Comments

1. Roger Green wrote:

   OMG. I HATE that blacker-than-thou crap when black people do it to each other. This is just beyond the pale, so to speak.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 9:21 am ¶

2. John McCollum wrote:

   If this is part of some larger strategy, I sure as heck don’t understand it.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:18 am ¶

3. Paul wrote:

   Great post. Why do black “leaders” ascribe blackness to the Clinton’s? Their administration was horrible for many black folks. Sure they made symbolic gestures like Midnight Basketball, but more importantly they also passed 3 Strikes and sucumbed to Republican pressure to destroy welfare. They also demonized rap and hip hop culture via Hilary’s rants and Bill’s Sista Souljah moments.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:48 am ¶

4. Brakeline wrote:

   Right theory, wrong conspiracy.

   Steele isn’t part of the official Republican Party “suppress Obama/elect Hillary” effort (versus the various smaller conservative efforts working to ensure you never see a person of any [fill in the blank group] in higher office).

   The full amount of Andrew Young’s comments (undated) are very important to note, I think, because while they are obviously pro-HC (”I want Barack Obama to be president… in 2016″.), he actually spent more time on Obama:

   http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/andrew_young_says_obama_too_yo.html

   It was in the context of experience but more interestingly Young’s take on what a black candidate what need to succeed in office, namely access to well-connected black people (like who, I wonder…)

   Core quote: “To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion.”

   Maybe not as catchy as Young’s past bits about Korean convenience store owners, but hey, he keeps himself ready, willing, and relevant to whatever administration plays to the rhetoric of his generation.

   Funny how the civil rights leadership old guard isn’t cutting Obama much slack on experience or authenticity though when they were his age they weren’t much more experience nor more authentic. Institutional trappings have a way of distorting the frame if not tainting the lenses over time…

   It’s actually ok for black people to “beat each other up” in public, as long as it’s only with words. Shows there’s vibrant, healthy, rigorous, intelligent, diverse, perspectives/opinions/discourse expressed in all flavors.

   I can live with that (and it beats listening to “the spokespeople for the race” instead)…

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:57 am ¶

5. EvaVegaDiversity wrote:

   Really interesting clips, Carmen.

   One of the benefits of whiteness his the ability to align yourself with whomever you would like and still be white. It the age old- to be Black or Latino is the US means you have to better than everyone else or better, held above reproach, to rise above the common lynch-pin stereotypes.

   From where I sit, Barack Obama is being himself. He is NOT from around the way. He is not from the projects, so to expect him to express himself in that way is racist. Bill Clinton starts a soul train line and has sex with Black women and that makes him Black? No being pulled over on the highway in your nice car because the assumption that the car was stolen makes you Black. I met Barack has more experiences like that than Bill Clinton.

   One last point ya’ll. Where Blacks cannot be racist because the definition has to do with institutional group power, Blacks CAN be pro-racist and their words and actions can support dominant group white supremacy. Shelby Steele has a record of academic writings that fall into the category of white supremacist. Check out J-stor for his writings on affirmative action.

   e.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 10:57 am ¶

6. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   Question: Is it ever valid to say this white person is “blacker” than that black person? How about if you’re comparing, say, Bill Clinton to Clarence Thomas? Or to Shelby Steele, for that matter?

   On policy questions, it’s highly likely Bill or Hillary Clinton would “vote black” more often than Thomas or Steele. Doesn’t that make them “blacker” in this context? Who would you rather have protecting your interests?

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 1:04 pm ¶

7. MNC wrote:

   As a rule most (if not all) politicians will vote/do what is politically expedient and will keep them in power.

   ESPECIALLY, the Clinton camp.

