« Don't Know Much About Space Policy | Main | Something That Gene Kranz Got Right »

Why Blacks Should Be Skeptical

...of Obama. Cinque Henderson makes the case:

It's worth remembering that the majority of blacks still think O.J. Simpson is innocent. And, in times like these, when a black man is out front in the public eye, black people feel both proud and vulnerable and, as a result, scour the earth for evidence of racists plotting to bring him down, like an advance team ready to sound an alarm. Barack needed only a gesture, a quick sneer or nod in the direction of the Clintons' hidden racism to avail himself of the twisted love that rescued O.J. and others like him and to smooth his path to victory, and, therefore, to salvage his candidacy. After Donna Brazile and James Clyburn started to cry racism, Barack was repeatedly asked his thoughts. He declined to answer, allowing the charge to grow for days (in sharp contrast to how he leapt to Joe Biden's defense a month earlier). But, while he remained silent about the allegations of racism, he gave speeches across South Carolina that warned against being "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" by the Clintons. His use of the phrase is resonant. It comes from a scene in Malcolm X, where Denzel Washington warns black people about the hidden evils of "the White Man" masquerading as a smiling politician: "Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us," he says. "You've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled."

By uttering this famous phrase, Obama told his black audience everything it needed to know. He was helping to convince blacks that the first two-term Democratic president in 50 years, a man referred to as the first black president, is in fact a secret racist. As soon as I heard that Obama had quoted from Malcolm X like this, I knew that Obama would win South Carolina by a massive margin.

Read all.

[Update a few minutes later]

Ruben Navarette, Jr. helpfully explains to us white folks that if we don't vote for the Messiah, it can only be because we are racist:

Some want to know why it isn't racist when 70 percent of African-Americans vote for Obama but it is when 70 percent of whites vote against him.

The answer has to do with history. Over the decades, black Americans have had plenty of opportunities to vote for white people for president. And they have done so. But this is the first time that white Americans have a chance to vote for an African-American with a shot at the presidency. And what are they doing?

Many are responding quite well. Obama won the votes of many, to borrow a phrase, "hardworking white Americans," in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. But, elsewhere, as Obama said in a recent interview, people may need to get their head around the concept of an African-American even seeking the presidency, let alone winning it.

I guess some of us just aren't responding as "well." But we can't have legitimate reasons to not vote for him, because obviously, there are none. We just can't stand the thought of a darkie in the White House.

Despite the fact that many who won't vote for Obama would have no problem doing so for Colin Powell, or Condi Rice, or Michael Steele, or J. C. Watts. But then, maybe they're not authentic black folk.

This reminds me of the nineties, when I was told by the left that I didn't like Hillary because she was a "strong woman," and I was threatened by that. By a "strong woman," did they mean like Maggie Thatcher? Or Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Or any other number of women who I'd have been happy to vote for, because they weren't power-hungry harridans who wanted to run my life for me? No, it could only be sexism.

As I've said in the past, when John McCain wins the election, it will be because the nation is either racist, or sexist, or (if by some miracle they're both on the ticket), both.

Permalink | Comments (18)
Technorati Links | Digg It

18 Comments

Jason Bontrager wrote:

Well then I guess I'm a racist/sexist. Probably a Fascist too. And you know what? I no longer care. The words have been devalued, and the people accusing me of those opinions beclowned, to the point where they just don't matter any more.

Or, as an online friend of mine likes to say: "Hail Kali, full of grace".

May 15, 2008 7:00 AM

Raoul Ortega wrote:

And these days it's the worshipers at the First Church of Obama who are "feeling threatened by a strong woman", while it's all those "typical white people" in the Democratic Party who seem to have no problem with voting for Hillary!.

May 15, 2008 8:16 AM

Jim Bennett wrote:

If Obama does worse in the general election than McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry (and Obama is to the left of any of those) I am willing to consider that the difference between his vote and the others might be due to racism...

May 15, 2008 8:24 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

He won't do as well as Kerry, but he'll probably do better than McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis. Mostly due to white guilt.

May 15, 2008 8:41 AM

Mark of Valpo wrote:

The big question: will the election of McCain have any coattails?

May 15, 2008 12:36 PM

Scott wrote:

Mark,

McCain's coattails will be nonexistent UNLESS by some miracle Hillary runs. The GOP has dug themselves a (deservedly) deep hole, and they aren't likely to escape the consequences of their venality, greed, and general contempt for the voting (and taxpaying) public. Now the Dems are just as bad (worse actually), but the GOP has had time to establish their brand as out of touch and venal, the Dems haven't accomplished that yet.

Figure the Dems will gain a 60-70 seat margin in the House, and pick up 2-4 seats in the Senate. Note that this should be irrespective of who wins in November, as the races have pretty much decoupled from the presidential race. Now if Hillary(!) runs, shave off about 20% of those numbers when you take into account the folks who come out for the pleasure of voting down the harridan and stay to vote the rest of the ticket...

