NewView

All About the Delegates

“People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.”

--A. J. Liebling--

“Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.”

--Norman Mailer--

“I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”

--Thomas Jefferson--

The Clintons have done it again with a little help from Saturday Night Live (“SNL”). They have somehow turned water into wine. They have spun straw into gold. They have made mountains from mole hills. They have cajoled, prodded, and bullied the media into doing their dirty work. They did it while accusing the media of being biased against them. The Clintons have baited the media into turning away from the real story that Hillary Clinton did not close the gap in pledged delegates and instead focused on her wins in states where she was supposed to win.

The Clintons have played the media like a musical genius using a finely tuned instrument. They have used the media to define her as the experienced candidate, although in reality she is not. They have used the media to define Barack Obama as a man of rhetoric instead of a politician with some experience and a will to return the process back to the American people. They have used the media to define which states matter and which do not. And they have done all of this while playing the victim.

Hillary Clinton has the benefit of all the resources of an incumbent President that was hugely popular. She was the frontrunner a full Presidential cycle before she ran. She started with a huge advantage over everyone in the field in name recognition, in addition to having the last name of the last Democratic President and also a two term President. She also had a favorable primary schedule that front loaded many of the larger states in the primary process that gave her the advantage since she was the frontrunner. And even with all those advantages, she still has the audacity to play the victim card and actually get away with it. On Tuesday, March 4, 2008, she pulled off her biggest slight of hand. Her campaign was able to maneuver the media away from discussions about the numerical reality that she faces and instead focused on the bottom line of who won which race instead of the all important delegate count. The media did this even though Hillary Clinton won in states where she was supposed to and saw huge leads in Ohio and Texas evaporate. That is not a bad deal for a candidate that claims to be the victim of media bias.

Prior to the SNL skit that portrayed the media as being hard on Hillary while being soft on Barack the media discussed Hillary Clinton’s Herculean challenge. After the SNL skit the media discussed Hillary Clinton’s comeback. By the way, Tina Fey, one of the writers of SNL, is a Hillary Clinton supporter, but no one from the media took the time to point that little fact out. An objective numerical analysis of the delegate count prior to Tuesday’s primaries demonstrated that Hillary Clinton needed to win all four states by a very wide margin in order to have a chance of earning her party’s nomination via the electoral process. The truth is that she did not come close to achieving any of those objectives in any of the four states, but it did not matter because the media shifted its coverage from the delegate count to the portrayal of Hillary Clinton as an underdog. After the SNL skit the media curiously adopted the Clinton spin line that a win is a win. I guess timing is everything.

Hillary Clinton is a long shot to win the Democratic nomination via the primary process, but she will never quit. Hillary and Bill Clinton know it but they also realize that they, like their pal John McCain, have nothing to lose by fighting to the last man because Hillary Clinton is a little long in the tooth (she will be 61 this year) to risk having to wait eight years for another shot at the White House. They know that a lot of things can happen in eight years like another woman running for President that actually had to work her way up through the ranks or the American people may start to get over their love affair with Bill Clinton and the memory of the 1990s.

Regardless of what the Clintons try to peddle to the American people, Hillary Clinton is not about to give up unless she is forced to walk away. To the extent that she was on the “ropes” before Tuesday’s primary, she is still on the “ropes.” That means that it is an incorrect analogy to compare her to a boxer that has gotten up off of the mat to keep fighting. She is more like a wounded animal that is cornered that will fight to the death. That also means that the Clintons probably do not care about playing with the future viability of the Democratic Party because of their lust for the White House. Yet, I doubt that this story angle is likely to be explored.

The Clintons will continue to move the goal posts as long it is convenient for them and as long as the media allows them to do it. They will continue with that tactic regardless of the fact that their tactics will either allow them to steal the game or eventually ruin the field.

Tainted Lense

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

--Friedrich Nietzsche--

“In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth.”

--Publilius Syrus--

“Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.”

