Lambasted for Not Drinking the Obama Kool-Aid
It’s hard out here for Black pundits/analysts/commentators who haven’t come around to drinking the Barack-Obama-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread-how-
did-we-ever-exist-as-a-nation-without-him-this-is-our-last-best-
chance-to-elect-a-Black-president-so-we-better-support-him-see-I-told-you-
racism-is-dead Kool-Aid. I have learned an unfortunate lesson in observing the Democratic presidential nomination fight: In too many segments of the country – Black and White – to express any skepticism about Barack Obama is considered political heresy. I’m blown away by this discovery, because it suggests a dangerous group think: Obama is the only agent of change and to not praise him at every opportunity is to support the status quo (And, oh, by the way, Hilary is the devil!).
This is a strange position for me to be in, as I think he has the instincts to be a really good president. I don’t consider myself an Obama critic, just someone willing to critically analyze his candidacy. I am a progressive registered as an Independent and my preferred candidate is not in the race, so I get a little touchy when callers and blog respondents assume that because I’m not yet ready to drink the Obama kool-aid, that I must be in the tank for Hilary Clinton. Not true. I think it’s narrow-minded to think that just because one is lukewarm to Obama that they must want Hilary to win. Between you and me: I’ll take Al Gore over either of them in a heartbeat.
I realized all this during a radio interview in Atlanta the day before the New Hampshire primary. I had the temerity to suggest that we shouldn’t overreact to his Iowa win. I reminded listeners that Jesse Jackson won Vermont – a state every bit as White as Iowa – 20 years ago and that many White Democrats have been voting for Black candidates for years, so we shouldn’t jump up and down over Obama’s caucus win. I knew I was in trouble, though, when the music bump before the interview began featured a caller who said she supports Obama “100 percent” and would vote for a Black man over a White woman every time. I thought: “wow, by that logic, you’d vote for Ike Turner, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas over Hilary Clinton.” How ridiculous.
While I got slapped around by a few callers (and gently by the host, an Obama supporter), one caller was particularly unhinged. He called himself an “Obama Republican,” which struck me as oxymoronic (or maybe just moronic), and went on about how Obama showed leadership in the Illinois legislature in opposing the war and that I was out of line for not giving him credit for this. I reminded the caller that Obama has not opposed one nickel of Bush spending to continue this travesty, but, alas, I was deemed unduly critical of “the Brother,” not to be taken seriously. By the way caller: Do you know how easy it is to oppose something when you have no skin in the game? Can anyone say for sure that he would not have voted to authorize Bush’s foolishness in Iraq if he were a member of the Senate in 2002? I’m willing to bet that Obama would have done as all the Senate Democrats who wanted to be president did: vote to support Bush so that their Republican general election opponent couldn’t say they were soft on terrorism.
All I’ve tried to do is add some reason and caution to the over-the-top response that many voters have for Obama. And I’ll keep doing it. I have thick skin, so it’s no big deal to me.
Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: MichaelFauntroy.com.
January 7, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
As a moderate Obama supporter, a fairly big Edwards supporter, a registered Independent, and a philisophical "old-school" Socialist, I'd like to say you've made a great analysis of the situation. I like Obama, and, for the moment, it looks like he's going to be the Democratic nominee. But we need to keep an open-mind on the subject. If we become unquestioning supporters of Obama...what makes us any different from the Bush fanatics?
A few questions (if you get the chance to e-mail me, that's fine...if not...that's cool, too)...
Who was your first choice for President?
Who do you think the GOP will nominate?
Do you think that there will be a major independent candidate, and if so, who do you think it'll be?
Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.
Posted by: Poncho | Jan 8, 2008 9:06:51 PM
Michael:
Obama must, I think, deal careully and wisely with the following questions.
Is there a serious racism problem in America or is there not? Do blacks and whites agree or disagree on their perceptions of the problem? Will Obama conduct his campaign and his presidency to deal with this problem, real or pereived, or will he act neutrally?
If blacks start to jump on the Obama bandwagon in great numbers, Is there a big danger, do you think, that he'll be perceived by many blacks and whites as someone who will give blacks special help?
If so, what might that mean for growing and possibly rancorousness black-white divisiveness during the campaign and for the country when he becomes president, if he does?
The spectre of the swift-boating enmity, for example, springs to mind when I ponder this.
Or am I just a worry wart?
Posted by: Moose Malloy | Jan 8, 2008 2:50:09 PM
I think this piece really underestimates the importance and historical significance of Barack Obama winning in Iowa. Although Jessie Jackson did when a few primary elections, the only key early state that he won was South Carolina, where 50% of the democratic primary is African American. Yes, Jessie did win a lily white state like Vermont but that is problably the worst example of trying to compare Jessie to this Obama phenomenom. Vermont is probably the most liberal state in the United States and has always gone far against the trend of the rest of the country. As far back as the 1860's Vermont had already produced radical reconstruction politicians like Thaddeus Stevens who aregued for reperations for African Americans. Even today Vermont is so far left of the mainstream that it is often referred to as the Peoples Republic of Vermont.
