Colin Powell’s Got A Case of the “Obamaitis”

All this week, and all the next, The Black Snob is taking a look at the views of black conservatives on Barack Obama. We’re examining who likes him, who doesn’t. Who will vote for him and who won’t. So far we’ve looked at the views of Amy Holmes, Condoleezza Rice, Ward Connerly, Shelby Steele, Alan Keyes and JC Watts.

Colin Powell is the American dream. A man who comes from the hardscrabble Bronx, overcomes adversity, fought for his country in Vietnam and worked hard to as an example to himself and others of the possibility that lies in all our hearts. He was the first black National Security Adviser, leader of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State. He is probably the most liked and widely respected of all black Republicans.

He is the pinnacle, the prototype, the ideal. Thoughtful, but inoffensive. Loyal, but not blind. He’s admired on both sides of the aisle as a clear-eyed, practical-minded Centrist.

Powell is seen as an intelligent, unspoiled man of perseverance and vision. Many have wanted him to run from president. He risked being tarnished by the debacle in Iraq after his credibility was used by the Bush Administration to sell the invasion to the world. He cited fraudulent documents, misinformation and spoke of roving mobile labs with weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

In 2004, Slate.com addressed how this incident and others by the Bush Administration tarnished Powell. The story recalls that after a reporter told Powell Bush was sleeping like a baby on the eve of war with Iraq, Powell said, “I’m sleeping like a baby, too. Every two hours, I wake up, screaming.”

On the high-profile issues of the day, (Powell) seems to have almost no influence within the administration. And his fateful briefing one year ago before the U.N. Security Council—where he attached his personal credibility to claims of Iraqi WMD—has destroyed his once-considerable standing with the Democrats, not to mention our European allies, most of the United Nations, and the media …

From the start of this presidency … Powell has found himself almost consistently muzzled, outflanked, and humiliated by the true powers—Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld … Powell has suffered the additional—and nearly unprecedented—indignity of swatting off continuous rear-guard assaults from his own undersecretary of state, John Bolton, an aggressive hard-liner who was installed at State by Cheney for the purpose of diverting and exhausting the multilateralists.

One of Powell’s first acts as secretary of state was to tell a reporter that the Bush administration would pick up where Bill Clinton left off in negotiations with North Korea—only to be told by Cheney that it would do no such thing. He had to retract his statement.

In spite of this stain on his otherwise stellar record, Powell regained much of his respect after he became a critic of the war and more candid in regard to his experiences in the Administration.

Powell is one of those individuals who when I look at him it frustrates me about the limitations placed on people of color in our society. If he were white there would have been little question about his running for president. But his wife talked him out of it for fear of the death threats which were preemptively trickling in and the seedier side of politics willing to exploit Powell’s wife’s mental illness to shutter his bid.

I realize that all candidates have to deal with push back, but when you’re black you deal with an entirely different kind. Barack Obama was given secret service protection early last year. The Obamas don’t talk about it, but it’s obvious they too deal with some of the things Powell and his family deemed too much to take. It’s still a risky venture to be black and going for the most powerful office in the world.

Powell, like JC Watts, Condoleezza Rice and other black Republicans have tried to push the national party to be more competitive for black votes. During the 2000 Republican National Convention, Powell addressed the audience, speaking of both America’s abundance of national wealth and pride, but also addressed the issues of the poor, the imprisoned and brown.

I’ve met so many young people who believe in the dream. They’re on a road to success. They’re being raised in strong families, going to good schools, filling the finest universities, graduating and then going on to find their place and fortune in this blessed land of ours. Even the youngest of them, still in elementary school, are getting ready for the future, using computers, logging onto the Internet, while still enjoying the magic of childhood by curling up with a Harry Potter book.

There is so much that is so good and right in America tonight, my friends, that we ought to be very, very proud of this wonderful country of ours.

And yet, I cannot ignore and we cannot ignore other things I’ve seen in my travels. I’ve seen poverty. I’ve seen failing communities. I’ve seen people who’ve lost hope. Tragically, I’ve seen too many young Americans who were overwhelmed by the daily struggle just to survive. I’ve seen kids destroying themselves with drugs, kids who see violence and crime as the answer to their hopelessness, kids who no longer believe in themselves and who don’t see a reason to believe in America. I’ve seen kids in utter despair. I’ve visited kids in jail doing adult time for the crimes they’ve committed.

They are part of a growing population of over 2 million Americans behind bars — 2 million convicts, not consumers; 2 million Americans who while paying for their crimes are not paying taxes, are not there for their children and are not raising families. Most of them are men and the majority of those men are minorities.

The issue of race still casts a shadow over our society. Despite the impressi
ve progress we have made over the last 40 years to overcome this legacy of our troubled past, it is still with us.

So with all the success we have enjoyed and with all the wealth we have created, we have much more work to do and a long way to go to bring the promise of America to every single American.

