Trackbacks & Pings

1. Uncle Tom Bob Johnson « Next Thing on 16 Apr 2008 at 12:15 am

   […] more on this Anti-union, Shucking and jiving corporate sleazebag check out The Insanity Report, Racialicious, Tyrone Takes America, or Open […]

Comments

1. EvaVegaDiversity wrote:

   My head is starting to hurt too. I think it is evident that there is a generational split withing Black America and what I can only call a younger America of Color. Jesse Jackson does not represent me or any other black person I know that is under 50 and makes less than 80k. Bob Johnson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the civil rights throwbacks are missing a huge point… Read this editorial. It sums it up for me.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011102000.html?referrer=emailarticle

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:24 pm ¶

2. Fatemeh wrote:

   Wow.

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶

3. Kenda wrote:

   I know Bob Johnson is a rich powerful man, but the Clintons need to tell him to shut the hell up. This is ridiculous.

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:36 pm ¶

4. Paul wrote:

   CNN repeatedly referred to Johnson as the founder of BET and made it seem as if he still ran the channel. This matters because many white people see BET as the de facto voice of Black America.

   The real split seems to be along generational lines rather than ethnic/gender. Boomers uncritically back Hillary because it’s her turn and she’s one of them. Obama scares them because he represents the end of their era. They’re supposed to be the best and brightest generation ever, just ask them, and they only get two Presidents! How dare we younger folks turn our back on them after all they have done for us. Steinem, Jones, Jackson, CNN, et al. prove this point.

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:37 pm ¶

5. Xavier wrote:

   This is the story line the Obama campaign has been pushing this story to the media, effectively making race the issue. Read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

   We should be embracing the fact that the Democrats have an opportunity to have the first African-American and first woman president. But his “new” politics is just another form of the politics of ole, and pushing this type of divide-and-conquer political story is his campaign’s strategy to win.

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶

6. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

   “An educated black man is the Clinton’s worse nightmare?”

   That reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch.

   Right after Larry Holmes crushed “great White hope” Jerry Cooney, the show had him as their guest host. Cooney did a mock commercial for the United Negro College Fund. As the video showed his humiliation in the ring by Holmes, Cooney on voice over urged (White) viewers to donate to the UNCF because “an educated Black man is a weaker opponent”.

   Apparently now, an educated Black man is a STRONGER opponent!!!

   And at least Cooney (and the SNL writers) were KIDDING - this guy is dead serious about Obama!!!

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶

7. G.D. wrote:

   Boy, am I glad the Clinton’s dispatched a universally beloved, not-at-all polarizing figure like Bob Johnson to speak on their behalf.

   What the hell were they thinking?

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:09 pm ¶

8. FranSky wrote:

   Latoya I’m not sure what state you’re in but in in Oregon if a person is registered as an independent they can’t vote in the Primary election.

   As far as the generational thing Paul mentioned I don’t believe it reflects the boomer mindset to choose a woman. My mom was born smack dab in the middle of the baby boom generation and wants nothing more than a Black president, even if he were not the best choice for the U.S. (which I’m not saying Obama is or isn’t)

   I think the bigger issue here has to do with attitudes of what “liberal” looks like to certain folks. To some folks liberal looks like a Black man in the white house. To some it appears as a white woman. Either way I’d rather folks vote for the person most qualified, rather than the one who seems like the most liberal.
   Peace!
   ~F

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:22 pm ¶

9. lemure wrote:

   Bob Johnson is an Uncle Tom, house negro. Yes I said it, and to sarcastically paraphrase this asshole, “I’m Black, so its okay that I did.”
   We don’t have to vote for Obama because he’s Black, but we don’t have to vote for the Clintons (make no mistake,its both of them) because Bill is Black either. By the way, that label is the most ignorant thing I’ve ever heard. This so called “Black” president expanded the War on Drugs and prison system, two of our community’s biggest enemies, instituted the abomidable “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and stood by while genocide raged in the Motherland. His wife was a Goldwater republican in the 60’s and is an opportunist of the highest order who refuses to acknowledge her “mistake” in voting for the Iraq genocide, keeps funding said extermination, is beholden to corporate interests and even held stock in NewsCorp, the Murdoch evil empire and pays lip service to religion for fundamentalist fanatics while not giving a shit about waging a war on poverty. Everyone says don’t just vote for Barack because he’s Black, which is paternalism at its worst. Black people are not single issue, simple minded children. However, anyone voting for Hillary just because she has a big (D) next to her name, is simple indeed. She is a Republican, in the party’s current incarnation, indeed!

   Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:31 pm ¶

10. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Xavier -

    When is it pushing a story, and when is it defending yourself against attacks rooted in negative stereotypes about African-Americans?

    The article you mentioned notes that this memo was made public, but was not sent to the press.

    FranSky -

    Over in Maryland. I haven’t been of age to vote very long and my memory is kind of dusty. I do not recall if I can vote in the primaries registered indie. However, I am more than happy to not receive political mailing and solicitations, which is an unexpected benefit. I’ll look into this…

    Eva - Thanks for the link.

    And yes, this shit is ridiculous.

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶

11. dnA wrote:

    I’m not sure that anything makes more clear how out of touch with black people the Clintons are than having Bob Johnson as an ally.

    Don’t believe Menace II Society: a Harvard educated black man is America’s worst nightmare. Why do you think these people get all heated about Affirmative action?

    As a side note I’d like to think that as a black Ivy educated Jew who white people often don’t identify as black, I get to be both America AND Louis Farrakhan’s worst nightmare.

    I’m there, even when you don’t see me…

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

12. Colin wrote:

    How can you not love politics?

    What tomfoolery. He’s like Jason f–kin’ Whitlock, (it’s a family blog ya’ll) he sells out faster than a Star Wars movie.

    I agree that race needs to be discussed by the Democratic Party in a nationwide, media-engaged way, something larger than a tired-ass little forum, but it’s also sad to see that that may mean the Republicans win the general election which would be BAD NEWS BEARS for the world.

    One thing I noticed is that if you looked at what Booty-Shake Johnson said, it’s clear:

    1) He was terribly coached.
    2) He completely gave the Clintonian strategy away.
    3) He was absolutely oblivious to his own idiocy until someone told him.

    It is sad a woman who’s usually pretty liberal would delve into something the other side, the conservatives, would use against her, the divisive nature of identity, obfuscating important policy differences.

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

13. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I didn’t think the claim was that it’s bad for the country in general, for the Democratic party, or anything like that. I thought it was just that it’s bad for Clinton’s own campaign and chances at becoming president.

    These comments don’t seem anywhere near as strange given that. It’s bad for her (given that her goal is becoming president) that she’s got this opponent with all the traits you want in a candidate on your side. But for the primary he’s not on her side, even if he will be in the general election (no matter which of them has the nomination).

    I agree that it sounds more plausible hearing this from conservatives, libertarians, and many moderates, who will disagree with Obama very strongly on principle while liking his personality, his populist appeal, and his optimism. But that doesn’t mean it’s strange for his strongest opponent in the primary, whose principled disagreements with him are nowhere near as strong, to say it too. She wants to win. It’s unfortunate for that goal that he’s as good a candidate as she is. Wouldn’t you find that frustrating if you were in her place?

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 4:53 pm ¶

14. Lloyd Webber wrote:

    The Clintons if they do win and I have a sinking feeling that they will will have scored nothing but a Pyrrhic victory

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 5:35 pm ¶

15. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    If you parse Johnson’s comment ignoring, if you can, the more inflamatory, he’s trying to say that Obama is too good to be true therefore he must have something he’s hiding, suggesting that the press should be out looking and they aren’t . Of course they’re digging and we’ll know soon enough if they’ve found anything. So far, I’d wager nothing substantial.

    The Clinton’s strategy of sending out high profile Black supporters to bring out Obama’s negatives (though they deny this is what they’re doing) is likely to backfire. They’re going to martyr him in the end until and unless they really have something substantial. It worked better for them to attempt to bash Obama on issues. They should allow the surrogates to praise Clinton instead and forget about Obama unless they have something substantial to say.

    Check your history, people, and google “Sista souljah” and Clinton and see what you come up with. This should be no surprise to you.

