OPINION & EDITORIAL
Dissecting Obama-mania
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)
- Want Big Ten sports? Get a dish (November 19, 2007)
- Civil rights movement needs 'Black-In' (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Obama: Visionary, not fraudulent (September 19, 2007)
- Readers stop punching pillows, respond (September 21, 2007)
- Idealism on tap at Obama fundraiser (October 16, 2007)
by Gerald Cox
Monday, March 12, 2007
Want to be president? Then for the presidency's sake, don't, for the love of the nomination, comment on race. Another piece of advice: don't, for the sake of the presidency, make comments that can be misconstrued as disparaging about media sweetheart Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Having not heard my sage advice, presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., waded into the touchy topic of race days before he announced his bid for the Democratic nomination and declared that Sen. Obama is the "first sort of mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright, and clean and a nice-looking guy."
And I couldn't agree more, at least with the idea behind Sen. Biden's remarks. Other than the nice-looking part, I can't consider myself an appropriate judge of the senator's looks.
Leave it to Sen. Biden to stick his foot squarely in his mouth on issues pertaining to the African-American community. This is the same Sen. Biden that, according to USA Today, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with Southern voters, declared to a roomful of South Carolina's Columbia Rotary Club in December that Sen. Biden's state of Delaware was a "slave state that fought beside the North." But only, of course, the senator stressed, because Delaware "couldn't figure out how to get to the South; there were a couple of states in the way."
If that kind of rhetoric doesn't secure you the black vote, I don't know what will.
But before you start conjuring up images of Sen. Biden running off to a KKK campaign fundraising meeting waving a Confederate flag while refusing to admit that jazz is a better expression of the black experience than hip-hop, consider what Sen. Biden is actually saying. Sen. Biden was describing his fellow Democratic hopefuls and structured his comments within the context of discussing presidential hopefuls, not the black community as a whole.
Sen. Biden, in my opinion, correctly opined that Sen. Obama is the first electable black presidential hopeful — ever. No offense to former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, D-Ill., the most forgetful of the 2004 Democratic presidential hopefuls, but Sen. Obama's actually got a chance at this. There's only one other black man or woman who could say their hopefulness was actually hopeful: former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell, however, was never a mainstream candidate because he was never a candidate. So Sen. Biden's got a point, whether you are comfortable with how he worded it or not.
I'll agree with what I believe Sen. Biden was trying to say. No black presidential candidate has been as mainstream or as electable as Sen. Barack Obama. And Sen. Biden thinks he's articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking to boot.
Whether or not you think Sen. Biden's comments are reflective of racist tendencies rooted deep in his East Coast liberal heart, his observation must be on the mind of many of the electorate. The craze surrounding the rather inexperienced Sen. Obama begs the question: Is much of his popularity due to the fact that he is black? Sen. Biden seems to think so.
Another minority presidential hopeful, Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., who is as much Latino as Sen. Obama is black, has not drawn nearly the same amount of attention as the latter. And Gov. Richardson is far more deserving. As a former U.N. ambassador, congressman, and energy secretary, and currently governor of New Mexico, Gov. Richardson has a powerful résumé and applicable experience. Sen. Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
Sound energy policy or well-written articles? Hmm…
Sen. Obama's apologists will equate his candidacy with another inexperienced U.S. presidential hopeful, Abraham Lincoln, as if President Lincoln's near dictatorial — though timely performance — in office somehow justifies Sen. Obama's inexperience. The difference, however, is that President Abraham Lincoln was the commander-in-chief of a nation with 14 fewer states and a GDP that was a fraction of what California's is today. Add to that America's current position as a waning superpower, and the fact that more people harbor us ill will now than ever before in our nation's history, and you're looking at an executive branch where Lincolnian inexperience just doesn't cut it anymore.
So why are you so excited about Sen. Obama?
America has been anxious for a member of its historically underdog ethnic group to make a realistic run for the presidency for the last decade and a half. Voters, for the most part, are just plain excited about the idea of a black president, more so, it seems, than even a woman president. Powell wasn't willing, but Sen. Obama is, and he has inherited all of the excitement that voters hold for a mainstream black presidential hopeful. And he's the very first. It's just too exciting.
So what if Sen. Biden was right? What if all of this excitement and this "storybook" situation is due to Sen. Obama's ethnicity?
What I'm trying to say is, would you be so excited about Sen. Barack Obama if he were white?
Gerald Cox (gcox@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in economics and Middle Eastern studies.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 1:15am):
Yeah, I would be.
Obama for President.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 4:42am):
"What I'm trying to say is, would you be so excited about Sen. Barack Obama if he were white?"