--Josh Billings--

The Clintons are playing the victim card once again. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton complained about being chosen to answer the questions from the moderator first, and the bias in the media that is skewed toward Barack Obama, and then she went on to overtly use the gender card to stump for votes. I have to admit that some members of the media do appear to favor Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, while other members of the media seem to slightly favor Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, but that is not the point. The reality is that Senator Clinton has very little to complain about since upon a close and reasonable review of her candidacy, she has received more than a few passes by the media. I will review two very big ones.

Senator Clinton has run on the platform of experience. She has declared herself to be the candidate that is the most prepared to be the President of the United States, even though there is nothing in her background to suggest that allegation is true. Think about it. There are three people that have a realistic chance at being elected to the Office of the President of the United States and none of them have any executive experience. All three of the candidates are senators and only have legislative experience. Yet, the media has not debunked her unsubstantiated assertion that she is the candidate that is “ready to be President on day one.”

Senator Clinton wants to have her cake and eat it too. She has subtly made the argument that she is the most experienced, most prepared, and therefore the most qualified candidate. This assertion can only come from her time as the First Lady because she is just a senator that has finished only one year of her second term. Since Senator Clinton was not a member of her husband’s cabinet or staff, it is unclear what her role was in his administration. The only responsibility that we know that she had during his administration was her failed attempt at health care reform. Does this means that she is ultimately asserting that she knows how to be the President because she was married to the President and has seen a President in action? We may never know because no member of the media has yet to force her to explain the basis of her assertion. The media has instead chosen to accept her assertion at face value without challenging it.

Watching something and doing something are two different things. I am a second generation White Sox, Bears, and Bulls fan. I have watched thousands of White Sox games, including the last two no-hitters that were thrown by a White Sox pitcher. I have also watched hundreds of Bears games and thousands of Bulls games. Does that mean that I am ready to pick up my baseball glove, baseball, and spikes and take the mound and throw a no-hitter against a major league team or even a minor league baseball team? Does that mean that I should be in spring training right now trying to crack the White Sox starting rotation? Does that mean that I should start getting ready for the Bears training camp in a few months to try to make their roster? Does that mean that I should give John Paxson a call and look for my short term contract with the Bulls? No!!! The reality is that the next President, regardless who is elected, will not have the luxury of calling the bullpen to bring in the closer when the game is on the line. Watching is not doing. Whoever is elected will have to learn on the job regardless of what she/he may assert.

Last night Senator Clinton essentially said that if she was elected President it would represent a “real challenge to the way things have been done, and who gets to do them, and what the rules are.” The reality is that she was correct in her assessment. Women have been and continue to be discriminated against in this country and throughout the world. Every time a country places the reigns of leadership into the hands of a leader that is also a woman it changes things, but the same is true for African-Americans (The numbers tell the story. The ratio of female governors to African-American governors is 8 to 1. The ratio of female senators to African-American senators is 16 to 1.) If Senator Obama had made that same statement he would have been drilled by the media to explain what he meant by it. He would have been criticized for injecting race into the debate. He would have been marginalized as the candidate that is only appealing to the African-American vote. And it may have jeopardized his chances of winning the nomination. There appears to be no such negative consequences for Senator Clinton. There was no and has been no such criticism toward Senator Clinton. The media gave her another important pass.

It seems that the media passes have not all been addressed to Senator Obama.

Enough of the Same Old Tricks!!!

Plagiarism - the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

“People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is built.”

--Eleanor Roosevelt--
“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.”

--Nikita Khrushchev--

Here we go again. Once again the Clintons have attacked Barack Obama with nonsense. Earlier in the presidential primary race, when Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee, the Clinton Campaign attacked Obama by pointing out that he wrote a paper in grade school (I think he was in either kindergarten or first grade) where he proclaimed he wanted to be the President of the United States. Now the Clinton Campaign is trying to say that Barack Obama has committed plagiarism because he used a similar answer that the Governor of Massachusetts did to the same charge of being only about words instead of actions. It is the same old game. Attack politics. Win at all costs.

