Barack Hussein Obama (Part Three/Finale).

Almost six months ago, when I started this three part series on the reasons why I felt that Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama should run for the US presidency, many people didn’t feel me; those two columns didn’t generate the usual responses that my writings on New York’s political cesspool generally do. Plus, after all: this enigma (Obama), calling himself a Negro (black-man), had no chance of winning; right?

Truth be told, it appears to me that most of the people here on Room Eight (along with most of the readers), really want me to focus my writings on Brooklyn’s political gossip, spiced with a lil history of my personal involvement in some of the in-fighting. It’s what draws many of them to Room Eight (www.r8ny.com); it’s what makes me the most read (and most commented on) blogger of this particular colony of political writers. It’s what makes this blog so popular in Brooklyn especially (and in some other parts of the city too). Political gossip and credible innuendo is sexy; it’s like a catfight (for men). So; a lot of people will probably hate this particular column for various reasons; I must admit that the hate will be somewhat understandable given the true nature of this country; which despite all its great attributes: is still very racist.

I am going to make some bold and startling predictions/ conclusions/observations here; so fasten your seatbelts please; it could get quite rough later on in the upcoming thread. But as I always say: I call as I see it; I tell it like it is; then I duck. So let me start ducking from now; I foresee lots of shots coming my way after this hits the blog.

To the usual suspects who attack near everything I write here, do take the high road; go into the archives of Room Eight and review my first two columns on this topic before you make inane comments; please. Part one was done on the 25th January, and Part two was done on February 10th; both this year, 2007. I must admit also, that when I started this, I had the audacity to hope that my columns would generate a debate on race matters, race relations and racial issues; I was too audacious that time, but maybe this time it would/could; maybe. I can always hope (audaciously), can’t I/lol?

In the first two columns, I felt that I had presented some unique insights into the Obama phenomena; I also suggested that Blacks born in the USA wrongly felt that they had a lock on “blackness”, as if they owned and patented the definition. To me, they appeared to be somewhat ignorant of the fact that the black struggle against racism was international in its scope. Thus the reality that questions of whether Obama was “black enough” could get so much traction in mainstream media, made some of us foreign-born blacks cringe; especially when the rest of the candidates were all white; with only one Hispanic exception.

Look; fifteen months from now, we will be selecting a new president for this country; and as the election gets closer, the stakes will go higher; that’s when the reality of an Obama presidency will start sinking in more and more, to those who initially thought it unthinkable. That’s when things start to change; that’s when the unthinkable becomes the thinkable.

There are many who would disagree with this, but with Al Gore a non-starter, there are only two things stopping Barack Obama from becoming the next president of the United States. One is called: racism. Yes; racism in all of its many varied and subtle forms. The other is a cousin (this time around): assassination. The latter could be either political or physical in nature. In fact it could be both political and physical; in that order.

Before you all get bent out of shape, let me explain this further. There is a quiet storm sweeping this country’s politics; it’s called: Barack Obama. What most mainstream mediums (black, white, Hispanic, et al) are avoiding in their reporting is: this very storm. Obama has been drawing more crowds to his rallies and political events, than all the other presidential candidates; and it’s not because he is still some kind of novelty. He has raised more funds than any one of them; he has gotten more contributors than any one of them; and he has inspired more people than all of them combined. With his messages of idealism, involvement, change, self-development, hope and the like, he has inspired people of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, genders, ages, religions/creeds, political affiliations and socio-economic status. His intellect, good looks, charisma, articulation, dynamism, humanity and such, have endeared him to many who have been disillusioned by the contemporary realities of the political process. And by the way: he is still a work in progress; and that’s obvious to many studying this phenomenon. He is enlisting many people who are new to the political process; the implications are mind-boggling.

This man Obama, who challenges us to be better than we are; who says that we should put aside partisan, regional, nationalistic, ethnic and racial differences, in order to work for a better America (and world) for all; who attempts to transcend his racial origins (mulatto) without offending anyone’s racial sensibilities; who is willing to cross party lines to work out legislative compromises; whose vision is for a truly better tomorrow and a truly better United States of Amnesia (and world), is coming on like a late train. All of this will be rather threatening for those in this country who see him as Black and not as mixed; and all who see him as black and not as fully human; herein is the danger.

You see; in this country, white skin privilege creates white skin blinders/blindness and leads to white skin denial; this denial is a real problem. This denial creates the James Earl Rays of America; it also spawns the John Wilkes Booths and the countless shady characters (cowards) who hide behind these types. There are small but deadly numbers of whites in this country, who still see blacks as inferior; who still see blacks as three-fifths human; who hate blacks, period. An Obama presidency is totally repulsive to their mind set. They will see an Obama presidency as revulsive; they will see a threat to their hopes of eternal white supremacy. They will see an audaciously hopeful black man who needs to be stopped. America needs to go into “Obama Security Alert”; immediately.