   So we’re all going to be S.O.L. until we all start voting A. and B. start voting based on the real facts of a candidates political agenda and how their personal beliefs/ethics inform that agenda and whether or not that agenda will truly make this country a better place to live.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶

8. OO wrote:

   It does once you start tossing out the drug allegations apparently *sigh*…

   http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/12/post_235.html

   I like how they’re downplaying that this attack dog is the husband of the former NH governor, who strangely enough used to work with Obama’s current NH state co-chair on the Hart prez campaign. So who says the black guy doesn’t know how to pick his white people. Geez Hillary…

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 3:10 pm ¶

9. Undercover Black Man wrote:

   Rob Schmidt asked: “Is it ever valid to say this white person is ‘blacker’ than that black person?”

   Only if you’re comparing Johnny Otis and Gary U.S. Bonds.

   Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 3:29 pm ¶

10. Mike wrote:

    Man that was a low blow by Shelby there. But I think that is what black people get when we start handing out “you down cards”.
    Personally I think those are fighting words.
    Right up there with Uncle Tom and the N word.
    Now if Obama went and chin check Old Shelby there I wouldnt be mad at him.

    Posted 13 Dec 2007 at 4:33 pm ¶

11. littlem wrote:

    They’re jealous.

    I wouldn’t have thought it of Mayor Young before this — just because he thought about the presidency back in the day and didn’t make the full run.

    Crabs in a barrel, y’all…

    *sigh*

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 12:33 am ¶

12. April wrote:

    Wow, this guy is a pawn. He’s a scam. He’s a sexist asshole.

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 1:26 am ¶

13. Dey Ol' News wrote:

    I just finished looking at the ENTIRE Hardball segment and read the transcript too just to play it safe. It is here:

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/22221400/

    If you read/listen closely you will see that Steele didn’t emphasize the “blackness” at all– it was a point of irony to reinforce the disconnect between everything Obama is doing right and his relative lack of support which Dyson agreed with before they do a relatively civil back and forth. Dyson echoes Steele’s points but says race has nothing to do with it. Matthews gets nervous and makes lame “white guy” reference. It goes on, good points raised on both sides. Two smart BLACK MEN make Chris Matthew shut up for once– that’s the story.

    The truly provocative thing Steele and Dyson add that’s new are the updates on their umpteenth books.

    The “too white” charges against Obama haven’t started since his candidacy was announced? Please…

    I am disappointed.that Mr. Mills had to distort what was said in order to fit his purposes rather than just let the stuff speak for itself– there was enough questionable things there that he did not need to resort to the tricks and the name calling. That just bothers me and makes me doubt him as much as Mr. Steele. Disagree whatever, but you don’t need to stoop.

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 2:32 am ¶

14. Kaonashi wrote:

    OMG.

    Whatever happened to “Hey, vote for whoever you think can do the best job for this country?” What happened to that?

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 2:39 am ¶

15. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    Steele’s comments, while provocative, are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. He’s a conservative with no dog in the fight right now except that he’s “Black” and so then chat shows will que him up as an “expert.” Still, after reading the transcript I agree that Steele as using this ironically rather than trying to make some anti-Obama statement.

    Young is of course another matter as he holds considerable sway with the all important Black likely voter population, an older crowd, establishment if you like (y’all young cats just don’t go to the polls, sorry). I think the whole “Bill Clinton is so Black” thing is a tired, misinterpreted laugh line at this point and I do wish it would disappear from the lexicon.

    While the creaky generation of Civil Rights movement era leadership does need to readjust to the times, I think us beneficiaries of their blood and sweat need to be a little more deferential to them. I too often see people like Young being attacked seemingly only on the basis of their role in the “establishment” and out of touch, only half-way listening to what they are actually saying.

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 11:11 am ¶

16. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I believe Bill Clinton is called the first black president because he went to black churches and “felt their pain,” not because he signed a lot of legislation favorable to blacks.

    I agree that the “first black president” label is overused and probably invalid. But what if we were talking about someone with a truly liberal voting record–e.g., Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer? Would anyone buy that this person was “blacker” than, say, Shelby Steele?