I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for being frustrated. I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for being anxious. I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for feeling as if they have been blindsided by the phenomena that is Barack Obama. I do, however, blame the Clinton Campaign in how they have dealt with those feelings.

First Hillary tried to counter Barack Obama’s appeal with a claim of greater experience. Hillary Clinton claims to be the candidate that is “ready to be President on the First day.” She claims to have the most experience although she has only seven years of elected experience, whereas Obama has about twelve years. That is okay, because that is just a politician giving their spin. But, there is a point when spin stops and nasty, destructive, petty political tricks begin that are not designed to advance our society’s understanding of issues that are important. They are instead designed for one purpose and that is to get a politician elected. We in this country have been down that road before and I hate to say it but we will find ourselves down that road again. I, like a lot of Americans, would like a vacation from the trampled road of cynical, bickering, partisan politics that is good for dividing the country and bad at helping the country.

The reality is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do not have much experience in public office and neither has any executive experience. As a matter of fact, none of the likely nominees for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have executive experience so this election is not about experience. It is about where the candidate stands on the issues. Yet, Clinton and Obama have way more in common on the issues than they differ on the issues, therefore the Democratic Party nomination process is not as much about issues as opposed to daring to do something different. That is a huge advantage for Barack Obama and that is the reason for the silly little attacks by the Clintons. That is also one of the reasons I can not and do not support the Clintons.

The American people are tired of the same old political tricks where a few politicians get the majority of the country stirred up and angry at each other while they go about amassing fame, fortune, and power. Each and every politician is elected to do the business of the American people regardless of whether the person is a member of the United States Congress, a state assembly, a city Council, or the President of the United States. The politics of division do not bear the fruit of results to the rest of “us” folks that are not elected. That must change. That is why Barack Obama has been so well received.

In order to achieve great things you must first dream, then conceive, and finally believe that great things are possible. Challenging America to raise the level of debate from petty bickering, name calling, and divisiveness to an honest pursuit of solutions for America from differing points of view is not being naïve it is being a risk taker. Anytime a person, especially a public person, takes a step out onto a new road, he or she needs courage more than they need a map.

Change is not politics, it is policy. It is the policy of changing the way we approach the problems in this country. This election boils down to one question. Will we continue to barrel down the same old beat up and muddy road of partisan, deadlock, bitter politics or will we take a chance of raising our society above petty conflicts to new heights where more solutions can be achieved? That is the question. And whatever the answer maybe, it definitely is not the same old political tricks of making a mountain from a mole hill.

The Inconvenient Truth

“Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty.”

--Leo Rosten--

“Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.”

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

--Arthur Schopenhauer--

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it.”

--Seth Godin--

I have written several articles about Barack Obama. Now I think it is about time I wrote an article about an issue that none of the candidates in either party will discuss. It is illegal immigration. Yeah. I know that every candidate has discussed their stance on illegal immigration. This article is not about whether to lock up people that come here illegally. This article is not about punishment. It is about prevent. It is about the only prevention that has a chance of working. Prevent must begin and end with employers.

The American people have been bamboozled into looking mainly at the people coming into our country illegally, while ignoring why they come here. Debate regarding illegal immigration has centered on the unrealistic supply oriented, punish the immigrant, and build a wall theory. Yet, very few people have talked about the basic reality that people come here for jobs so if there are no or few jobs for illegal labor then the reason to come over here illegally goes away. Once the reason goes away so does the vast majority of the problem. But I doubt anyone is truly going to explore this fact because that would mean going against big business, small business, and moneyed interests.

Illegal immigration is outsourcing within the country. While politicians, including a bunch in our community, are ignoring this reality black folks as well as other Americans from every community are losing opportunities. It is not just about race, ethnicity, or culture. It is about money. Cheaper labor means higher profits. A penny saved means a penny earned. The money saved could be from cheaper wages or from lower labor standards that allow employers to work their employees hardier, longer, and with little or no benefits. The only difference between outsourcing and the use of illegal immigration is where the employer uses the employee. And the biggest benefit of using illegal immigrant labor is that they can not complain about low wages or labor standards because they will risk being fired, arrested, or even deported.