So in the world of presidential politics, history has shown us that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have played a much greater role in determining who is president. In fact, only Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hamnpshire and still went on to win the nomination. And the the only resaon Clinton probably lost Iowa and New Hampshire was because he went against Harkin in Iowa, who was a Iowa native, and Tsongas in New Hampshire, who was from neighboring Massuchesets.
So considering that Barack Obama is the first black candidate to win a key state like Iowa I would say that those of us who support have some reason to celebrate. Add to that the fact that he is ahead in the polls in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, I would say that he has a strong chance of getting the nomination. It would truly be a historical first if he wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and does not go on to get the nomination.
However, him winning the nomination does not by any means translate to the end of racism. Most overt racist are probably not voting in Democratic primaries and the paternalistic racist within the Democrtaic party (you know, those who believe that blacks should follow the democrtic party rather than lead it) have probably already thrown their lot in with Clinton or Edwards.
Posted by: AngryMan | Jan 8, 2008 2:43:01 PM
Read your post today on Huffington. My reaction: hooray for you. Also skimmed over some of your earlier blogs. You are so right on the mark. I'm with you on Gore. I hoped, back during the civil rights wars of the '60s that women and blacks would both crash the political boundaries by now.(Can it really be 2008? I was born in 1932). As attractive a candidate as Obama is, I cringe when I think about the ugly truth out there ready to emerge from the slime. The Southern states as a bloc are still racist. Most of the people in those states pretend, maybe even have convinced themselves, to be free of racial prejudice, but they aren't. I'm not just talking about European-Americans. And plenty of people in other states are the same. Black people know this, I think. (I'm European-American with a squirt of Native American, Texas-born and raised, and was mercifully released from that cultural prison in 1967.) But those same people who won't vote for an African-American president hate the idea of a WOMAN president even more. And they aren't all Republicans, either.
I am seriously worried, as a progressive registered as Democrat. I admire Sen. Clinton and believe she could be the best change agent. She knows how to play the stupid game to get things done. But I believe she's kept her values straight in her head even when she must have felt like throwing up. Will those thousands of progressives who voted in a straw online poll for Dennis K.(I was one)switch to Clinton? But she can't win, and even if she did, the country would be more polarized than ever. My urgent question is: Which of all the Democratic candidates can WIN? I've never seen such an excellent group to choose from. Edwards seems the best realistic choice at this point, but any of the others would do just fine. If we allow the media to annoint our candidate (and they will, I fear) we'd better steel ourselves for defeat. I can hardly bear to think about what that would mean. LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. Oh my god.
Posted by: Vivian Taylor | Jan 8, 2008 1:06:39 PM
Everyone has different reasons for supporting a candidate. Obama's grassroots experience in African American neighborhoods in Chicago and the fact that he's not a civil rights generation elected official motivate me to support him. The reason I think he's the best candidate is that he gets people excited. When I was in sales I learned that the best way to sell a product was to be excited about it. I believe that the democrats have missed out on the importance of creating an emotional connection to the electorate in order to win. Obama creates that excitement and he has already proven his commitment to the African American community. Hillary is a good candidate but she motivates the base of the opposition which is a problem.
Posted by: Brandon | Jan 8, 2008 10:17:06 AM
One more thing....I'd take Gore over anyone running right as well.
Posted by: Gary | Jan 8, 2008 9:40:35 AM
Love your words. But for moment, I'm still an Obama believer. Not because we share the same race, but because of what he says. The one thing that stands out for me is Obama's Nov 11, 2002 inteview with Jeff Berkowitz. In it, Obama outlines his caution in unilaterally going into Iraq and the need to have a solid plan to prevent a splintering of Iraq along the lines of the religious factions if we overthrow Saddam. He goes on to state that he propbaly wouldn't have voted for the resolution to authorize the president to use military force because of his cancern over giving the adminitration carte blanche to have the US do a pre-emptive attack on another state.
The caution due to his foresight has turned out to be well founded. And while our hindsight may be 20-20, heeding his foresight (as well as the foresight of others who shared his opinion) might have saved this nation a lot of grief brought on by the Iraq War.
Posted by: Gary | Jan 8, 2008 9:37:55 AM
Very Astute Comments,
Someone studied, thought about and digested and absorbed their American political history. The real problem about Obama, is he himself, says very little, just a pep talk, cheerleader rap, maybe, what are you going to do as president to advocate for the people. This American Idol syndrome that students think it is ok to cheat on exams, vote twice or more in presidential elections, fudge legal loopholes, allowing outside students to vote, what has Iowa and New Hampshire proven politically? Nothing, we are worse off politically than 4 years ago, when we had problems in the general election. Republicans voting democratic, independents voting in primaries, this is bull, bunk, and paints an unrealistic picture of falsified tomfoolery, and the media calls this representative democracy at work. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves, Lincoln is wondering, should I finally return and complete my final term, as these folks know nothing of an honest candidate with charisma.