Obama has to start wearing bullet-proof vests right now; he needs to be cautious and careful without being cowardly; and he needs to also take the many threats to his life seriously. Ask Colin Powell’s wife why Colin never ran for the presidency? Obama needs to be cognizant of the historical realities of racism in this country. He has already proven his bravery by simply getting into this race. The CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Homeland Security, Local police departments, and all other official security forces, need to be on full alert from here on in. A mobilization effort should be undertaken like one that has never been undertaken before, in order to insure that this man survives this campaign. If he doesn’t; there could be a racial explosion the likes of which this country has never seen. Race relations will be set back two hundred years. We are all vested in this; we all need to be vigilant: starting right now.

From a historical point of view and given the legacy of racism, it is ironically-fitting that a man born to a black father and a white mother (imagine) becomes the first non-white male president of this country. I arrived at this yesterday (4th July), as America celebrated another anniversary of independence from British monarchial tyranny which ended in 1776. If we truly hold as self-evident, that all people are created equal, then after all this time, there is no excuse for putting another white male in the Oval office.

I am sure that white denial will try to repudiate all that I just wrote, just as it denies many aspects of racism in this country. For example; that despite the civil-rights gains of the 1970s, racial-discrimination is alive and well and living in the good ole US of A (Amnesia); that white-flight begins when a predominantly-white neighborhood arrives at eight to ten percent black residents; that job discrimination is still common place for blacks competing with whites; that police brutality is a nationwide phenomenon that affects (afflicts) blacks a hundred or more times than it affects (afflicts) whites; that the average white person is about 50 times wealthier than the average black person; that blacks face racism in economic development, housing, jobs, health-care, education, business opportunities, music, arts, movies, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Yet, Obama hasn’t made racism the crux of his crusade. In actuality, he perpetually lectures black audiences to hold other blacks totally responsible for their personal behaviors, poverty, child-abuse, drug use, violence, family-breakdowns, crime, circumstances, dilemmas, dysfunctions, maladies and other idiosyncrasies. He preaches self-reliance without letting government and civic-institutions totally off the hook. He puts his money where his mouth goes, by personally rolling-up his sleeves to tackle real issues in the polity. He claims his blackness without totally denying his whiteness. He claims his blackness without a separatist agenda; unlike many angry black militant political types. He refuses to be pulled into some type of racial-jihad against white America and the (supposed) conspiratorial racist government(s). He appears to have rejected this type of thinking–still popular in some black quarters. Further; he refuses to conform to the “reverend” politics of black America, with its flawed emphasis on media, symbolism and personality cult-like-worship; with its lack of objectivity and its flawed emphasis on “black” and not on “American”. And yet, he skillfully and tactically uses media to fit his goals, needs and objectives. He is both idealistic and pragmatic at the same time, without being politically bloodied by the intrinsic contradictions. He is a special politician and a special human being. He is nothing short of brilliant.

With all this said, don’t think for a minute that I do not consider Barry a shrewd, cunning and skillfully competent politician; adept at controlling the spin, and blessed with many of the skills necessary for success in this sphere. He is all that and more. What is key though is that his supporters get the sense that he is real, on every level of human consciousness. This is what Hilary Rodham-Clinton lacks; this is why she keeps bringing up this “inexperience” thing in trying to gain points against him. He has her beat in the areas that really count: judgement, credibility, respect, admiration, loyalty, devotion and love.

Last week, in front of a predominantly black audience at Howard University, Barack Obama refused to pander or patronize, even though he could have scored big points doing both; but Hilary Clinton did. It was a defining moment in this campaign.

With a statement that was obscenely crass and contrived, the pre-fabricated Hilary Rodham-Clinton said this: “If HIV/AIDS was the leading cause of death of white women aged 25 to 34, there would be an outrage, outcry in this country”. This line met with the most applause of the night; it should not have, since it feeds in to the same type of conspiratorial hogwash that has kept many blacks from total involvement in the political process. It plays to people’s fears, not to their hopes and aspirations.

Here is a woman, who for the past 24 years (at least), has been roving the corridors of power, on local, state and national levels of politics; a very bright woman who was politically active on her college campuses way back in the ‘70s; and a woman who has also worked in top law firms and has been a player on the Washington scene for decades. Here is a woman who at one point in the Clinton-administration was in effect: the quasi-health czar. This woman who twice ran for the US senate, winning both election and re-election in New York; who has made umpteen speeches over these past 24 years, and has been in this presidential campaign for sometime now. Suddenly, this woman chooses that night, and that audience, to make as profound a remark as that-given all its implications. Good gosh: I was born at night, but I sure wasn’t born last night. That was so darn predictable; so Hilary-like. This was crass pandering being taken to its obscene extreme. It was despicable; it was shameful. But then: do the Clintons ever express shame when they do their crap? You tell me.

Why do you think that Hilary has such high negatives whenever polling is done? There are many reasons posited; but the main one seems to be that a lot of people see her as ruthlessly ambitious; someone willing to surrender morals and values for raw power. To many; that’s scary.