There is no real reason to be excited about Obama beyond the media hyping up his skin color and "charisma" (I'd call it demagoguery). He is a mediocre candidate at best, and a politician originating from a corrupt Illinois State Senator district in Chicago at worst.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 5:16am):
Gerald if Senator Obama was white then he would actually have it a lot easier because he would not be subject to such petty race baiting. I noticed you did not mention Kennedy who was also inexperienced. I suggest you read Barack Obama's book and you may understand why people are excited about his character.
I for one believe he is a better speaker than Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton. A lot more inspirational.
So to answer your question if he was white then he would not have to deal with race baiting from people like you. Everyone would be talking how great his oratory skills are, this intelligence, eloquence and his ability to connect just like they did for Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.
if you are not aware he actually served 8 years as a state legislature and pioneerd numerous laws such as ethics reform which people said could never be done. I suggest you actually look at the mans biography rather than jump on the hype.
My advice to you Gerald do your research and report some facts rather than take the easy road and race bait.
Read his speech about the Iraq war in 2002 and you may understand why people believe he is a thoughtful intelligent leader. here is an excerpt of his speech and i challenge you to find some thing better from any other politician. Barack Obama's foresight was incredible then and foresight my friend is one of the characteristics of being a great leader. as they say how can you lead if you cant see beyond your followers.
Excertp of Obama's Speech in 2002
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe."
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 7:16am):
"What I'm trying to say is, would you be so excited about Sen. Barack Obama if he were white?"
Isn't he half white? Doesn't one drop of white blood make you white?
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 9:07am):
"Would you be so excited about Sen. Barack Obama if he were white?"
Yes. Early in the game, he seems to be making all the right moves. He's smart, well-spoken and handsome (he keeps his fro in check, Gerald).
Mr. Cox, I think you're frustrated because white America seems to be ignoring his race. You would rather have Sharpton or Jackson shoving their near-militant blackness in everyone's faces.
Obama wins in 2008, black or not.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 10:44am):
"There is no real reason to be excited about Obama beyond the media hyping up his skin color and "charisma"
Did we vote George Bush in on his record? Did we vote him in on his intelligence? OR, did we vote him in because he wasn't a douche bag like Gore and Kerry? Wasn't Bush the guy "you could see yourself sharing a beer with?"
Hey stud, before writing this crap, why don't you evaluate the sorry sack you've blessed us with for the last 6 years. Obama is a breath of fresh air... and you're jealous!
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 11:23am):
Vote for Obama. to bring grace and greatness back to this country! It means a lot domestically and internationally!
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 12:09pm):
"Mr. Cox, I think you're frustrated because white America seems to be ignoring his race."
I hope it will be possible to say the same thing about black America someday.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 12:28pm):
be a good liberal.
show how tolerant you can be by voting for obama!!!
it's just like voting for ellison!
show your tolerance in 08!
you race-obsessed libs. always on skin tone, never on content.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 3:27pm):
Race obsessed libs? Please. Here's why he'll win:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East.I am not opposed to all wars.I'm opposed to dumb wars." - Barack Obama, October 2002
He had better foresight than just about anyone in Washington. Too bad he wasn't president then.
Jason Smathers (March 12, 2007 @ 4:12pm):
Race is cited as a factor, then it's not. The media both accepts and denies it.
An African-American president is a huge step. It certainly has to be a factor in his electability. Yet, I don't think his race is what will win him the nomination (if he does, that is.). It will be Hillary Clinton's tarnished reputation and her lack of political will. She sounds strong, but she's really a moderate.
I just wish Al Gore would stand up and put these children to bed.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 4:22pm):
Haha, all these liberal commentors are pissed because their strongest candidates for 2008 are a half-black junior senator from Illinois and a crazy, ugly, poor excuse for a junior senator from new york who is a woman. Not to mention a woman who used her husband's "ethical" presidency to jump start her own career. Madison liberals need to wake up and realize not even the majority of the Democratic party in the US is ready to have a black or a woman president. Its too bad for them really because they are so anxious to get Bush out of office that they will let just about anyone run for president these days.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 5:26pm):
HAHA, right back at ya, which pro-family divorcer will be the Republican nominee? Maybe you have to get an attention whore actor, former senator from Law & Order to save you... oh wait, he's best friends with Scooter Libby AND has ALSO been DIVORCED.
You got no one, chump. Stay home and cry.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 5:31pm):
Amen about the corruption and Illinois. I would never vote for a guy who would be pictured with Mayor Daley.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 5:41pm):
"OR, did we vote him in because he wasn't a douche bag like Gore and Kerry?"