Ordinarily I would not have a problem with any employer looking for the cheapest, most efficient, most convenient employee that he/she can find. That is what anyone should have a right to do in a free market economy. However, when employers use illegal immigrant labor they are not just using a cheaper labor force. In most cases, they are importing poor people to exploit for an extra nickel while forcing everyone else to share the expense of that person being in the country. What am I talking about?

Many of the illegal immigrants come from countries that have a lower standard of living that may be why they come here for opportunity. However, when they initially come here they are not getting high paying jobs so they may start out poor, which means they require resources that are provided to the poor that are paid for by tax dollars. I know many of you that are reading this article must think I am some ultra conservative right wing anti-poor anti-immigrant nut that hates the poor. No. I am not. It is a reality that poor people need help from the government that is funded by tax dollars. This help may manifest itself through a drain on public schools or a drain on emergency room services in hospitals or other local services.

I do not have a problem with poor people and I do not have a problem with big, little, or no business. I have a problem with employers that make money off of poor illegal immigrants and expect the rest of us to share in their expense while they do not share the profits from the exploitation. Therefore the only real way to stop illegal immigration is to stop focusing on putting illegal immigrants in jail and start targeting employers. Any fines that an employer must pay must be greater than the profits that they have made off of their illegal immigrant labor. We should not only fine employers but we should put them in jail if necessary. The minute that there are little to no jobs for illegal immigrants in this country the issue of illegal immigration disappears.

By the way, if during this article you have read this article as an attack on the Hispanic community I would ask you to examine yourself, because I never mentioned any particular community in this article, until now. Furthermore, as a lawyer I have worked on several illegal entry cases that included people from Eastern Europe, India, Western Africa, and Mexico. Illegal immigration does not have a Hispanic face on it. Please do not buy into the propaganda. I do not blame people for leaving a place where there is less opportunity to go to a place where there is more opportunity. That is what my parents did when they migrated from the south to Chicago. I have a problem with employers that use people looking for an opportunity and expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Racism is Not an Issue: It is a Problem!

“Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.”

--Paul Valery--

“Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”

--Ambrose Bierce--

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

--Ernest Benn--

If I was on Senator Obama’s staff I would tell Senator Obama that he has been presented with a unique opportunity to demonstrate the difference between him and Senator Clinton. I would tell him that he has been presented with an opportunity to demonstrate the difference between the old way of campaigning and the new way. I would tell him that he has an opportunity to demonstrate in concrete terms what change really looks like by dealing with race in the only way that will finally make any real difference in the African-American community. He should embrace the topic of race like any other problem by talking about issues that are the result of race – or to be more accurate racism.

It is about time somebody said (well wrote) the truth. Race is not an issue. It is a problem. I know what most of you Black Folks out there must be saying to yourselves. “What?!!!” “Have you lost your mind?!!!” No. I have not. Let me explain.

There is a big difference between an issue and a problem. The words are used interchangeably but they are very different. Issues are direct, smaller, and identifiable. Problems are amorphous, large, and difficult to get a handle on. Race is not a problem. Racism is the real problem. Police brutality is an issue. Job discrimination based on race is an issue. Predatory lending that targets African-Americans for sub-prime loans is an issue. Protecting Affirmative Action programs that help African-American small businesses to get started or have an opportunity to break into markets where they have been historically shut out is an issue. Those are just a few examples of issues that can be addressed, by various means, by the government.

In the past, politicians acted as if whatever office they are running for is the panacea of any and all ills that the community that they are pandering for votes face everyday. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our community does not need any more fairytale promises. We need solutions. In regards to the problem of racism, however, the government can make a difference, but the one thing that government will never be able to do is to force people to change what they feel in their hearts. That task should be left to the churches, temples, mosques, and reason. However, the government can force people to change how they treat “us.” And that is the sum total of any issue that is directly linked to the problem of racism.

