dalej42, the Clintons have strong ties to the Civil Rights community. Recall that Bill was often hailed by members of that community as “the first black President.”
True – but he did marry into that family, FWIW.
The question was whether or not America was “ready” for a black president. After that, the slightly vague intonation of the word “ready” is up for grabs.
That 68.3% of all statistics used in debate are made up on the spot.
The article cited seems to be taking a couple observations and opinions from a couple black people and making more out of them than what they are. None of what the article is saying mirrors what I’ve seen. Hate to say it, but I think that whatever distinctions that are drawn between Obama and the “Civil Rights Establishment” will be drawn, emphasized, and acted upon by white people much more than blacks. After all, it is white people who continually treat Jackson and Sharpton as voices for an entire ethnic group. Black people seem to be the only ones who realize that these so-called black leaders are only self-appointed media hounds. They do good work from time to time, but they are not elected and they have no constituents!
I’ve essentially seen unanimous support of Obama among the black people I know. In contrast, there has always been intra-community debate about Sharpton, Jackson, et al. So this article just does not jive with what I know. I disagree with the piece also because it caters to the perception that there is no nuance to black people’s political choices. A significant chunk of the black population has come up in the post-Civil Rights era, so they have fewer nostalgic ties to the heros of yesteryear. I’m one of these people. It would never cross my mind to compare Obama with any other black politician. In fact, the idea is ludicrous to me. Why ever would I or any black person do that when never before have we had a black politician to reached heights that Obama has attained? He is on a whole different playing field.
Which brings me to why I disagree with the idea that black people think Obama is an outsider. An outsider from what, exactly? An outsider from the black community? I’ve seen no indication that blacks reject Obama because he’s not a descendant of slaves. To most of the people I know, we consider him black and that’s that. Once again, the only folks I see paying attention to his pedigree are whites.
I think there’s truth to this statement, but I don’t see this as necessarily due to blacks rejecting Obama as much as whites heaping an inordinate amount of praise on this newcomer just because he’s black and nonthreatening. It’s the Colin Powell effect.
Whether he’s identified with the old guard of the civil rights movement or not, Obama, if he’s on the ticket in 2008, can almost certainly count on the vote of every African-American but Alan Keyes. The Dems can usually count on the black vote anyway, but a black candidate would increase their turnout, which can make all the difference in a close election. (OTOH, it would also increase the turnout of white racists . . .)
I’m bumping this thread to add a link to this New York Times article: So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote for Granted, and the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll cited in the article which found that 60% supported Hillary Clinton and 20% supported Obama. The article also indicates that there is some uncomfortableness among blacks about Obama’s having been mostly brought up by his mothers white family and his father’s being African and not a slave-descended American black.
The Times article quotes some of the same sources as the AFP piece linked to in the OP, but adds some others. The WP/ABC poll, however is new and, to me, surprising.
I’m certain that Obama would have overwhelming support from blacks in the general election were he the candidate, but how does this all play out in the primaries?
I think that’s a combination of name recognition and track record - Bill Clinton was “the first black President” and I’m that helps Hillary somewhat. And I wouldn’t be surprised if many black people are suspicious of Obama because of his heritage or his popularity with white voters.
Oh yeah, and let’s not ignore the possibility that it’s not about skin color, and black voters don’t or wouldn’t agree with his ideas. 
He’s got time to win them over, and his work in Chicago would be one step toward that. Sharpton and Jackson, I think, are wisely delaying their endorsement choices to see who has the most to offer them and their supporters.
This is a really interesting meme spreading. Do you think it’s intended to make him look less threatening to white folks, or to sabotage him among blacks? And I agree that this is swingover from Bill Clinton’s popularity rather than anything inherent to Hillary. As soon as she opens her mouth, she’ll probably lose her bonus.
My guess is the latter, as a step toward hurting his appeal to white people. He hasn’t faced much scrutiny before, and since he’s a hot crossover candidate, there are groups who would be happy to undermine his credibility.
The ABC/WP poll numbers are interesting to look at. The difference between All and Black Democratic voters in their preference for HRC is minimal, a lead of 35% vs a lead of 40% with the major difference being that Black voters really seem to realize what a putz Edwards is and are going to the other already known name instead.
Seems like Black voters and White voters are actually pretty much alike. They’ll wait and see what he says and how he says it and until he wins them over (or not) go with a name they know.
Shocking, isn’t it?
IMHO he’ll win them over not because he is identified as Black but because he will express values that they agree with and do so with eloquence. Whether or not that happens (across the board) is the question. HRC is as high of a favorable rating she’ll get. Most everyone else also has an opinion about her and it aint positive.
But it isn’t about race just because he is identified as Black. Wotta concept.
Well, the thing is, it’s showing up in the Times and other liberal-friendly places. It’s not showing up in the tabloids like the Daily News. The only people who will read it are the upper-crusters.