It's tragi-comical to hear all the weeping and gnashing of teeth over Bush because while it's now apparent that a sock puppet could have beat him in 2004, the Democratics could only come up with Kerry, who was much worse than a sock puppet and beat himself.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 5:42pm):
Best selling bumper sticker EVER!!!
RUN, HILLARY, RUN
Dems put it on the rear bumper....
Repubs put it on the front.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 8:03pm):
it'funny that people say at the same time as it's harder to get anywhere if you're black, it's supposedly also easier. how's it gonna be? and i agree with the guy who mentioned that obama is half white/half black. so i guess it's absolutely most fair to vote for him since we are only voting based on race.
god bless america!
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 12:17am):
To me it seems the place you hear the most about Obama's race is from the right who don't want him to run. The problems the right will have with him are that he is young, extraordinarily bright, and since he is fairly new to the Washington, D.C. stage he does not have the years of baggage that can create.
Meanwhile, neither of the likely Republican candidates (Giuliani or McCain, and by the way I'd be just fine with either of them) are likely to draw support from the Christian Conservative base that Bush drew so much of his support from. And there aren't many more states to pass constitutional gay marriage bans in.
The honest fact of the matter is that Bush may have slaughtered what remained of Reagan's movement, and done what LBJ did to the word "liberal" with the word "conservative": Turned it into the word that makes you unelectable.
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 12:23am):
First of all, as a Chicagoan and an Illinoisan, I think its very unfair to characterize Barack Obama as corrupt simply because he is from Illinois. You may disagree with the ethics of our governors and our mayor, but Senator Obama has not been linked to any sort of corruption, has not been seriously accused of any, and in my judgement of his character (from reading his books) would not be a corrupt politician.
And to the individual who was insinuating that the Democratic field for 2008 was particularly weak: are you familiar with your front runners? One has had three views, is a terrible public speaker, has no real federal experience, is a social liberal, and is simply riding on a blank image of being "strong on defense". The other is 72, supports an ill-fated war policiy, is despised by evangelicals, and is hemorragging in the polls. And finally there is good old Mitt, who as conservatives themselves put it is just "another flip-flopper from Massachussetts".
Will the real Republican please stand up? It doesn't matter, at this rate the white house is destined for blue hands in 2008 (hopefully for Barack).
It's the war, stupid.
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 3:59am):
"First of all, as a Chicagoan and an Illinoisan, I think its very unfair to characterize Barack Obama as corrupt simply because he is from Illinois. You may disagree with the ethics of our governors and our mayor, but Senator Obama has not been linked to any sort of corruption, has not been seriously accused of any, and in my judgement of his character (from reading his books) would not be a corrupt politician."
Nope. He is just another corrupt Democratic Party tool for unions:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/04/senate_will_pass_union_creating_bill_obama_says/
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 4:03am):
"Did we vote George Bush in on his record? Did we vote him in on his intelligence? OR, did we vote him in because he wasn't a douche bag like Gore and Kerry? Wasn't Bush the guy "you could see yourself sharing a beer with?"
Hey stud, before writing this crap, why don't you evaluate the sorry sack you've blessed us with for the last 6 years. Obama is a breath of fresh air... and you're jealous!"
Great. So Obama is as mediocre a candidate as Bush was in 2000. Your point?
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 10:23am):
Typical conservative accusations without any basis. How does being in favor of unions make one corrupt??
I fail to see the logic.
Anonymous (March 13, 2007 @ 5:16pm):
to ask whether barack obama would be getting all this hype if he were white is equivalent to asking would slavey had been abolished if those subjagated were white.
asking such a question devalues and marginalizes every great thing a person of color has achieved. consequently, we are not left to celebrate the lagacies but rather question whether that person and his act was given so much attention because he was simply colored; it also directly feeds into the myth of minorities needing the help of affirmitive action to get into great schools: "would she had gotten in if she were white?" or "she's probably and athelete."
as an african american, gerald, you're allowed the ability to claim association into certain groups; hence, you're allowed some license when it comes to certain things you can say (there was this great article in one of the school's paper dealing with the issue of the N word and who gets to say it a few weeks back), but it doesn't give you virtual carte blanche as to what you should say. if this article had been written by someone white, i am sure the outrage at the absurdity of the question would be given exponentially more attention.
we shouldn't resort to questioning race; the one thing that matters most is the principle. instead of asking whether obama would be getting this attention because of his skin color, we should be asking and seeking out answers to whether or not his priorities and policies agree with our own. ultimately that's what matters, and will probably determine his future.
Anonymous (April 16, 2007 @ 10:30pm):
OBAMA IS BLACK. OBAMA IS WHITE.
Now that we got that out the bag...let's talk about the real stuff
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