I remember how thunderous applause went to slightly uncomfortable applause back to thunderous. Speaking publicly about the inequities in our society will always rankle the few who don’t want to be concerned with it. Who blame the poor and downtrodden for being poor and downtrodden. I can only image Powell’s frustration with members of his party who seemed more interested in personal gain that the good of the whole. That’s a problem in politics in both parties. Race is just a lesser examined issue in wide Republican discourse.

Like a lot of black people, Liberal, moderate, conservative or centrist, I like Colin Powell. In a just world he easily could have run for office and become president. I even think he would have been a great president. And Powell seems to get a glimmer in his eye over Barack Obama’s campaign. He has not attempted to put a mute button on his pride.

Last year summer he told Powell told NBC’s “Meet the Press” he was giving Obama foreign policy advice. He said it was “too early” in the 2008 race for him to endorse a candidate, and he said he would be backing whomever was best to lead the country in 2009. He also admitted that the Obama camp reached out for his assistance.

Powell said he has met twice with Obama, the Illinois senator. “I’ve been around this town a long time and I know everybody who is running for office. And I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me,” Powell said.

There is a grassroots, “Draft Colin Powell” movement within Barack Obama supporters who wants Powell to join the Obama team as a full-fledged partner, even vice president.

This year, before the New Hampshire primaries, Powell went on Tavis Smiley’s PBS show and said he was “taking joy” in Obama’s candidacy.

(Powell) encouraged Americans to “enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African Americans.”

… Powell offered this advice to the Democratic presidential candidate who may be accomplishing yet another first: “This argument about him not being black enough, that’s just absolute nonsense. He is putting himself forward not as a black man but as an American man who wants to be president of the United States of America. We should see Barack as a candidate for president who happens to be black, and not a black candidate for president.”

By far, out of all the Republicans I’ve looked at, Powell seems to be the most ebullient about an Obama presidency. Perhaps it’s out of solidarity for being a fellow barrier breaker, or an admiration for Obama doing what he felt he could not do, or if it was purely about the symbolism of Obama’s campaign, or because Powell likes Obama, likes some of his platform and honestly thinks he would be a good president.

Powell’s reaction to Obama’s win in Iowa in some ways was the thing that got me off the fence. I’m a die hard pragmatist, like Powell. I deal with logic and facts, not with flights of whimsy. I was resisting the revelry of a Barack Obama candidacy because I was so pessimistic about his prospects of him winning in the general. But when Powell’s advice was to just enjoy it, just to relax and let it wash over you and not be afraid or worried, just to accept it and submit to that joy, I said, “What the hell? If he can do it, I can to.”

And I’ve been struggling to enjoy it ever since, being dragged by the Obama bandwagon, half-relaxed, half-clenched up all the time. It’s really rough for me. I don’t feel the magic as much as I’d like. But, I don’t have any romanticism over Hillary Clinton’s campaign at all. She’s like the Borg from Star Trek. I admire her fortitude, but, I don’t know. It’s complicated with me. Like everything.

But to answer our two questions, here’s my best guess.

Chances of endorsing Obama: Powell likes John McCain. They share similar backgrounds. But I think Powell might have the fever. There’s a good chance he might come out for Obama depending on how he fairs come August. I don’t think he’s just going to punch the Republican Party in the throat on a whim. Powell has to feel like his views are being represented and that he is part of the dream.

Chances of voting for Obama: He totally is. Like that question really needed to be asked.

Check back to The Black Snob all this week and next, the series concluding on April 14th.

Sunday: Amy Holmes
Monday: Condoleezza Rice
Tuesday: Ward Connerly
Wednesday: Shelby Steele
Thursday: Alan Keyes
Friday: JC Watts
Saturday: Colin Powell
Sunday: Armstrong Williams
Monday: Michael Steele
Tuesday: John McWhorter
Wednesday: LaShawn Barber and Herman Cain
Thursday: Star Parker and Eric Wallace
Friday: Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell
Saturday: Juan Williams
Sunday: A final analysis, “Who Would Clarence Thomas Vote For?”

9 thoughts on “Colin Powell’s Got A Case of the “Obamaitis”