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 12:19 pm ¶

17. OO wrote:

    That’s assuming they (a) equate “black” with liberal– which may generally be true for a good chunk of their generation across some key issue and (b) they would hold their particular flavor of liberal (which does comes in many flavors) to be of a tasty “black” appeal. Breaking it down more might help.

    Policy records, apart from all this spin and commentary, on any elected official prove weird things. Remember that Kennedy co-wrote No Child’s Behind Left, and Clinton can be accused of calculating centrism that would p.o. conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike even while governor (he had influence at the state and national stage while at NGA).

    Back to your question (really good one): You can also be a Black (or Hispanic or Asian) conservative elected official who votes “liberal” or sides with Dems on an issue. Which makes you more or less “white” (or loyal or consistent or effective)? Should the standard differ (or does it matter at all?

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶

18. T. wrote:

    I don’t think there’s anything “supposedly” intellectual about Shelby Steele, he IS intellectual, the real deal. One of the best writers on race and culture I’ve ever read.

    Now Dyson? That’s a stupid “intellectual” for sure.

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 6:13 pm ¶

19. Colin wrote:

    Shelby Steele and Michael Eric Dyson are both intellectuals, T, Mills, so maybe that’s a little vitriolic of you both.

    I think it was a regular pundit, pseudo-Crossfire show, with Dyson the pro side (pro-Obama) and Steele the con side (anti-Obama).

    It was just Hardball with two blacks instead of one.

    Thinking about it in that light, it’s kind of just Steele and Dyson playing the political game, and so I’m not as inclined to fly into full outrage mode. I just don’t feel the outrage.

    I’m actually proud to be able to see two black intellectuals talking on the presidential aspirations of a prominent black person on a major pundit talk show. And they’re agreeing somewhat, but really disagreeing somewhat, too. I hope we can help foster this sort of democratic discourse more publicly, because from my experience it happens more often in black America than the MSM gives us credit for. (That strange SC black women article a few weeks back notwithstanding)

    Posted 14 Dec 2007 at 10:30 pm ¶

20. Luke Pharma wrote:

    Much of what I would say was echoed in Colin’s fine response.

    I’ve also not declaring support for any candidate yet.

    Holding that perspective, I hope people will also take a moment to review this week’s past online chat session with Eugene Robinson, editor of the Washington Post’s op-ed page

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/12/09/DI2007120900927.html

    The conversation centers around his prior piece to last weekend’s Oprah blitz, and renewed Obama prospects.

    Especially important to note: discussion Q&A addresses African-American

    –”rationality” and “irrationality” in general when it comes to blacks vs. *this* black in the White House

    – necessity of winning the “heartland” over in order to win the White House (it may be code word for “white” among “blacks” but it’s the Midwest early during primaries, and Midwest and South in general elections. Who turns out in greater numbers for which?)

    – The polls, whether one plays the numbers game or not, drive the quips about who appeals to whom, which in turn feed into the war of words and dollars.

    I think it is short-sighted to envision a grand “right-wing” conspiracy here– the GOP’s in too much of a mess with their own stuff. If anything the “plot” to derail Obama, if there is one, comes from the left from different directions, and the right is just calling it from the sidelines. See Robinson’s piece for a reasoned explanation of why (and by whom). I was surprised at first, then frustrated, then it made sense…

    Related question: Why is Richardson– the “other person of color” doing so badly? You figure if he actually served in the Clinton administration and had more goverment experience, he could assemble a better team.

    He also has not received the same level “Is America Ready For One of Them/Those [blank]“, has he, especially given his background, record, and state?