May 15, 2008 12:53 PM

Dfens wrote:

Funny that a good Libertarian isn't more excited about their best Prez candidate yet. You are a Libertarian, aren't you, Rand?

May 15, 2008 6:14 PM

Rand Simberg wrote:

You are a Libertarian, aren't you, Rand?

No, I'm a libertarian.

May 15, 2008 7:08 PM

Dfens wrote:

You sure spend a lot of time playing Republicans vs. Democrats for a libertarian, all case sensitivity aside.

May 16, 2008 7:17 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

You sure spend a lot of time playing Republicans vs. Democrats for a libertarian, all case sensitivity aside.

What is that supposed to mean? They're the two major parties, and the only ones, given the way the game is rigged, with any chance of attaining political power. I'm supposed to ignore them?

May 16, 2008 7:25 AM

Anonymous wrote:

Mr. Simberg now backs the man he used to hate, John McCain. The man can't stand the idea of Obama winning, and unfortunately acts as a conduit for NRO propaganda.

Mr. Simberg also predicted the loss of 3 Congressional seats by the GOP recently didn't he? Or did he simply think it inconceivable that the party of "surrender" would win these seats? Heh. That must have been quite the shock to the poor man.

Anyone really think this guy can predict anything? Why does he keep making predictions anyway, given that his sources of news - Limbaugh, Fox, NRO are clearly so shaky?

This is the guy who predicted the end of Obama with the Jeremiah Wright stuff, the end of Obama with the clingy bitter comments and guess what? Obama had the biggest crowd of his entire campaign in Oregon today. Guess how many people? 75,000. Stew on that folks.

Is that gnashing of teeth I hear?

May 18, 2008 7:05 PM

Rand Simberg wrote:

Mr. Simberg now backs the man he used to hate, John McCain.

I do? Do you have any evidence for this fantasy, Anonymous Moron?

I made no predictions either way about any of those races, Anonymous Moron. The outcome certainly wasn't a "shock" to me, given how the Republican have behaved in office for the past eight years.

The number of people who show up for a Democrat rally in Oregon is in no way indicative of the outcome of an election. But the fact that you think that it is just demonstrates the fact that you live up to your name. It's a long way to November, Anonymous Moron.

May 18, 2008 7:26 PM

Anonymous wrote:

If it wasn't a shock to you and some of your dear devoted over here, prepare for more shocks in November and stop making ridiculous predictions for your clearly psychotic schizo GOP nominee. You don't have a chance, which shouldn't matter since you aren't a Republican. Or so you keep saying, all evidence to the contrary given your shacking up with the K-Lo's of the world and acting as a conduit for NRO propaganda.

When the GOP started taking it's talking points from talk radio, it should have been obvious to anyone but an idiot that the Democrats are the saner choice. Apparently not to some conflicted "unaffiliated" liberal haters though.

May 19, 2008 5:36 PM

Dfens wrote:

Ironically, the Democrat's successes have come largely through their ability to position themselves to the right of the Republicans, as they did in the recent congressional races. Conservatives were abandoned by the Democrats in the McGovern days, found the Republican party, were abandon by them (recent presidential nominees: GHW Bush, Bob Dole, GW Bush, John McCain, notice a pattern?).

I disagree with Rand's assertion that 3rd parties are a lost cause. I think the time is right for a 3rd party. 1/5th of the Democrat party won't vote for Obama because of his skin color. At least that many R's won't vote for McCain because he's a liberal.

May 21, 2008 8:25 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

I think the time is right for a 3rd party. 1/5th of the Democrat party won't vote for Obama because of his skin color. At least that many R's won't vote for McCain because he's a liberal.

There is no single third party that can grab both of those groups.

May 21, 2008 8:36 AM

Dfens wrote:

Both groups tend to vote conservative. When 80% of people think their government is going the wrong way and you are involved in an unpopular war, seems to me the time is as ripe as it has ever been. The open question as I see it is, will the right person or people step forward?

May 21, 2008 10:09 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

Both groups tend to vote conservative.

I have no idea what that means. If the Democrats unhappy with Obama are "conservative," why are they Democrats? I'll bet they're not "conservative" when it comes to big government. What would the party platform be for this "third party" that can encompass both unhappy Republicans and unhappy Democrats?

May 21, 2008 10:21 AM

Dfens wrote:

There's the Blue Dog Democrats for example. A lot of people in the US still vote Democrat because of Lincoln. You think they will vote for Obama? I'm not advocating their position, just recognizing their existance. Many of these people crossed over and have been voting Republican for the first time in the last couple of elections, but the Republicans have screwed them over and not held to their campaign promises, alienating a huge section of the electorate.

I wasn't too high on the Constitutional Party at first, but I really like their platform, especially with regard to taxes. I think they've captured much of what draws people to Ron Paul. Bob Barr is probably one of the most electable candidates the Libertarians have run in a long time too.

May 27, 2008 5:46 AM

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

Why Blacks Should Be Skeptical

18 Comments

Leave a comment

About this Entry

Search