That is why Senator Obama should not allow himself to be baited into talking about the problem of racism. He should instead take the opportunity to change the standard of debate in politics as it pertains to our community. He should raise the bar of rhetoric that can finally lead to action by discussing race through issues. This is the only way that race, like any other problem, should ever be discussed in politics. This is way that race has yet to be discussed in a presidential campaign.

Talking about issues will also allow him to shine a light on an inconvenient truth that our community should have addressed over twenty years ago. Our community has been way too dependent on preachers and politicians for leadership. And much of our alleged leadership has sold “us” out for money, fame, and access to political office or power. Many of the preachers and politicians in our community are more loyal to the Democratic Party or to building wealth for themselves through the electoral process than they are to our community. See the article written by William Jelani Cobb on January 13, 2008 for the discussion about the old guard versus the new guard in the African-American community.

Our leaderships' priorities are obvious. It is about them. It is about their careers. It is about providing for their families. However, it is not about addressing issues in our community. I am not making this up. Look at the endorsements of Hillary Clinton by African-American politicians, celebrities, and prominent business people. None of them that I have read about endorsed Hillary Clinton because of her stance on the Iraq War as compared to Barack Obama’s or her stance on Affirmative Action as compared to Barack Obama’s or her legitimate civil rights achievements as compared to Barack Obama’s. No. It is all about paying back an old debt, a misguided sense of loyalty, or a desire to have access to power.

A debate that is centered on issues will remove the myths that our alleged leaders are looking out for “our” best interests instead of looking out for their own. I would tell Senator Obama to continue with his Campaign of Change by changing the standard of debate in our community from image to substance. I would beseech him to continue to talk about issues, even if it includes race.

Fortune Favors the Bold

“Fortune favors the brave.”

--Virgil--

“When you meet your antagonist, do everything in a mild and agreeable manner. Let your courage be as keen, but at the same time as polished, as your sword.”

--Richard Brinsley Sheridan--

“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.”

--Mark Twain--

Most of the media has seized upon the recent bickering between the Clinton and Obama campaigns to help generate ratings. The truth is that the recent bickering is tailor made for increased interest by the public because it seemed to involve hot buttons topics like race and gender. However, in my opinion, the media has not taken the time to really analyze the true reasons behind the attack that started the recent barbs that have been flying back and forth between the Clinton and Obama camps. Before I go any further I feel obliged to restate that I am a Barack Obama supporter so although I believe I have been objective in my analysis, it is more than possible that there is some bias in it. Judge the message first before turning to the messenger.

The attacks between the two camps are not about race. The attacks are not about gender. They are about votes. The recent attacks are about an inconvenient reality that the Clinton camp has in regards to the battle for votes with Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton can not call Senator Obama out directly on his opposition to the Iraq War without exposing her own dirt. How so? I will explain. Much of the current bickering started with Bill Clinton’s mischaracterization of Senator Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War. The Clinton’s argue that Senator Obama has been inconsistent in his opposition to the Iraq War by not openly criticizing the 2004 Democratic Nominees during the presidential race, and that he voted for funding for the war after our young men and women were already deployed into harms way. It is a specious argument, but that is not the point. The point is that if the Clintons really wanted to criticize Senator Obama they could have asserted that it took no political courage for him to have opposed the Iraq War since he was a state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood on the Southside of Chicago, where there was a huge opposition to the war. However, even that argument is debatable since Senator Obama still took a great risk because he was getting ready to run for the United States Senate at the time so if the war would have gone well, that could have killed his U.S. Senate aspirations before they got started.

The Clintons are very shrewd politicians that know how to pick and choose the best arguments for their campaigns. It is a reason why they did not go the political courage route. Choosing that argument presented the greatest risk of having it smack right back in Senator Clinton’s face because her vote for the war in 2002 was not so much an issue of lack of judgment as much as it was an issue of lack of political courage. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was not smart enough to know the inherit risks of overthrowing a regime. What did Colin Powell say? “You break it. You buy it.” Her vote was not about Iraq. It was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about the 2008 presidential election. It was about not having the courage to say no to a very popular President and political party that was labeling anyone that opposed them as either weak or traitors. It was about courage or the lack there of.