Then late last week there came another defining moment of this campaign, and another one that instructs and informs the potential voters to no end. That was when President Bush #2, partially pardoned Vice-president Chaney’s pit bull Scooter Libby, after he was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy/ perjury. I won’t elaborate on the details of this trial here, except to say that a female CIA agent (spy) was intentionally outed (internationally), ostensibly by various people in the Bush administration, since they saw her husband as an enemy and critic of their contrived war with Iraq. This is the same Libby who as a lawyer, successfully lobbied Bill and Hilary Clinton to pardon a fugitive and corrupt financier (Marc Rich), during the final days of Clinton’s presidency, when there was a fire-sale on presidential pardons, for those who contributed to the Clintons, or for those who were connected to contributors. Have we forgotten that Hilary’s brother was collecting 200 thousand dollars a pop, in order to represent those seeking pardons?

These very Clintons who once pimped the Lincoln bedroom in the White House, have no moral authority to question the pardons of George Bush; and for a democrat like myself, this is not easy to swallow. Herein lies the reasoning behind Michelle Obama’s recent outburst, that the Clintons represent the politics of the past; and that all Hilary has on Barack is more years in Washington (another cesspool); and by now, I am sure that we all know that “Washington” is just a code word for all that’s despicable in our national politics.

Yet, it goes even deeper: Bill and Hilary’s behavior in the White House actually disqualifies them from a do-over; and this is where all the so-called feminists who are fanatically trying to rally behind Bilary’s moribund candidacy are being disingenuous. At the height of the “Paula Jones” scandal, one of Clinton’s pit-bulls (Carville) was making the rounds of the talk shows one Sunday morning, and said the following: “what do you expect to get (a Paula Jones) when you drag a hundred dollar-bill through a trailer-park”. In so doing he unfairly sullied the reputations of many a decent young (and old) woman of humble circumstances. It was one of the many low moments of that administration. I have never heard an apology from Hil or Bill, for what their lackeys did and said, about the many women who claimed that Bill sexually used, abused or harassed them, over the years. Over time, their minions have destroyed many a woman in enabling Bill’s runaway zipper. How quickly do we forget Gennifer Flowers; how easily do we forget all the women who made scurrilous charges against Bill’s womanizing ways; how easily do we forget that Bill’s lap dogs went after everyone of them with a vengeance, trying to discredit them in every which way. They even alluded to one as being mentally deranged. Some of these charges (against Bill) were so vile that I won’t even repeat; but you all know what I am talking about. How dare these so-called feminists act like all this was trivial stuff, not needing of condemnation?

Look; didn’t Hilary not go on Sixty Minutes (CBS) and lie to the nation when the Gennifer Flowers tapes became the hot media story? Didn’t Bill Clinton have to apologize to New York’s then governor Mario Cuomo about a “mafia” innuendo (acknowledging his voice on the tapes)? Didn’t Bill do the same thing (lie to the country) when it was about Monica Lewinsky? How many other vulnerable women were victimized? You can’t cop-out by saying: “oh, that’s just his personal life; separate it from his performance in office”. That’s bull-crap. Simply put: standards are standards. We the people need to always set high standards for those who seek to represent us; period. The failure to do this is what has us up the creek we are in. Too often we surrender the high ground; there are always high costs to this.

Democrats who were (and still are) Clinton apologists, have also surrendered their moral right to go after the horrible George Bush, who has done even more crap than Bilary. The only difference is that Georgie-boy seems to have controlled his zipper better. George’s performance in office is worse than Bill’s by far; I refuse to get into that here, since it will require a dissertation.

Listen people; this George Bush snr. - Bill Clinton - George Bush jnr. – Hilary Clinton – Jeb Bush (waiting in the wings), presidential-monarchy-like syndrome must be snuffed: NOW. Enough already. We could do better. Who said that only two families can lead us? Who died and willed the presidential gene-pool to the Clinton and Bush families? Is there an Adam America? I don’t think so.

Let’s go back to Bilary’s HIV/AIDS remark: aren’t black people tired of being fooled, snookered, duped, used and abused; politically and otherwise? GEEZE.

First; from way off in the capitol, Congressman Charlie Rangel blessed Hilary’s run for the senate from New York; then near all the other black elected officials in New York (and also most of those in the House of Representatives), fall in line like they were mindless zombies; endorsing her run one by one; without a rationale for their support. These were one of the few power-moments for black electeds in a long while; but guess what: they conceded without any benefits. Don’t tell me that they didn’t read the primer: “power never compromises without demands”. Hilary needed them like crazy at that point in time; what a missed opportunity! For a fleeting moment they had a lil power to play with.

They then paraded her around the black churches like nobody’s business. Then they started to say ridiculously incredulous things like: “Bill Clinton was the first BLACK president”. Gimme a friggin break; please! But then, some blacks actually feel for all this crap. Then as her candidacy builds up steam and credibility, this carpetbagger (Hilary) appears at our black churches near every Saturday and Sunday. You could swear she left some of those pants-suits that she always wore, hanging in some of those black vestries. She worked the black community like a snake-oil saleswoman. One of her high paid white political consultants must have given her the formula: win some white women feminist types and win the black vote overwhelmingly; you know you are going to get slaughtered amongst the white-male demographic.