    Posted 15 Dec 2007 at 6:31 pm ¶

21. Orville wrote:

    The Clintons are a joke. Although I am not American I have been paying close attention to the Democratic party candidates. I notice a strategy of the old guard these old tight ass civil rights leaders like Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson lashing out at Barack Obama. I think Hillary Clinton is a centralist she seems to flip flop on many issues like the war in Iraq. Barack Obama always was against the war in Iraq. Again, as I said in a previous post its not just white Americans that fear Obama. Its clear to me the old civil rights guard are even more fearful of Barack Obama. Maybe the old civil rights guard have their own prejudices since Senator Obama is biracial? I have also read in the United States some African Americans are picking on Senator Obama because his father is an African and he wasn’t a descendant of slaves. I am really surprised at the bigotry and prejudice of some African American civil rights leaders. I think they just don’t like Obama and they favour the Clintons. All this bullshit about the Clintons being blacker then Obama is bullshit. Because the last time I checked Hillary and Bill Clinton are white Americans. Sure Hillary and Bill can have sympathy for blacks but they also want the black American votes. Hillary and Bill are very shrewd politicians they want to make sure they target and reach every single demographic to acquire as many votes as possible. Senator Obama is a black man and he knows a lot more about black issues then the Clintons that’s for sure. I think the old civil rights guard simply want to split the black vote in favour of the Clintons. Aren’t Americans sick of the Clintons anyway by now?

    Posted 16 Dec 2007 at 12:28 am ¶

22. Orville wrote:

    I also heard this week a Clinton adviser was fired for attacking Senator Obama. I think the Clintons are really fearful of him. I also want to point out according to polls in Iowa Senator Obama is in a slight lead. Also, in the state of South Carolina Senator Clinton and Obama are very close in the polls. The Clintons have a very smart strategy let the old black civil rights leaders do their dirty work for them. I just hope African Americans are cognizant of the fact that the Clintons have a precarious record in relation to African American rights.

    Posted 16 Dec 2007 at 12:33 am ¶

23. OO wrote:

    Since she’s Raclicious’ periodical/journal junkie, I was hoping to hear some comments from Latoya, especially given this month’s Atlantic piece on the early meeting between Hillary and Obama.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200712/clinton-obama

    You have to subscribe to read it online but I believe it made the print edition. Don’t wont to spoil all the fun, but needless to say, it’s neither as simple nor as clean (or nice) as one would thinkg (and it plays rather twisted too…)

    have no idea what Hillary did during Bill’s time in office, and whatever she takes credit for, whatever she wants to, that’s a matter of two weird egos that will blow up at some point before too long. I do think you have enough evidence of the power play they wield as a couple without throwing wild speculation about Bill’s policy record to the wind, however. Try to stick to the practical stuff, and you’re on more solid ground, I think…

    Focus on Bill’s role as nominal head of the party, for starters. They didn’t want Dean to run the DNC, they wanted their man Terry McAuliffe to, and their faction is still pulling the strings to undercut his way on funding and strategy. Look at spending in last year’s races- see any quirks? Also remember in 2003, when 10 DNC staffers were about to be let go due to “budget problems”, all of them happened to be African Americans, and none of the senior Black Democrat interests or party officials were consulted?

    And let’s not forget when former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson tried to unseat him. Looking back to that race in 2001 gives you a great window on this discussion now, because you had all the interest groups and generational factions– including the civil rights institution (or “machine”) throwing it’s weight around and the Clintons again saying” that’s our man” and this other guy isn’t proven enough for the national needs.

    Also more telling: the DNC actually decreased from as much as a 50% Black operation before the Clinton’s to 22% by 2004, despite the fact that Blacks continued to give Dems 80-90% of the vote. Not bad for a group that makes up 12% of the total population and shrinking…

    And let’s not forget Rep. Nita Lowey, who actually earned the right to run for Senator but was given the bum rush so that Hillary could carpetbag her way to a win for the Dems, denying a woman of color who had to take one for the team the satisfaction of winning a seat she long wanted. I’ll stop there.

    Under Terry McAuliffe’s operational and administrative leadership, and I’m sure with the Clinton’s knowledge and awareness since they’re among the inner circle, they chose pragmatism and expediency without thinking about the consequences. I don’t believe it was “racist” but I do believe they didn’t think it was an important calculation to make since loyalty came as part of the package. They rightly figured either people would stick with them out of fear of the alternative or would just go with apathy.