Given time, I think the idea will get around.
Isn’t it 60% for Blacks, not 40%? And where do you get 35% for “all”-- I don’t even see that as a category. The only category that came up 35% for Clinton was “Whites”. There’s “all leaning democrats”, but they’re 41% for Clinton. Are we reading the same table (on page 2)?
My brain cramp. All mainline Democrats is 47 - 15 = 32%, to Black Democrats in particular which is the 60 - 20 = 40% lead (using pooled data). Sorry.
Is Barak Black ?
For that matter is Condo or Colin Powell Black ? (I thought about the ‘is’)
From the little I know of him, his main appeal seems to me that he is offering a ‘one nation’ policy - pointing out the similarities between Republicans and Democrats rather than the differences.
In some ways a bit like Tony Blair in 1997, but I sincerely hope he is not from the same mould.
It feels soooooo good to finally have the rest of the nation catch up with me. I’ve been harping about Obama’s adopted African-American ethnicity and his Kenyan ancestry for what–? Three years now?
In an attempt to gain my usual position ahead the racial/ethnic curve, here’s my deep suspicions about what will happen with Barack’s candidacy in the months ahead, and other domino effects.
-
Poll numbers aside, I predict that Obama will end up usurping much of the Democratic black vote away from Hilary, simply because she has not even a tenth of Bill’s charisma or one hundredth of Barack’s passion. Once Obama starts getting more and more airtime, expect the polls numbers to shift hard. He has nothing to fear from the older Civil Rights Establishment: the very fact that he has gained and succeeded by virtue of the very rights that the Civil Rights Movement fought for is a testimont to their sacrifices. Whatever questions one has about his ethnicity, one cannot deny that his track record and political stance are very much in line with mainstream black America: moderate, fiscally conservative, socially liberal and a commited to helping the poor. More importantly he has fully integrated himself into African-American society: his constituents are mostly African-American, as is his wife’s family. He and his wife made the cover of EBONY. His heritage and ethnicity is Kenyan, and I predict more black immigrants will start taking advantage of his ascendency by underlying and celebrating the differences in their ethnic cultures from historical black America.
-
One thing NOT talked about in this article is the potential for friction between two specific black groups: (stereotype alert) growing numbers of upwardly mobile immigrant blacks here in America competing for educational opportunities and degreed jobs, and the far vaster numbers of African-Americans mired in generational poverty who may be embittered by the successes of immigrant blacks. At least as important to Obama’s legacy at the end of the day to reconciling blacks and whites and Democrats and Republicans will be to join the various elements of the black diaspora together. There’s already anectdotal evidence of some Caribbeans on the job market deliberately retaining their island accents to seem more exotic and therefore more desirable to potential employers. It’s one of the reasons why “Ja’fakin” is a slang word for American blacks who try talk patois. Speaking of which, whatever happened to Miss Cleo? Call me now!
-
You know how for years now I’ve been saying how the term African-American is historically only accurate for descendents of US slaves? I can see how, as other other black groups finally get greater awaremness in larger American society, how the potential for the term “African-American” to truly be expanded to include all sorts of blacks in America: the Afro-Canadians, Afro-Latins, African immigrants and black Americans. By then, of course, the descendents of the antebellum black population here will be calling ourselves something else by them. “Nubians” has a nice ring to it. 'Course we might be calling ourselves The Seeds of Katrina, too…
When Obama started in politics, he did not start as a candidate, but as an organizer. He chose Chicago’s South side and saw first hand how good intentions were not enough. Askia when you say that he is “commited to helping the poor” that doesn’t tell the story that needs to be told. Not only does he want to do the liberal thing and “help the poor”, he wants to give people a chance, a real chance, to help themselves, and by that he doesn’t mean kicking people off welfare regardless of their means. He realizes that many people want to improve their lot and are willing to put hard work into it and the opportunity to do that today is too narrow.
Unlike many who are doing well, he seems to thing hard work in the classroom should count for something. Too many seem to think the only means the poor should have to get ahead is though hard work at multiple menial jobs. It was damn difficult for me and my husband to move from poverty to middle class and it has gotten a lot tougher since, what with Pell grants shrinking and other programs we used being underfunded. Even back them, many programs were designed with gotchas that made it very difficult to use them to get ahead and not just tread water.
Obama’s emphasis on education it not just some politico mouthing what he thinks someone wants to hear, but the words of someone who knows first hand the power of education. He knows but for the grace of god and a mother who got him up to study in the wee hours of the morning, his life would have been far different, and he knows it is far different for many and he knows America is poorer for it. Unlike those who unthinkingly speak of helping the poor, Obama realizes that helping them will help America; it is not a hand out he seeks to make, but an investment.
That most white people still want to “hear no evil”?
The reason I would not vote for Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton has more to do with them being preachers than with them being black.