Hilary Clinton garnered over ninety per cent of the black vote to win, but the first thing she says in her victory speech was; “I will do my utmost to restore (fix) New York’s upstate economy”. Look; upstate is mainly white (if you didn’t know). What about downstate? What about the 50% joblessness among black males in NYC? What about the 40% rate amongst black females, and the 35% amongst Hispanics? What about racial profiling that afflicts blacks? What about police brutality and murder? What about the more than one million and a quarter blacks (male and female) imprisoned? What about racial discrimination in jobs, housing, health care, government contracts, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera?

So it’s easy for Hilary Clinton to run to our black churches on weekends, but easier for her to run away from our black issues on weekdays. And the black electeds let her get away with this; over and over and over and again; and you wonder why their collective performance in office enthralls me so much/lol?

Then last year Hilary Clinton runs for re-election: same ole, same ole. She racks up almost 100% endorsements from black and Hispanic officials, without a single comment on the 2005 report from the City Council’s Economic Development Committee. This report showed that out of 136,915 contracts that the city handed out to business entities (worth 18.8 billion dollars); only 11.7% ($2.2 billion) went to women and minority contractors. White males got 88.3 % ($16.7 billion). With all of Bilary’s so-called feminist credentials, has she ever argued that white-males have too much power in this society? You tell me.

Lets not forget the gays; she has played them like a fiddle also. Hilary has flirted with them on their key contemporary issue (same-sex marriage), and they have fallen for it. The suspicion is that she lacks the political courage to support same-sex marriage, but they let her get away with the titillation without letting her go all the way. She is skillful, I must admit. But after all this time in politics, what does Hilary Clinton really stand for? Beyond her hard core political ambition; what are the issues that drive her? What is her true position on abortion? Where is she in all the debates on immigration reform? Are her positions on these issues, clear and unambiguous? You tell me.

Hilary Clinton is the consummate political opportunist; she is also trying to work out her marriage-pains with this presidential exercise. She is trying to deal with her Bill Clinton-inflicted self-esteem (and self-image) issues by all her political maneuverings. There is nothing idealistic driving her; if there were, she would have articulated that already. America has been waiting for years; it’s too late now; any such attempt will be viewed suspiciously (as usual).

Let’s go back to Obama; here is a guy who obviously suffered through the “missing-father syndrome”, but rose up and conquered it (as best as he could, I guess); and continues to seek a higher spiritual plain. Here is a guy who asks us to look for ourselves in others, and to look for others in ourselves. A decent man, full of compassion; a man who sacrificed big bucks as a black- ivy leaguer, in order to build experience working in the trenches of poor urban areas. A man who was once, so ashamed of his roots as a youngster, that he called himself Barry instead of Barack, while playing high-school ball. This is a man who has experienced living outside this continent and hemisphere; a self-acknowledged Christian who has experienced different peoples, faiths and cultures. All of these things, when combined with his other attributes, experiences (professional, political and otherwise), ideals, values and philosophy, makes him (to me) exceptionally qualified to lead this country in the right direction. Here is a man (and his wife and kids) who can restore dignity to the white house and the oval office.

The true test of Obama’s character will come when Bilary hires Al Sharpton (endorsement included, batteries not included) to do a hatchet job on him. This will be the defining moment for the black vote. Sharptongue; the brilliant but over rated political charlatan can make things uncomfortable for Barack. The hope here is that blacks will be able to see through all that, despite their apparent inability to have seen through Hilary’s remarks last week.

Stay tuned-in folks; we are still in the backstretch of this long presidential race.



Submitted by OLDER VOTER (not verified) on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 3:17pm.
Obama is quite impressive, but as a first term Senator does he have enogh experience?  By the way, I'm not impressed with any of the presidential candidates of either party and Obama is certainly better then some.
Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 3:39pm.
It appears that Obama appeals to outsiders, regardless of race. Hilary Clinton is appealing to insiders, such as her fellow incumbents. Some things are more important than race, especially today.

On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to blame her for her husband's behavior at her expense. Though many seem to.

Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 3:48pm.
Larry, I agree that some things are more important than race,and I believe that's one of many good reasons why Barack is doing so well; he has de-emphasized race for a man of mixed blood. People of all races have very similar issues in contemporary USA; health-care, housing, jobs, economic opportunity, education, the enviroment, etcetera, etcetera. Racism is very very important to blacks (believe me when I say this), but its not their only concern; Obama knows this quite well.

Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 4:40pm.
It seems to me that racial politics in the past 35 years (since the end of the civil rights era) has revolved around pandering with mutual excuses.

Black hucksters take the position that as long as there is a single White racist, Afro-Americans cannot be criticized for engaging in self-destructive behavior.

White hucksters take the position that as long as a single Afro-American engages in self-destructive behavior, Whites are excused for any hostile or indifferent actions and attitudes toward Afro-Americans in general.

I believe that those most favorable toward such messages continue to age and die off, and that successive generations are less and less interested. We wouldn't hear as much about it as we do if our perpetual incumbent leaders weren't all from another time. Obama's best moment is when he told the 1960s generation that the political issues of their youth are not the most important concerns today, and the rest of us aren't interested in rehashing their arguments over and over.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 5:08pm.