Now the Clintons are attempting to have their cake and eat it to. Senator Clinton claims thirty-five years of experience, although she has only eight years of elected experience. She is also in a position where she can not come out directly and claim credit for the successes of her husband’s administration because then she would also have to take the failures as well as the embarrassments. During her interview on Meet the Press this Sunday, Senator Clinton referenced political battles that she was involved in while her Husband was in office, but when asked about the embarrassing issues regarding the last minute pardons that her husband issued, she quickly claimed no prior knowledge of that. That took a lot of audacity to claim the good while trying to ignore the bad all with a straight face. She could have used some of that audacity in 2002.

VP Dilemma

"Be careful that victories do not carry the seed of future defeats."

--Ralph W. Sockman--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."

--Theodore Roosevelt--

"What is defeat? Nothing but education; nothing but the first step to something better."

--Wendell Phillips--

"You can take from every experience what it has to offer you. And you cannot be defeated if you just keep taking one breath followed by another."

--Oprah Winfrey--

It ain't over until the fat lady sings and she is not even clearing her throat. Barack Obama's campaign made a mistake when they allowed the thrill of victory to raise the expectations of a community, a state, and a nation to transform him from a challenger into a frontrunner. Now, we who are the supporters of Obama feel defeat in what should only be seen as a victory. That is not spin. It is fact. Obama is taking on a candidate with the resources and organization of a former two term president. He is in a fight with a juggernaut. The bottom line is that after the first caucus and primary where only a few delegates have been cast the veneer of invulnerability has been stripped from Hillary Clinton, the real frontrunner, which means Obama is in it to win it. But that is not why I am writing this article.

Bloomberg in New York may be the biggest Hillary fan on the planet right now because if she wins narrowly over Obama then things could get interesting. If the Clinton's lose, then there is no problem, but if they win there could be a problem if Obama continues to stay close. The Clinton's may have a problem in victory because there could be a backlash in the African-American community if the community feels that once again an African-American has been pushed aside. Barack Obama will not play the race card.  That is not who he is and how he conducts himself, but it may not matter.  He may not be able to stop the train of anger and mistrust once it is on the track and gathers steam. 

I am not just making this up. This was the prevailing sentiment of many of the callers on an African-American talk show in Chicago right after the results of the New Hampshire Primary was revealed. Even if this sentiment is only in Chicago, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat in Illinois. It is unlikely that any democrat can roll into the White House without winning Illinois. There was a lot of anger and mistrust. Does that mean that the anger and mistrust will continue if Obama loses? Who knows, but at least I can say I was the first to mention it.

However, I do not think it will be an issue because I think Obama still has a great chance to get the nomination. The difference between victory and defeat for Obama will be how well he is able to circumvent the Clinton machine and appeal directly to the voters. I think New Hampshire was a wake up call for Obama. Now the work begins.

What Is Black Enough?

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. “

--Martin Luther King Jr.--

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

--Alan Kay--

“Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions.”

--Cullen Hightower--

Is Barack Obama black enough? That is the question that has been asked on more than one occasion since he declared himself a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America. Mary Mitchell, a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times, wrote an article that discussed that question. Yet, no where in the article or in any other article on this subject, has the term “black enough” been defined. Well, maybe it is time that it is.

I have always been told that words are meaningless when it comes to defining a person. Actions speak much louder than words. Well, I would make the same argument when it comes to deciding whether a political candidate is “black enough” to deserve the vote of the African-American community.

Yes. I know what I just wrote is different from what Mary Mitchell’s article was about. Her article was about the reality of the assumed perception of “the majority of African-Americans.” There is this assumption by the media that the majority of African-Americans feel comfortable with African-American political candidates that project a certain type image and therefore any African-American candidate that does not fit within that image will have a tough time winning their votes. That may be true to some extent, but if it is, isn’t it time to change that reality? If it is not true then isn’t it time to challenge and hopefully expose that myth?

