No it doesn’t. “Possible Black discord” is not substantiated by a handful of opinions that don’t even support the contention that Obama isn’t “black enough”, which is what keeps getting harped upon in the media. There’s a difference between saying Obama technically is not black because of <insert whatever factor> and saying Obama is not black enough to score black votes.
Not even the snippets that Bricker posted add any evidence to support a significant “Black discord” wrt Obama.
This comment doesn’t say anything about Obama personally or his “blackness”. What it does suggest is that concerns may exist that Obama is not going to be much different than any liberal politician in terms of black representation. Why this has to be interpreted as a statement that black people reject Obama because he’s not black enough is beyond me. Much has been made about Obama being a black man. But in terms of having a political voice, that means nothing if the only people he is listening to are mainstreamers. That is Martin’s point.
(bolding mine)
This strikes me as being no different than any pre-election race grandstanding coming from a potential contender. The issue, once again, is political representation. It takes a special kind of something to read this as being a slam against Obama’s blackness. Urban =! black. Obama is not selling himself as a voice for the “urban agenda”, so Sharpton is correct in saying that he’s the only one (attempting) to do that. And notice how the passive voice figures in once again when the writer says the part in bold? It’s lazy and weasley because it comes across as rumor spreading while always leaving the writer an “out”.
Yeah, I went through that with the Webb for Senate campaign last year. I wrote in response to one of their e-mails:
*What are Webb’s positions on the issues? All you talk about is money and how sexy the candidate is.
What are the POSITIONS on the ISSUES? Hello?*
After that, the campaign had a woman start sending me the information I’d asked for. I liked their responsiveness and wrote,
*OK, that’s better. The Democrats need to appeal to women who think. I’m glad you sent me something substantial, Jessica. The guy who first sent me something from the campaign seemed to think that women would just vote for a pretty face or something.
For a Democratic Senate,
Johanna*
I support Obama for his position on the war, first and foremost, and I am bitterly disappointed in what Hillary has turned into. While as a feminist I strongly resist the idea that women can be expected to vote for a pretty guy - they said that the first time we had the vote, to explain why Warren G. Harding won, and it’s demeaning - there are spiritual/intangible/“fluff-bunny” qualities about Obama that I think are important too. His ability to inspire hope and a positive future for a better America. A cynic might calll that hogwash, but I believe a nation that loses that spirit is going down the tubes.
I’m politically active in the religious left, and I can tell you Obama is going to set fire to the churchgoing voters who are sick of right-wing meanness, who would rather see the caring, gentle, loving values of Christianity put into practice for once. His ability to connect with religious-minded voters as well as spiritual-but-not-religious people (who have been completely ignored) is perhaps his greatest strength of all. America is just plain a religious/spiritual minded country, that’s all. As long as that’s a given, let’s elect people who can engage the benign aspects of religion instead of the malevolent as Karl Rove has done.
Well, no shit, I get exactly that sort of harassment all the time. Complete with rationalizations and justifications of why it’s supposed to be OK to harass me over it. Rude and stupid is right! So I agree with you, treating Obama like that is just wrong.
And I don’t have an Adam’s apple, Ann Coulter eat your heart out, I have an Eve’s non-apple
Courtland Milloy, a well-known black columnist for the Washington Post, today asks in his column… and I quote:
The tone of his column is by no means approving of that question; he inveighs against the concept, wondering “What happened to just being human?” But his column also acknowledges that others ARE asking the question, and that among their number are blacks.
I offer this as further rebuttal of the notion that no blacks, or no blacks whose opinions are relevant, are raising the issue.
I read the same column this morning and found no such claim. Can you quote the part of the column that acknowledges that blacks are asking whether Obama is “black enough”?
He already quoted it, slowpoke. The article was written by a Black man and he pondered:
“Is Obama black enough for the black vote?”
I guess monstro and twin could easily illustrate that Black commentary is more thoughtful than White commentary on the Obama issue. Mainstream news is basically aligned with the Horse Race mentality of most American election coverage.