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 6:33 pm ¶

16. Eric Daniels wrote:

    I am not voting for Obama because I feel like Harold Cruse wrote over 41 years ago that African- Americans have gotten all they are going to get from the politcal process and it is time to focus on empowerment and self- determination than some form of racial masturbation from the elites like Gloria Steinem and Robert Johnson. I do not think an Obama Presidency changes things for the average Brotha and Sista in thier lives.

    I say vote for who you like and feel can best represent your vision for the country, but I am not surprised the Clintons are playing the race and sex cards in this campaign and are sending out their heavy hitters to bang with Obama the Clintons have no morals whatsoever and Obama playing some race nuetral candidate will not help matters.

    Posted 15 Jan 2008 at 8:58 pm ¶

17. Peter wrote:

    sometimes i feel like i was the only one to make it past 3rd grade comprehension.

    people read some buzzwords - they get them all mixed up in their heads - and then hurry over to their blogs and rage on things that require no rage whatsoever. what’s the point? i mean, campaigns do it - but they do it on purpose - it’s manipulative - it’s dishonest - it’s hypocritical - it’s not cool. it’s called ‘playing politics’ - is that what racialicious is about?

    there are things you could object to regarding Johnson’s words, loyalty, behavior, hypocrisy, any number of things - but you’ve done exact none of them in this post. instead, you went to work on a bunch of straw men.

    Why the hell is this a bad thing?

    it’s a bad thing because if you want to win and your opponent is very good, then your chances of winning are decreased. Is this really rocket science?

    so it’s a bad thing for a politician to not have political skeletons cluttering up the closet

    we can debate the relative merits of coming clean early vs. late vs. whatever - but that has nothing to do with what Johnson is talking about, here.

    it’s a bad thing that the media are giving Obama a free ride now, during the primaries, because it is unfair to the other candidates. also, any free ride now will not be repeated during the general election - meaning the Dems and people who support them will be in for a very rude awakening Day 1 after the nomination is official. If one is a Dem, like Johnson might be, then it is important that the candidate selected by the Party to run for prez is thoroughly tested during the primaries, so rude awakenings are avoided.

    the ‘perfection’ has been happening since Iowa. it was a coronation with ’serious people’ calling for Hillary to get out of the race after the first pseudo-vote in the nation - Iowa - and then saying that if she lost NH then she would certainly have to concede. can you imagine? after some hicks in Iowa vote, and then some self-important ‘independent’ freaks in NH have their all-important say, we’re supposed to have our candidate for prez chosen - just like that? f that.

    of course, it appears that the ‘perfection’ was so intense, and the media hatred of Hillary so strong, that women voters issued a collective ‘Hold up!’. And yes, it was Johnson who brought up Obama’s Colombian habits - but should he have had to?

    I mean, a candidate for President has until now, well after when he could have already locked up the nomination, still remained untouched by cocaine allegations in the mainstream media. Do you really think that’s normal/wise/fair? Do you really think that having a former coke-head running for president will be a non-issue to most Americans? Sometimes i’m really shocked by how out of touch single-issue blogs tend to be - they get a loyal following, develop the echo chamber, and everybody stays happy by complimenting each other on how smart everybody else in the room is. It’s a miniature version of dailykos.

    why the hell would we silly Negroes chose Obama over Clinton?

    i’d be more impressed if we stayed away from the unnecessary hyperbole and just addressed the issue that Johnson raised - why hasn’t and doesn’t Obama talk about racism?

    Johnson is saying to black people - “check it - dude seems like a good cat - but do we really want someone who is afraid to even talk about race in the white house, especially when that someone is supposed to be one of us?” it’s a perfectly valid point. no candidate will talk about racism and none will talk about the prison industrial complex - so in that regard Obama should be treated the same as all the others. BUT, Johnson is making the case that Obama is benefiting from his ‘black street cred’ without having actually done anything to earn it. is just being black enough to garner the loyalty of African American voters? should it be? Johnson thinks not. Your Honor, I think he has a case.

    and i prefer we all start being honest and say ‘racism’ instead of ‘race’, because the former is the dirty word - the latter is neutral and safe. I say force our candidates to talk about unpleasant things. ‘race’ is a b.s. word - sanitized for consumption so we can all pretend that we’re not as bad as we actually are. f that. let’s be real. who knows - maybe we might even make some progress. i’d argue that most americans have little to no idea what women and minorities face every day. black men getting terrorized by the po-po; women getting terrorized by men for just walking down the street.