Anyone that reads my articles will quickly, easily, and correctly come to the conclusion that I believe there is way too much voting based on images from political candidates as opposed to voting based on issues. That being said the whole question of whether Barack Obama or any African-American candidate is “black enough” is an example of what ails “us” in regards to how we choose our political leaders. The reality is that the color of a politician does not matter. What does matter or should matter to the vast majority of the people in this country (including “us” black folks) is what that person does while they are in office.

To me the only measure of whether a politician is “black enough” is what they have done while they were in office or what they propose to do in order to get into office. It is about action not words. When I write action I mean action of substance instead of action of imagery. I will example what I mean by that comment. Politicians routinely do things that make for great photo opportunities, but do not make any real difference in the lives of their constituents. Those are actions of imagery. An action of substance is something that makes a real difference in the lives of people. If Barack Obama was elected to the Office of President of the United States tomorrow and cut out head start, college aid, the EEOC, HUD, funding for first time home buyers, the SBA 8(a) program, and funding for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department then would it matter that he is of African ancestry? I don’t think so. If Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, or any of the other candidates got into office and did things that helped the African-American community would it matter what their genetic background was? Maybe, but it shouldn’t.

The truth is that although there is plenty of opportunity in this country, even for “us” black folks, there is still an inequity of opportunity as a result of the history of slavery and discrimination in this country. Any candidate, regardless of their genetic background must be willing to address those inequities at their root to the extent it is within the power of their office to do so. That is the only real measure by which any candidate should be judged to determine whether he/she is “black enough.” Any other standard is an invitation to be “had, took, led astray, run amok, and bamboozled.”

Now let’s look at Barack Obama’s actions. Obama is not perfect. I will admit that when he first took office I heard a few rumblings from African-American staffers on Capitol Hill about the lack of African-Americans on his Washington, D.C. staff, but many other African-American members of congress that have leadership positions have received the same criticism (which I guess is a topic for another day).

Yet, his career before public office and his record in public office reveals a commitment to the African-American community. He helped get African-Americans registered to vote in order to help get the first African-American elected as Mayor of Chicago (and by the way Mayor Harold Washington was also a reformer who greatly helped the African-American community as well as the city as a whole). Obama worked as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago to try to help people at the grassroots level to build power to address issues in their community. Obama stood with several members of the Illinois Assembly and the community and challenged the Governor of Illinois to pass a law that would at least put a police officer’s job in jeopardy if he/she lied under oath in death penalty cases. He also sponsored a bill in the Illinois Senate to address racial profiling.

If the question about being “black enough” must be asked then maybe it is time to start using the right standard to answer it.

Reality Check

“The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes.”

--Henry Kissinger--

“Power never takes a back step - only in the face of more power.”

--Malcolm X--

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

--Ernest Benn--

Okay. Enough already!!!! People please quit asking Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the presidential hopefuls questions regarding what they are going to do to eliminate racism and sexism. They are running for the President of the United States. They are not running for Master Supreme Ruler of the World. They are not running for the supreme ruler of all of our hearts, minds, and emotions.

Contrary to what the dozen or so people that have applied for job of President of the United States of America would like “us voters” to believe, our government, which includes the Office of the President, has its limits. Completely eliminating racism and sexism is beyond the power of anyone in government regardless of whether that person holds an office in government at the local, state, or federal level.

The presidential campaign is nothing more than an extended job interview. Just like in any job interview every person running for president will try to make “us voters” believe that there is nothing beyond their power to effect as long as they are given the job. They want to sell “us voters” the unrealistic notion that they have the power to do all things. They want to sell “us voters” that the solution to all of our troubles rest solely with the power of our vote . . . for them.