Apparently, during his time in NYC Obama worked in a Brooklyn Assembly race.

Details Rick, we want details!!!


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 8:53pm.
Wow! some statement. You surprised me with this one. You gave the black electeds a semi break and did not rip into them like you love to do. Very impressive.
Submitted by Haile Rivera (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 10:49am.
Great piece Rock!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 11:05am.

Obama's message is powerful, it is brilliantly delivered, and it touches people from diverse socio-econmic and political backgrounds. He will do well as a Presidential candidate, and I generally agree with Rock's assessment that Obama is "exceptionally qualified to lead this country in the right direction." Yes, Obama can "restore dignity to the white house and the oval office."

That said, he will still not be elected President. First, this country is still not psychologically prepared for a Black Male to lead it. The polls are flat out wrong because those being polled are not being forthright. Many of the same people who say that they would be willing to elect a Black or Female President in a poll would do exactly the opposite once they feel safe and secure in a voting booth. How many people living in Midwestern and Southern States are going to give Obama Hussein Barack serious consideration?

Secondly, the real Presidential campaign has not yet begun. Rock alluded to this when he mentioned Sharpton's potential influence among some Black voters. The rigors of the next year or so will include increasingly analytical and intrusive media attention, more political and personal attacks by campaign surrogates and a much greater demand on campaigns in States throughout the country. This will test even the most well financed & sophisticated operations. How will the Obama campaign handle this pressure?

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I don't see Obama winning, despite his many strengths.


Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 11:07am.

I really like Obama as well, but I think he has a problem that may be insurmountable at the present time, and it has nothing to do with his race or his politics.  It is the "familiarity" and "reliability" factors.

In presidential elections, with so much at stake, most voters do not want to reinvent the wheel.  They don't want to gamble.  They want to make *safe* choices.  Reliable choices.  Familiar choices.  Most americans, even if they had the money, would not buy the fastest or coolest looking car, they would buy the one that is the safest, the one that they feel most assuredly won't break down, and will get them down the road in one piece.

In 2004, Kerry was the safe choice, the old reliable model thats been on sale, Howard Dean was the new sports car on the market.   Dean raised more money than the other candidates, was the one with the "movement" (as Obama has now)  But in the end the voters still didn't know him well enough, they didn't know for certain how his model would drive. 

This year, Hillary Clinton is far and away seen as the safest choice.  Most voters never heard of Obama or John Edwards, did not know they existed, until four years ago.   Whereas Hillary and Bill Clinton have been on their televisions, in their livingrooms for the better part of two decades.  This is the message Hillary and Bill convey at their rallies-- "you know us, do you know them?" 

When there is a war going on, and serious problems to deal with, voters are more likely to want to be safe, practical, reliable.  I think Obama will be President someday, I am just not convinced that 2008 is his year. 

 

 

 

 

 


Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 11:58am.

I think Obama's style presents an issue too.  He has the same problem, coming across as too dispassionate and 'professorial' that Mike Dukakis did.  Dukakis was a brilliant guy, would have made a great president IMO, but he approached debates like they were his college lectures, concerned with decorum, civility and not overwhelming the material.  Dukakis was sunk more than anything by one question in one debate, where he was asked whether, if his daughter was raped and murdered, he'd want the killer executed.  He answered the question as if it came from a student in one of his lectures, acting detached and objective so as not to unnecessarily offend anyone in the classroom or overwhelm the material.  Voters didn't want to see that, they wanted to see a candidate who shows great emotion and takes sides, and doesn't care who he offends.  Dukakis, by answering that question in such a scholarly, academic way, and showing no emotion and not cutting to the core, came across as cold blooded.  It helped cost him the election.

When I watch Obama, who was also a college professor, debate,  I see him doing the same thing.  Acting diplomatic, dispassionate, professorial.  Obama was asked in one debate what he would do as president if the u.s. was attacked by terrorists.  Obama, acting detached, gave the response a professor would give in class, he said he would do this, this, this, and consider this, this and that .etc  Longwinded professorial answer.  Hillary, responding to the same question, asked what she'd do if we were attacked, answered with just one word, "retaliate".  That was the answer voters wanted to hear.  They don't want an academic answer, they want an emotional answer. They want an answer that reflects a candidate's heart, not just his brain.  Hillary gets this, and its why she's been winning the early debates.  Barack Obama needs to show more passion, and not be disinclined to want to offend some people in doing so.


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 1:21pm.

Folks are making some real thought out comments on this piece. This is the first time that the comments are being made by intelligent people. Nice job Rock-you have elevated the IQ with this piece. If only all of your work could be this deep.


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 1:23pm.
Dukakis lost because of Willie Horton and nothing else. If Obama's "professorial" style was such an issue: then why is he doing so well? You are just re-hashing what Clintonesque talking-heads are trying to stir up. Be original wallner; please.

Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 1:27pm.
I could only conclude two things in response: (1) you were trying to put me down (as usual); and (2) you couldn't have read my most of my 100 odd pieces on this blog to say what you did. This is my 3rd in the Obama series, and the first two were just as profound (if not more so)..........

Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 1:30pm.
To: Haile Rivera......... thanks for the kind sentiments. Good luck in your future political endeavours.

Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 2:08pm.

Dukakis lost not just because of those Willie Horton ads, but because he was dispassionate.  His dry New England style did not play well down south and out west.  Nor did it play well in the refrenced debates where the voters wanted passionate answers, not lectures.

Obama is only doing well moneywise.  In the polls, he is a distant second.  Here's a link to a new Newsweek national poll just taken that matched Hillary and Obama head to head:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_newsweek_national_survey_4.php

Key paragraph:

"Among registered voters who identify or lean Democratic asked to choose between two candidates, Clinton leads Obama 56% to 33% in a national primary match-up."

In some of the key democratic primary states, Iowa in particular, only democrats can vote.  Not independents.  Party regulars strongly favor Hillary because they know her.

I think Obama is a great candidate, I'd be thrilled if he won.  But let's look at things realistically.  Hillary is the likely nominee.

Besides Rock, we all know the real reason you favor Obama.  He is a Harvard man, and Hillary is a Yale woman.  Snobbish Harvard people would only vote for Yale people while holding their noses  :)

 

 

 

 

 

 


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 3:17pm.
Do you know anyone (who you can assuredly confirm as knowing me personally), who has said to you that I am a "snob"? So why do you keep repeating something that's not true and something you have no way of verifying; unless you are trying as usual to pick a fight with me? You cannot validate your feelings with concrete proof, so you keep repeating it in hope that it sticks; how sad. I am not here to fight with you, so please, move on.

Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 3:31pm.

Obviously Rock, you earned the "snob" monicker when you pointedly wanted to ban anonymous posting, saying that if they posted anonymously, you had no way of knowing if they were worth your time.  You want to know if these people are Harvard men or Yale men.  It is not a fact I need to validate, it is an opinion I have made based on reading your posts and it is one I stand by.  Although you are not as big a snob as Errol Louis, who wrote on this board that some homeless guy he met once wasn't worth his time.

Its okay though, some fine people I know are snobs.  Perhaps you can't be brilliant and not be a snob.  Who knows.

As for Obama, he has to convince the american electorate that he can be commander in chief of the armed forces in a time of war.  He has no foreign policy experience.  This is a problem.   

 


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 3:44pm.

The last time NY elected one of our own, the state got almost 25% of all federal dollars spent by the govt. The President was Roosevely, former Governor.  Hilary might be born else where but her pact with the devil is to bring the presidency back to NY. Same with Guilianni.

 As voters we must root for the home team, not the white or black team. Hilary or Rudy would fill this state with jobs jobs jobs. That would make Spitzer/Bloomberg/Suozzi/Spano/Bruno/Silver/Lopez the powerpeople i this state no doubt. 

 Isnt that better than a president from another state?


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 4:18pm.
Thats not all either.  If Hillary was elected President, she would vacate her New York Senate seat.  It would become open, and Spitzer would name an interim senator until there was an election.  Rock could announce for her Senate seat!  Why should Rock Hanshaw vote for Obama, when by electing Hillary, he would get his big dream chance to run for the United States Senate?
Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 4:37pm.
(As voters we must root for the home team, not the white or black team. Hilary or Rudy would fill this state with jobs jobs jobs.)

New Yorkers think they should be running the world, and have been willing to sell out the "home team" interest for broader objectives ever since Alexander Hamilton's deal to exchange federalization of the debt for the relocation of the nation's capital to DC.

Power for Manhattan & the influential burbs, not jobs for Brooklyn, Buffalo and the Bronx, would result from a home team win.

Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 4:48pm.
My dream is NOT to run for US senate; so you are wrong on that one. Running for office has never been a dream for me; I saw it (at one point in time) as a neccessity. The representation that we in the black community have been getting is in my estimation: abysmal. As for Wallner: do get it straight......please. I wanted (and still want) to ban anonymous comments because of the ABUSE. The constant personal attacks should have already disqualified anons from posting here; the editors decided not to go my way on this, but I still feel they were (and are) wrong. It had nothing to do with "snobishness". I am starting to believe Michael Bouldin when he intones that you Wallner, are an intellectually challenged person; and that too has nothing to do with snobishness; it has to do with common sense and evaluation. The fact that at least three people on at least two blog sites have made this observation should tell you something.

Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 5:03pm.

Rock you are a hypocrite.  You criticize me for saying something about you without having concrete proof, and then you turn around and do the same to me.  I used common sense and evaluated your posts about banning anonymous posters, and I found your posts insufferably snobbish.  That was and is my opinion of those posts.  People who call other people "intellectually challenged" are also those who I would consider snobbish.

Rock you think you are more intelligent, smarter, by an exponential amount, than anyone else on this board.  That is the impression I get.  You make fine posts.  But you are conceited (why else would you make yourself the subject of all your posts?) and thin skinned.  In my opinion.  Which I am entitled to have, and which opinions are as valid as yours or anyone else's.  Get over yourself already.

I have no wish for a flame war.  If you noticed on my post about Obama where I mentioned snobbishness I put a smiley next to it.,  It was not meant in any mean spirited way.  If you were not so childishly thin skinned (also validated by your inability to take the criticism of anonymous posters) you would have seen it that way.