    Though agreeing the Clinton “legacy” is dubious (it’s hard to actually call it such when there’s only one, and it hasn’t been long enough to see all the effects) I might advise some caution there Orville.

    Bill C. wasn’t elected into office as a “black” president or to help “black” people, and whether or not one likes everything he did, some of what he did wasn’t bad.

    Whether one actually benefitted, chose to benefit, or (better yet) even knows they benefitted from what he’s responsible from what he did remains the subject of debate. Further complicating matters. The president isn’t responsible for everything, there’s still Congress too, and next year people still have to– whups, get to– elect everyone in the House and 1/3 of the Senate.

    What more incentive could you want to vote now?

    Enough soapboxing for today…

    Posted 17 Dec 2007 at 4:39 pm ¶

24. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Damn, OO, caught me!

    I was intentionally leaving this discussion alone because it brings up way too many angles for discussion and I already feel overloaded trying to get through my daily writing/reading.

    I swear, my tombstone will read “Death by discussion.”

    Anywho…

    No, I did not have a chance to check out the Atlantic this month (I generally only read the Atlantic/Haarpers/Legal Affairs/the Economist/the Financial Times when there is a must read article on the cover.)

    However, y’all have all brought up some fascinating points.

    I’ll see if I can get around to a bookstore and grab a copy in the next day or so.

    Posted 17 Dec 2007 at 5:28 pm ¶

25. Luke Pharma wrote:

    Latoya: alas, the curse of sharing your formidible reading habits… Now we know you’re hiding…

    Shortly before B. Clinton came into office, he stated that Americans would be getting “two Presidents”. This is probably where this set of troubles have their start?

    Because I honestly can’t remember these things among hype and charges, I asked a hardcore politico friend for an unbiased (!) take on what Bill Clinton actually did in office, and which parts were “good for African Americans”. He doesn’t declare party affiliation, just to make things interesting:

    Big pieces with teeth: family medical leave, AmeriCorps, Brady bill, earned income tax credit expansion, budget reconciliation (tax relief for poor, higher taxes for rich)

    Stuff you should likely hate:
    –Brady bill (for penalties attached to weapons more likely to be used by certain perpetrators in certain crimes from certain demographics);

    – welfare reform (which he didn’t start and his admin. vetoed twice before signing, for punitive haphazard system)

    – copyright reform (which carried restrictions on speech rightly challenged in court);

    – “don’t ask, don’t tell” (for form, substance, or manner in twisting the logic of Truman’s military integration doctrine)

    – “defense of marriage” act (not his but he signed it as a pragmatic tradeoff, if people of color share solidarity with any group facing discrimination, they wouldn’t like this either)

    – telecom reform (for its affects on minority media)

    Stuff that Blew His Minority Capital: Elian & Fidel, NAFTA, Monica L., healthcare reform, response to terrorism, etc.

    Efforts That Helped: Cabinet composition, focus on digital divide, Monica L., etc.

    Surpringly he mentioned one thing I’d forgotten that very few people (including Hillary herself) bring up. Anyone remember the “One America in the 21st Century: The President’s Initiative on Race”?

    http://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/OneAmerica/america.html

    Very big deal, much fanfare, to spur continued dialogue on race. Maybe it’s working?…

    Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 11:18 am ¶

26. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    Actually, OO, the demographic shift in DNC workers you mention is interesting, but not for the reasons you suggest. Many DNC folks went to WH or cabinet jobs during that time period. Some were positioning themselves for a job with Gore, since he didn’t have many Black people on staff (a handful) and he would likely need some for his campaign.

    Also, no one besides wonks and people who work those jobs cares about who works in the DNC. Even if someone had broadcast the fact, it’s not like it would have made a difference with Black people.

    Nita Lowey? PUH-lleeze. Tell me, when was the last time a House member became President? Ford don’t count, he was appointed.

    Posted 22 Dec 2007 at 2:06 am ¶

27. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Read the Atlantic. Will post.

    Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