That is not reality. Yes. It definitely matters who we put into the White House and send to Congress. However, the truth is that all of our power does not begin and end with our vote. Our power rests with our voices. Our power rests with our collective wisdom. Our power rests with our creativity. Our power rests with our will to make our society a better place and in the African-American community our will to build and maintain political, cultural, and economic power.

To me racism and sexism are systems that operate to oppress people based on race (which is a social construct- but I digress) or gender. Neither can exist in absence of an inequity of power between the oppressors and the oppressed. Yet, the government cannot completely bridge the gap in the inequity of power.

There are things that the government can and should do. The government can pass and enforce laws and regulations that give oppressed groups (like us black folks) an opening of opportunity, but like an offensive line, the government can only give “us” “six inches of daylight” and we must do the rest.

People please quit asking easy interview questions of the people that have applied to become our next president. Maybe we should ask more concrete questions like whether they will be willing to better fund government agencies that address the symptoms of racism and sexism like the EEOC, Department of Labor, and the civil rights division of the Department of Justice. Maybe we need to ask them how they intend to encourage our public school systems to better educate all of our children, instead of just an elite few. Maybe we need to ask them whether they intend to fully fund educational programs that have a track record of providing positive results like head start. Now that is something they can do.

3rd Ward

“They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”

--Andy Warhol--

“Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me.”

--Carol Burnett--

“This isn't good or bad. It's just the way of things. Nothing stays the same.”

--Real Live Preacher--

The talking is over. The talk shows are silent. And the results are in. The majority of the 3rd ward residents that voted made a change on Tuesday night.

Before and even after the runoff election there was a lot of talk about how unfair it was that the unions “targeted” so many aldermen that did not vote their way on the big box issue. There has been a lot of talk about how outsiders were trying to “influence” the 3rd ward from afar. There has been a lot of talk about how the unions and their leadership have not acted in the best interest of the African-American community. There may be some merit to many of those things that were discussed, but I noticed that during all of the discussions about the 3rd ward runoff election something very important was conspicuously missing. No one talked about the machine.

The 3rd ward residents, just like most of the residents of the other wards in Chicago, have been held hostage for over twenty years by the incumbent protection agency that is better known as the democratic machine. The machine usually protects incumbents from removal from office via a democratic process even when that politician richly deserves it. The machine usually gives an incumbent a huge advantage in raising money and a political army to put out on the streets to do the leg work to turn out votes. This election was different. The playing field was more level between the challengers and the incumbents. And guess what happened? Change was in the air.

Many of the incumbents, Dorothy Tillman being one of them, complained long and loud over the “injustice” of the unions providing money and man/woman power to help various candidates challenge them in their respective ward races. Yet, none of them ever talked about the huge advantage the machine provided them for years. No one talked bout how the machine acts to protect incumbents regardless of whether they are doing their job and serving the people or not.

No one talked about how things usually work here in Chicago. It is all about the good old boys network. It is all about the machine. The ward organizations are designed to get the vote out for their boss. Each ward organization turnouts a number of votes regardless of what has happened in that ward. These votes will be churned up not based on issues, the votes will be produced based on protecting jobs, contracts, or access. This means that unless a challenger has the name recognition, access to money, and/or political army to match the machine then they will have little to no chance of getting elected. That is why it is so difficult for independent people who want to serve the public to break into politics in this town. That is why things rarely change.

The machine is not designed to make sure that the most creative, intelligent, and hard working public official get elected. No. It is designed to get their “guy” elected regardless whether that person is the best person for the job. Well, that changed in this election. The odds were evened. The playing field was leveled and the results reflected that reality. The wards where the people were happy with the representation by their alderman those alderman were reelected. Wards where the residents historically wanted change but had been suppressed by the establishment finally were able to seize the opportunity and they made changes.

The bottom line is that regardless of how much money was spent by either Pat Dowell or Dorothy Tillman, over five hundred more voters in the 3rd ward decided that they wanted change than wanted to keep the same old song. The 3rd ward is changing. The people that are moving here are not interested in excuses or diversions. They want results. And now after over twenty years we may very well start to see some.