    An educated black man is the Clinton’s worse nightmare?

    yes. why is this controversial? please help my small brain understand why i’m supposed to be outraged? seriously - your faux outrage is absurd. i’d think it was a joke, but i think you’re actually confused about this.

    man - how bout a little less reactionary writing a bit more valid critique?

    for you Obama folks out there, here’s a pretty funny vid:
    http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=795&thisview=item

    p.s. there are African American billionaires? damn. who knew?

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 4:39 am ¶

18. K. Springer wrote:

    Can you get an “amen,” lemure? Yes, you can.

    Bob Johnson?! BOB JOHNSON?! is proclaiming *anyone* a worst nightmare? That capitalist exploiter (I know that’s redundant) has been my personal worst nightmare, black women’s worst nightmare, black CULTURE’S worst nightmare for decades. To paraphrase The Boondocks, BET is neither Black nor entertaining. If the Washington Post thinks he speaks for Black America, they are so deeply wrong.

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 4:40 am ¶

19. LeAnne@hairsmystory wrote:

    I’ve always been offended when people referred to the Clintons as the First black family. They are not black. They have never been black and are now showing that they were never on our sides. Its crazy to see Hil act this way. I looked up to her and I read her book. I honestly wanted her to win whatever election she decided to go for, but not in this way. I’m sorry that I didn’t register this year so I could vote against her.
    hairsmystory.com

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 6:10 am ¶

20. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Paul -

    Reread what I wrote.

    1. Yes, there are black billionaires. Oprah and Bob Johnson, the millionaire status depends on what they have done each year. Black Enterprise should be able to catch you up.

    2. Yes, I am aware that the point of politics is to beat your opponent. However, considering that the Clintons are directly competing with Obama for the black vote, sending out BOB JOHNSON is the wrong thing to do.

    3. If you read most black social or political blogs, you would see that most people hate BET. To a lesser extent, they hate Bob Johnson, with good reason. Bob Johnson doesn’t give a fuck about black people and advancement - finish reading the article I linked to. Bob Johnson cares about the estate tax break he needs to stay in the billionaire realm. Not about what is best for black America. The whole conversation with the reporter rings false.

    4. Since your self admitted “small brain” needs help Peter, here we go. If the Clinton’s love black people so much and really want to say they want the best for black America, why the fuck are they letting Bob Johnson spout off about the crisis they are in because an educated black man is running for president? If you want to attack a candidate on his issues, fine. Bringing up past admitted drug use is a little low blow, but also fine. Having the nerve to speak about someone else’s blackness - and getting the founder of BET no less to do it - while simultaneously playing up to negative stereotypes against black men? Come on! Read the Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki & The Jack and Jill Politics coverage if you need to catch up.

    5. Obama does talk about race. Both on his website and in stump speeches. However, he talks about coalition building as opposed to talking about black people explicitly. He also talks about specific problems that directly impact the black community. Again, Jack and Jill Politics has been following that. If you are a part of the “hold their feet to the fire” contingent, you may not like that. Feel free to debate the merits of that tactic. I think the Average Bro’s blog has more conversation on that.

    6. On being “single issue” bloggers - read the tagline. The intersection of race and pop culture. So obviously, we are going to cover what aspect of this presidential race? I don’t care what political tactics Clinton is trying to employ or how generally accepted they are. To say it angry asian man style - that’s racist! If you want to read about sexism in this election, feel free to hit one of the major feminist blogs - they have it covered. So do - gasp - political blogs. If you want analysis of strategy you can watch DailyKos, Talking Points memo, a whole lot of blogs I don’t read on the regular. Go there.

    But Racialicious is - duh - going to focus on race. Especially race baiting. Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills will understand that.