Submitted by rwallnerny on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 5:03pm.

Rock you are a hypocrite.  You criticize me for saying something about you without having concrete proof, and then you turn around and do the same to me.  I used common sense and evaluated your posts about banning anonymous posters, and I found your posts insufferably snobbish.  That was and is my opinion of those posts.  People who call other people "intellectually challenged" are also those who I would consider snobbish.

Rock you think you are more intelligent, smarter, by an exponential amount, than anyone else on this board.  That is the impression I get.  You make fine posts.  But you are conceited (why else would you make yourself the subject of all your posts?) and thin skinned.  In my opinion.  Which I am entitled to have, and which opinions are as valid as yours or anyone else's.  Get over yourself already.

I have no wish for a flame war.  If you noticed on my post about Obama where I mentioned snobbishness I put a smiley next to it.,  It was not meant in any mean spirited way.  If you were not so childishly thin skinned (also validated by your inability to take the criticism of anonymous posters) you would have seen it that way.


Submitted by Bouldin (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 6:27pm.
Hey Rock, didn't I tell you that rwallnerny would spam this post no end? Dude lives to pointlessly speculate about the Presidential race.
Submitted by alyce (not verified) on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 10:35pm.

When Senator Obama said he thinks the majority of US citizens are decent people I thought he a bit crazy and if he is crazy enough to run for Pres I am crazy enough to vote for him. Michelle explained about the fear factor; they are both very brave. If there is a Christian god and lots of Christian prayers no harm will come to him.

Experience? He has served more time in public office then Hillary. He got Cornell West to back him and that kind of talent took experience to develop. I guess people want some more of that same old same old corrupt government and, (my personal opinion) bigoted elected officails?

Obama has shown by action what he is capable of doing at the highest level. He wants to serve the people not force the people to be at the mercy of government. He is like a refreshing breath of fresh air on the political scene, crazy, but as the pastor said, maybe we can use some good crazy in this country.


Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 7:47am.
I am not trying to be cynical,but look what happened to the following people: Mahatma Ghandi,Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, John and Robert Kennedy(s), Malcolm X and a few others along the way. Are you saying that God wasn't around then? I do believe that there is a God (or supreme being), but I also think that we (humans) have certain responsibilities as it relates to our secutiry (and life). We need to protect that guy (Obama) as best as we can as a country (society); he has definitely put his life at risk..

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 4:19pm.
Just too, too long.  Ho hum.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 4:44pm.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Before you criticize Rock, why don't you write a short concise story about Obama? Can you? So shut the bleep up. So many of you here only come on this blog to attack others; especially  Hackshaw. This series was brilliant. Well done. Compliment him not attack him. Can you top this, well do so then?  
 

Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 4:49pm.
As long as this article (series) has been, there is still a lot more I could say. What does length have to do with it anyway? Therein lies another problem; the mainstream media has programmed too many of you to look for little bites and not for the whole meal.

Submitted by R. H. Bowman (not verified) on Fri, 07/13/2007 - 7:11am.
Well done Professor. A few more pieces and you will get your "Honorary Doctorate" in political analysis. I urge the bloggers to read the Obama book "The Audacity of Hope". I do pray that this young man "Barry" his family and this nation is kept from the tradgedy of another mindless social or personal asssasination. Facing the reality of an international and national culture of violence (count the wars since this nation was founded, and the crime statistics, and the entertainment industry cranking out violence) is something that the next president of the United States, who ever they may be must learn to live with influence and help to lead the nation and the world in different directions. We are in a nation that is at war as declared by our current President. Billions of dollars in business and military spending are committed to this war, along with the commitment of thousands of lives to the eternal grave. It is my belief that the current Presidency is a position that is 90 percent "OJT" on the job training. The campaign and the nomination and the election process, are the right of passage that one must endure and navigate to reach the position of chief executive of the USA. By the way on the international political scene recently a Nigerian was elected Mayor in Ireland (Google That) I believe the time is right for a National Leader that transcends the politics of the past and brings a new hope to the leadership of this land. The process must be completed, there are the 2008 primaries, the conventions the post cnvention campaigning and the 2008 General election to go through. Let's see as this process pans out and engages all of the nation from the grass roots to the media, to the powers that be if the primary electorate comes out and votes in record numbers, and produces the delegates that select Barry as the standard bearer to carry his message into the fray of 2008. Reginald H. Bowman
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/14/2007 - 3:12pm.
Out of all the candidates so far, Obama offers the kind hope I'm looking for, someone new, fresh, secure in himself and his abilities. I don't want another "experienced" aka cynical and partisan and I am really am not looking forward to a repeat of the Hill-Bill circus or the meaness they symbolize. We have more than enough of that now. As to the writer who would vote for Hillary so that Spitzer could name her replacement and our current state leaders would be power brokers in the country, good lord, can you imagine if Spitzer, Bruno, Silver et al had a chance to do to the country what they did and continue to do to N.Y.? Noooooo, thank you. And Rock, I wish you would run for something, I don't live anywhere near you, but I'd volunteer to work on your campaign anyway. Been reading you a long time and although there are a few things I don't agree with you on, you are someone I believe speaks from his heart and is still a believer and boy would I like to be one again, too.
Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Sat, 07/14/2007 - 6:58pm.
To 4:12 pm............ Well, I am still hopeful that things will turn around one day; even though I am not as optimistic as I was some years ago. I have voted in 3 presidential races im in my lifetime; everytime I voted it was for Ralph Nader, because he alone addressed the tthings dearest to my heart.