Milloy is not questioning whether Obama is black enough for blacks. He’s saying the question itself (and others like it) should be phased out of our political rhetoric. In other words, his view is actually more in line with the OP’s opinion than anything you have contributed to this thread.
Where in that column is any indication that any black person is actually questioning Obama’s black credentials?
All three of the persons quoted said that he was sufficiently “black” to suit them and I see no evidence that anyone is challenging his status. The response that he is sufficiently black, always given by a black person, is always in answer to an unuttered question delivered silently out of sight of the actual conversation, leading me to suspect that it has been spoken by one more white pundit.
Where is the quotation by a named black person indicating personal doubts–not musings on hypothetical unnamed persons offstage–regarding Obama’s association with the black community?
I thought the question was implicit in the writing of the column. The entire column decries the asking of the question, which presupposes that the question is being asked.
Just to be clear (not being a smartass), are you saying Obama is now leading in the polls because Blacks have learned more about him, his positions, plans, etc., and like what they hear, or are you saying the polls among Blacks now favor him because he’s Black, despite favorable impressions of HRC?
No, but people may take some time to consolidate their opinions, for whatever reasons they form them.
Also, I tried to edit my last post to further clarify my thinking, despite the timer’s indication, the five minutes were up:
My question was trying to clarify whether the poster was stating that (1) the poll numbers reflected favorable opinions by Blacks about Obama because [at this point in time],* as an INDIVIDUAL, they like what he’s saying, or (2) whether the poll numbers reflected favorable opinions by Blacks about Obama simply because [at this point in time], as a BLACK man, he’s more like them, despite otherwise liking what HRC represents.
Bracketed material was added after I saw your last response.
I’ve been saying that he will win over Black voters because his articulated values and vision resonate with much of what have been traditional concerns of many Black Americans. Like other voters they are only beginning to form an impression of him. They will increasingly identify with him (or not) less on the basis of skin color than on the basis of a perception of his values and his sincerity. They may like HRC. But from what they’ve now seen of Obama they may like him better. So far. Him being “Black enough” does not seem to a major part of the calculus other than to the talking heads … although it will be perversely humourous to hear the exact same pundits go on about how now Blacks are for him because he is sooo Black like them.
I’ve read your posts and thought that’s what you meant. I just wasn’t sure what you were saying in the post for which I asked for clarification because of the juxtaposition of the quotes you used.
I also agree with you. I’m Black, but when I first began to hear of Obama running for president my initial reaction was I wasn’t interested in him because there was already too much hype attached to his (then potential) candidacy. I’ve since decided to at least check him (and all other candidates) out before making up my mind.
And my opinion, whatever it ends up being, won’t be decided upon because he’s Black or Not-Black-Enough.
I’m refusing to vote for John McCain because he’s not Mac enough.
I’m refusing to vote for John Edwards because he’s not pale enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Rudy G. because he’s not Italian enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Newt because he’s not amphibious enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Brownback because his back’s not brown enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Hillary because she’s not feminine enough. (Which is really lame, but I’ve a big list & it’s too easy; can we get another woman in here, people?)
I’m refusing to vote for Mitt Romney because he’s not LDS enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Ron Paul because he’s not Libertarian enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Duncan Hunter 'cos his Eggo’s not sandy enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Bill Richardson because he’s not Mexican enough/not Chicano enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Dodd because he’s not Connecticut enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Biden because he’s not Delaware enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Wesley Clark because he’s not G.I. enough.
I’m refusing to vote for the Green candidate because I know it’ll be someone green–not seasoned enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Vilsack because he’s not in the race enough.
I’m refusing to vote for Obama because he’s not Kenyan-Indonesian-Hawaiian enough–oh, wait, we started with him. right?
Yeah, by white people. Or are you gonna use monstro’s OP to say, “You’re a black woman raising the question!”?
Oh, & by the way. In the English-speaking world, Kenyans, Zambians, Australian aborigines, anyone with dark enough skin, are all “black.” Ms. Dickerson is full of it. Does she deny the category “white” to Russian immigrants?
