
Ralph Nader as economic advisor is a stumble? WOW? REALLY? Where have you been for the last 40 years Chris: in a cave in the Himalayas/lol? Ralph Nader is one of the few pols dealing with corporate abuses. He consistently articulates the corporate excesses that lead to the type of economic crisis, we have now found ourselves in; more than any pol I can think of over the past few decades. His contributions are non-paralelled in terms of consumer protection, worker rights and industry-standards. As it relates to Nydia Velasquez, I really don't know. As much as I would like to see a woman replace Hillary -if she goes to the State Department- the question is this: is NV the best woman for that position? I have my doubts; but I could understand her selection from strictly an "empowerment" angle. Why didn't you address the point I raised about Barack's acceptance speech? Or the plight of the black male in contemporary US society? Or about the "facts" of his identity: mulatto? Or BO's refusal to truly deal with race (all through his political career)? The black-latino coalition is barely existent. It is nowhere near the coalition it should be; given the years that we have been working on it (supposedly). The problem is that both blacks and latinos refuse to understand the political efficacy of voting in high numbers, and voting as a united block. Their leaders have consistently failed to invest in the type of political education that would yield tangible results along these lines. They have failed to politically develop their communities. They depend on passion. They make emotional appeals. They don't solicit cerebral responses to local issues. Chris, what you need to know about me is that I really don't like to be pegged to the left OR right in political fights. I choose based on pragmatism (spliced with some idealism of course). I like to evaluate policy in terms of what's best for the polity. If the ideas come from the right (welfare reform), or the left (family leave act/health care) it doesn't matter to me; once it creates effecive social or political public policy. Of course Patrick Gaspard is a good choice for New York City/State, Caribbean-Americans and the unions also; but it isn't that simple; is it? You see Obama could get the most brilliant minds around, or the most connected people around, and it will be meaningless if they all indulge in "group-think". It would be meaningless if they just regurgitate old policies and refuse to think creatively. It would be meaningless if it's the same old people being re-cycled. If he keeps going to the old-establishment folks in terms of advice -relative to who he selects for his cabinet and extended staff- then they will be sending up to DC, people who have failed and failed and failed, over and over and over again. So what can we expect four years from now? Personally I would like to see Suozzi as NY senator; but I am sure I am in a minority here. I could tell you many "new" things Chris, but I am not sure you will listen my friend. Take care and be strong. Have a nice Thanksgiving with your family and loved ones. Regards to your dad.

Submitted by Vernon Malcolm (not verified) on Mon, 11/24/2008 - 2:47pm.
Now that the anti-science, superstition-based initiative presidency ends, we need several public works science Manhattan projects to make us great again and boost us out of this Grotesque Depression. First we must provide free advertising-based wireless internet to everyone. Then we must criscross the land with high speed rail. Because bovine flatulence is the major source of greenhouse gases, we must develop home growable microbes to provide all of our protein. Then we must create microbes which turn our sewage and waste into fuel right at home. Since paranoid schizophrenia is the cause of racism, bigotry, homelessness, terrorism, ignorance, exploitation and criminality, we must provide put the appropriate medications, like lithium, in the water supply and require dangerous wingnuts who refuse free mental health care to be implanted with drug release devices. Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh were the ultimate superstition based initiatives. In order to fund this we must nationalize the entire financial, electrical and transportation system and extinguish the silly feudal notion that each industry should be regulated by its peers. Technology mandates a transformation from feudal forecloseable debt to risk sharing equity. Real estate and insurance, the engines of feudalism, must be brought under the Federal Reserve so we may replace all buildings with hazardous materials to provide public works. Insects, flooding and fire spread asbestos, lead and mold which prematurely disables the disadvantaged. Disposable manufactured housing assures children are not prematurely disabled and disadvantaged. Because feudalism is the threat to progress everywhere, we must abolish large land holdings by farmers, foresters or religions and instead make all such large landholding part of the forest service so our trees may diminish greenhouse gases. We must abolish executive pay and make sure all employees in a company are all paid equally. We must abolish this exploitative idea of trade and make every home self sufficient through the microbes we invent.
charlie's picture
Submitted by charlie on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 10:28am.

Rock,

I think you have some very good points, but in the end I believe that Obama has to re-cycle some folks from the last Democratic administration. The simple fact is that the country is a mess, and if you have a brand new team, it takes a long time for them to learn the ropes of getting stuff done in DC. I'm still confident that the new administration will hit the ground running and get some much needed reform put into place.



Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 4:23pm.
And honestly, since we've had a Republican regime the last 8 years, the only viable Dems worked for Clinton.  And that's not a bad thing.  He's chosing well to restore people's faith in a government that can work.  He's chosing wisely.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 9:43pm.

So, Barack should be talking about black prisoners at the convention, huh?  And you guys call yourselves poltical consultants?  LOL!  What a friggin joke.  Listen kids, there is a reason you guys are not anywhere near getting a client elected to the highest office in the land.  You are too bogged down in your own little politics.

 

Look around, folks.  Barack assembled a coalition, and he did it because he is smart enough to know that fringe lefties nor rightwing zealots can govern this country effectively.  The action (and sanity) is in the middle.  So are the solutions.

 

You want to do something about black prisoners, get elected first.  dont freak out fickle white folks before you get into the general election. then, when you get in, look at your priorities.  clue: the economy, stupid.  after that, then you might get around to black prisoners.  or maybe the war.  or torture.  or education. or healthcare.  need I go on?


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 10:43pm.
It is obvious that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, nor the ability to explicate it to our edification; thus the anonymous label (I guess). That's so sad. Next time try to understand what you are reading, or refrain from making comments on my blog.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/26/2008 - 10:22am.

Your criticism of BO seems like nitpicking. I think he's making BRILLIANT moves, which I'm surprised escapes you as a chess enthusiast and player.

For starters, Ralph Nader is soooo yesterday.

As for change, you don't charge into a situation and bring the house down. You carefully dismantle the structure as BO is doing.

Having a black president is change, dude! If BO isn't black, you ain't either. We are all mutts--no racial purity anywhere


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.