Submitted by rwallnerny on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 10:11am.

Here's a story about recent polling:

http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=27160 

A key excerpt:

"..the Democratic race remains static, with Hillary Rodham Clinton holding a sizable lead over Barack Obama. The New York senator, who is white, also outpaces her Illinois counterpart, who is black, among black and Hispanic Democrats, according to a combined sample of two months of polls."

[end quote]

So the question is, why is Hillary consistently showing more support among black and hispanic voters than Obama? More to the point, I have been to Obama events and I have seen his rallies on tv.  He draws huge crowds, as Rock points out.   What he doesn't point out is that Obama draws huge WHITE crowds.  Obama's supporters are by and large young, well educated and white.  The very same demographic that went nuts over Howard Dean four years earlier.  I volunteered for Dean four years ago and remember well how the press leveled valid criticism that he had little black support.  There are similar parallells here with Obama. 

This leads to some questions that, uncomfortable as they may be to bring up, must be asked.  Such as, 'Are some african-american voters less likely to support Obama because he is half white?'  and 'are african voters going to reflexively see a black candidate with that much white support and say he must be an 'uncle tom'?  Is it possible that Barack Obama, being half white, may not be seen as 'black enough' to the african american community, when compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton who are considered great friends to that community?

What other conclusions can you draw when you see poll after poll showing that Obama's support is overwhelmingly white, and Hillary's support is greater among african americans and hispanics? 

    


Submitted by rwallnerny on Sat, 07/21/2007 - 1:19pm.

The latest CNN poll of South Carolina democrats illustrates the problem Obama has:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/20/clinton-in-charge-in-south-carolina/

The polls numbers are Clinton 39% Obama 25% Edwards 15%.  But the relevant quote here is this one:

[quote]"Among whites, Clinton has a thin 3 point lead over Edwards, 30 percent to 27 percent, with Obama coming in third at 18 percent.

Meanwhile, among blacks, Clinton holds a 16 point lead over Obama, 47 percent to 31 percent, with Edwards drawing a paltry 4 percent."

[/quote]

and

[quote]Black primary voters by a wide margin think that Clinton has a better chance than Obama of beating the GOP nominee in November[/quote]

This would seem to have less to do with Hillary Clinton therefore, then with black voters thinking that the racial divide is still too great in this country.  That many of these african american voters-- with their personal experiences living with racism never far removed from their thoughts-- think there is still no way a black man can get elected President when there are still so many racists out there.

Obama's challenge therefore, among african american voters even moreso than white american voters, is to convince them he-- or any black candidate-- can win a general election contest against a white republican. 

If Obama cannot do this, Hillary is going to get the african american vote, as the polls indicate, because its more important to nominate a candidate they think can win.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Submitted by Sophia (not verified) on Thu, 08/02/2007 - 10:39pm.
While I may be a few weeks late to this party, I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway. Rock, thank you for this. I only wish someone like YOU were leading the flock of black folks who apparently need a 'Covenant' to guide them! I've been checking r8 for months looking for part 3 - this made my day!
Rock Hackshaw's picture
Submitted by Rock Hackshaw on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 12:14pm.
To Sophia: Thank you very much. You made my day.

Submitted by zara on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 9:31pm.

<b><a href="http://www.louisvuittonhome.net">Louis Vuitton Handbags</a></b> On the added hand, its not all set is abundantly <b><a href="http://www.louisvuittonhome.net">Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet</a></b> advantageous to be able to get their own loving.<b><a href="http://www.louisvuittonhome.net">Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags</a></b> All those abode appropriate assertions calm with <b><a href="http://www.louisvuittonhome.net/women-outlet-shop-damier-ebene-canvas-outlet-c-1_9.html">Louis Vuitton Damier Ebene Canvas Outlet</a></b> actualization nonetheless preventing ample

Submitted by zara on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 9:32pm.
Louis Vuitton Handbags On the added hand, its not all set is abundantlyLouis Vuitton Handbags Outlet advantageous to be able to get their own loving.Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags All those abode appropriate assertions calm with Louis Vuitton Damier Ebene Canvas Outletactualization nonetheless preventing ample

Submitted by zara on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 9:36pm.
Louis Vuitton Handbags On the added hand, its not all set is abundantlyLouis Vuitton Handbags Outlet advantageous to be able to get their own loving.Cheap Louis Vuitton Handbags All those abode appropriate assertions calm with Louis Vuitton Damier Ebene Canvas Outletactualization nonetheless preventing ample

Submitted by bookmarking (not verified) on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:39am.
y2VaKf I think this is a real great article post.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

Post new comment

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