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 7:54 am ¶

21. bdsista wrote:

    Love it Toya! First, DNA are you married? Cuz I think I’m in Luv! Second, being from MD and a HU grad in Communications where everyone went to work for BET (or tried), I can truly say, that we can’t stand Bob Johnson for creating network that displays more negative imagery of black women than Amos and Andy and Beulah ever did! He is the last person to speak for Black people being seen as an incredible sellout and then divorced his wife who had stood by him all those years while he created the misogynistic, booty shakin, half naked image of the black women and exported it worldwide! Third, my parents who are 80 and 78 respectively, wayyy beyond the boomers, (can we say Depression babies folks?) supported Obama from the git go! These are college educated, middle class teachers, who cried when Vanessa Williams won Miss America because they never thought they would live to see the day a Black woman could be America’s beauty queen and are hangin on to see a Black man in the white house. They are hardcore political and news junkies and represent the educated black voter that a lot of people ignore. The Senior voter! I was waffling at first, but Obama is my man now! As for talking about racism, Obama is on the Tom Joyner morning show every morning and talks about all kinds of things and shows his sense of humor as well. So if you are really are keeping track of what he says, read his website and listen to TJMS! South Caroline will be very interesting!

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 9:35 am ¶

22. Colin wrote:

    Peter,

    1) Johnson telling us it’s about the “liberal soul” of the Democratic Party is like Cheney talking about nuclear non-proliferation. Maybe they do mean it, but I REALLY doubt it. Johnson is one solidly pro-corporate liberal, if you can call him liberal. So that’s one strike against him in terms of credibility.

    2) Going into black stereotypes (He did drugs! I know, I know, Bill did some pot — and mysteriously didn’t inhale — but Obama did coke! He might have been a dealer…oooh) is beyond the pale, especially given the context Latoya talked about, not to mention Obama laid out his past early unlike someone else who did some herb in their past…this shows to me not only a will on part of the Clinton campaign to tear down anyone in their way, even people they say they want to be united with come the general election, but to use stereotypes they KNOW will offend major segments of the African American community to do so. To say it’s just politics ignores why the politics may or may not be successful. Just to say, “Oh well, that’s how it happens,” is ludicrous considering its intended effect is NOT to be ignored but to be noticed and emotionally influential. For Bob Johnson to go into that again, strike two.

    3) If one accepts the media narrative (not meaning it’s untrue) of popular hip hop as highly degrading to women, then BET, especially while under Mr. Johnson’s control was one of the most misogynistic channels that aired nationwide. So, for him to be invited by Hillary Rodham Clinton after she had seemingly connected with NH women voters as innately different than the old boys’ club smacks of not only hypocrisy but also of enabling of patriarchy. It’s a bit unnerving that few are willing to say anything about that, including you. Strike three, Bob Johnson, get the f out.

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 10:12 pm ¶

23. Karen wrote:

    1) LaToya–it was like you read my mind about all the BS race-baiting being perpetuated by the Clintons and cosigned by their cronies like Bob Johnson. What a pathetic display of cesspool politics.

    2) As for Paul’s comment here about Baby Boomers “uncritically” supporting Clinton–not sure where you got that info but here’s one Boomer stepping up to debunk that myth. Do you think because we’re older we would vote for someone just because they’re the same age? Do you think we’re senile or maybe just blinded by Hil’s tears?

    3) The only point I differ on here is that maybe it’s really Bob Johnson who is the Clintons’ worse nightmare–at least for this week.

    Posted 16 Jan 2008 at 10:49 pm ¶

24. Paul wrote:

    The polling numbers in New Hampshire showed that older women voted in droves for HRC as did the Iowa Caucaus data. Her donor lists also skew over 50 and she has the support of the Old Lions of LIberalism. Thus, she is the choice of most Boomers.

    Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 8:01 am ¶

25. Karen wrote:

    It’s absurb to suggest Hil is the overall choice of all Boomers nationwide, men and women, just because “older women” voted for Hil in small, non racially diverse states like Iowa and NH. And there are millions of people who vote but don’t contribute financially to campaigns–Hil’s or otherwise.

    But note: These are just the thoughts of an “old lion of liberalism” trying to sift through the facts and fantasy of this year’s politics. Could become a fulltime job.

    Posted 17 Jan 2008 at 10:17 am ¶

26. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Paul, Hillary did get the older vote in NH and IA, and Obama did get the younger vote in both. The difference is that he got the vote of people with ages in between those groups in IA, and she got it in NH. That’s what made the difference between the two states.

    Posted 19 Jan 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶

Post a Comment