Posted by: Neil Garland | Jan 8, 2008 2:49:43 AM
Very Astute Comments,
Someone knows and absorbed theyr American political history. The real problem about Obama, is he himself, says very little, just a pep talk, cheerleader rap, maybe, what are you going to do as president to advocate for the people. This American Idol syndrome that students think it is ok to cheat on exams, vote twice or more in presidential elections, fudge legal loopholes, allowing outside students to vote, what has Iowa and New Hampshire proven politically? Nothing, we are worse off politically than 4 years ago, when we had problems in the general election. Republicans voting democratic, independents voting in primaries, this is bull, bunk, and paints an unrealistic picture of falsified tomfoolery, and the media calls this representative democracy at work. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves, Lincoln is wondering, should I finally return and complete my final term, as these folks know nothing of an honest candidate with charisma.
Posted by: Neil Garland | Jan 8, 2008 2:48:47 AM
Your Story was a Breath of Fresh air. I am not alone Please keep on Speaking the Truth, Their are a lot of Misguided Blacks who have not done their Home Work on Obama
We need a Leader who Cares what the Color IS!
Posted by: christopher | Jan 8, 2008 2:40:15 AM
Thank you Michael for your comments. I can't believe that the Democrats are going to do it again. McGovern, Dukakis, the wild-eyed idolization of someone who has zero chance in the GE. The GOP wants Obama because they know they can beat him. When they finish poring over his record they are going to do the same thing they did to Kerry in 2004. If I did not know Kerry's record from my own research, the commercials made me believe he was a skidrow bum who didn't earn those medals.
Mark my words before the first commercials hit, Obama is going to be a muslim terrorist who will bring about another 911. I agree 100% with Andrew Young, he is too green. He hasn't even served his constituents in Illinois--he has been running for President since day one. Pathetic. Bloomberg's Unity08 ticket is looking better and better.
Posted by: Nada | Jan 8, 2008 12:44:21 AM
Professor Fauntroy,
You made practical points in your blog today about Barak Obama. I understand the points you are making. However, I believe you should consider the larger impact of Obama's campaign.
I believe the Democratic nomination of Obama for President could be a positive move for America. It would prove that (finally) everyone in America is treated equally and have a chance at succeeding at the highest levels. A black U.S. President could also have a tremendous impact and influence on other nations. The world would see us as being a nation of fairness. We could have a strong voice against oppression of worldwide.
I also believe as a voting bloc, we should support a black presidential candidate with the vision, charisma, and character as Obama. Our consolidated vote could give him a fighting chance. A black president would prove to the millions of poor and downtrodden children that they have a chance of becoming anything they want to be.
So many of our people are lost. So many believe the world is against them. It will take a dramatic event to change their view of the world, and to change the direction our people are going.
As a group, we can learn great things from Jewish people. Collectively, they support honest, positive Jewish candidates. A Solomon Project analyzing the Jewish vote in 2000 showed that 80% of Jews voted for Gore-Lieberman simply because Lieberman was Jewish. That's the kind of unity that our community lacks. As a bloc, the Jewish people stand together to ensure they are never oppressed by any other group again. Unity is the key to long term survival. We are a divided group at risk of becoming completely irrelevant. Look at how the media portrays us.
As a divided group, we decrease our influence and power at home and around the world. Sir, you have a voice. Your voice could influence others to support a Black candidate whose nomination could have a tremendous impact on African Americans. Barak Obama's nomination could be the best thing that has happened to people of African decent in thousands of years. You should be a part of this positive change for our people. The larger picture is what's important.
Abdur-Rahman Harper
Posted by: Abdur-Rahman Harper | Jan 7, 2008 10:10:26 PM
I'll believe it when I see it......It appears that the nation may be a little more receptive to the idea (key word: IDEA) that Obama has a shot at the presidency. But then again, having a shot and being the party nomination are two different things.
Let's see what happens when the primary rolls around. If I'm not mistaken, weren't the ELECTED democratic candidates that year (1988)Dukakis and Bentsen?
I'm more interested in what Obama and Edwards financial backing (lobbyists etc.) feel about the "IDEA" of not getting their backs scratched once they are elected into office.
These are good times to be a political analysts and observers. I'm more concerned with the Republican nominees. I'm surprised that the I love Huckabees slogan hasn't gotten more airplay.............
Posted by: I LOVE ME SOME ME..... | Jan 7, 2008 7:59:35 PM
Here are some clues as to the answers you sought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs
MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?
EDWARDS: I would.
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?
EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /
I realize you may have asked on Hillary's behalf, but I have been treated the very same way by Edwards supporters so I gathered this evidence. Hope it helps anyway.
Posted by: Robbedvoter | Jan 7, 2008 6:21:55 PM
Michael -
1. People have strong feelings about the candidates they support. They often call into talk shows to defend them. You're making sweeping generalizations about Obama supporters/blacks/Americans that may or may not be true.
2. You wrote a contrarian piece. When you write contrarian pieces that fly in the face of conventional wisdom, you often shock people and get negative reactions. Just deal with it, and move on.
3. Your piece is wrong. The apples to oranges comparison of Jesse Jackson to Obama is absurd. No one who wasn't delusional ever thought Jesse Jackson had a serious chance at being elected president, if he were nominated. Obama has a chance (actually...according to online betting futures, he has about a 65% chance, if he's nominated).
Posted by: Paul | Jan 7, 2008 4:19:54 PM
Subscribe via Feedburner