  1. Black Snob:Do you notice that your commentaries seem to be “Obama-centric” in that there appears to be the foregone conclusion that “Obama is right” and all of these “Conservative’s” views must be judged with this reference? Kinda like the National Urban League’s anual report on the state of Black America – White folks are judged to be the “1.0” and thus “the complete package” and Black folks are judged with this reference.You mention Iraq and how Colin Powell was “used”. I think a more indept and effective review for you to do would be to evaluate Colin Powell’s position that despite his reservations and noted missteps he STILL was in support of the mission.You play upon Powell’s “tarnished image”. In truth you should make note that Colin Powell, unlike for example Cynthia McKinney or John Conyers is in an EXECUTIVE POSITION. While he may not be in total agreement with the policy he is also an EXECUTIVE and is charged to carry out what the concensus has agreed to do.Compare this to the rock throwers above. They are ‘always right’ in that they are able to stand back and judge but are never in the seat in which they must execute a certain policy and then be held accountable for the RESULTS. It is far easier to be a critic who uses hindsight. If anyone who has an executive position and vies to be totally loved after being in the spot and having to make tough decisions then he is not ready to be an executive. Could it be that Powell’s “blimishes” is that he was not able to vote “PRESENT”?In my view a more interesting saga is to inspect the Iraq War views of Mr. Obama. He was for the Afghan war because “they attacked us” and he is for a justified response to an attack. He also supports the invasion of Pakistan with the goal of rooting out Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda elements who ATTACKED US. Of course Al Queda was not in Iraq – PRIOR to George Bush launching a preemtive invasion – if you follow Mr. Obama’s reasoning.But wait!!! If foreign fighters crossed into Iraq where they were not before in order to fight the INFIDEL (that’s the United States by the way) then isn’t it a bit intellectually dishonest to presuppose that they would not have crossed into Afghanistan and the portions of Pakistan that the Infidel has his troops?Mr Obama said that his main focus would be to find – kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. In the standard play to his base we are to believe that this ONE MAN’s demise equals success and the end to the war on terror. I have a blog entry in which the words of #2 in Al Queda – Al Zhawiri are posted. He says that “We will fight the Infidel (again that means us) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somolia”. Thus if a President Obama living in a parallel universe were to kill or capture Osama the #2 would be in charge and would carry out his fight as detailed. How then do we logically conclude that the SPILL OVER EFFECT seen in Iraq would NOT happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan with President Obama’s policies?Mr. Obama benefits from the fact that he is able to DECONSTRUCT Mr. Bush’s policies without having his own policy THEORIES being inspected for the wishful thinking that they are. About 6 weeks ago he and John McCain got into a dustup about no Al Queda being in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. Mr Obama’s position then is that even though he supports FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES he ONLY supports fighting our enemies in certain THEATERS OF WAR – Afghanistan or Pakistan. Unfortunately THEY DON’T RESPECT GEOGRAPHY as Mr. Obama and the Anti-War contingent does!! Where as in the movies made in Hollywood and shown in the THEATER end up in a nice clean, good guy wins, bad guy gets killed ending…..the world is not so neat. Mr. Obama’s war strategy is only viable in the context of the domestic American campaign trail as he plays to his leftwing, anti-war base. In the real world the fight against the “Infidel” (that is us) does not go according to this plan.

  2. constructive feedback: Do you notice that your commentaries seem to be “Obama-centric”Um … yeah. The series is about black conservative thought on Obama. It says that in the first sentence. Once again, while Obama is a focus of the piece it is more about the psychology of black conservatives who are attracted by what Obama represents, but are conflicted by his values.In my view a more interesting saga is to inspect the Iraq War views of Mr. Obama. He was for the Afghan war because “they attacked us” and he is for a justified response to an attack. He also supports the invasion of Pakistan with the goal of rooting out Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda elements who ATTACKED US. Of course Al Queda was not in Iraq – PRIOR to George Bush launching a preemtive invasion – if you follow Mr. Obama’s reasoning.OK. So write about that on your blog. Why do you seem so bent in insisting that I address things you want to address?That column was not about the panacea of Colin’s virtues and demons. It’s purpose was to discuss his views on Obama and how the shaped with Powell’s own background. This article was NOT about rehashing Colin’s mistakes and reluctance to confront the immoralities of the war while in his role of power.Since he left the Bush Administration he has been critical of the administration and voiced his own culpability in choosing wrongly. But I didn’t want to write about that. I wanted to write about his views on Obama, which is the whole purpose of the series.This goes back to you being obsessed with the series having an agenda. It is what it is. Nothing more. That out of the way, I think much of everyone’s foreign policy “what ifs” are simple posturing. The actual execution of any of it, including Obama’s words on Pakistan. Many times candidates are just saying things to better position themselves in the general election. I tend to judge politicians by their voting records and their works rather than their words. So basically, I don’t believe Barack when he talks about strategic strikes in Pakistan. All three candidates running know how complex the dual wars are, the constraints of our military and the limitations of what we can and cannot do militarily. The next president will be hampered with a broken military and limited resources.It’s all talk. They’ll be way too busy trying to chose between Iraq and Afghanistan due to the exhaustion of personnel and funds.If Obama is the next president he will be forced to deal with a military collapsing under stress. No one is going to be happy hearing the truth about the time, lives and money wasted in our misadventure in the Middle East. Pakistan will be in the background as well as other troublesome enemies and allies.I believe the reality will force everyone to kill any lofty military ideas, from the continued search for Osama bin Laden, to dealing with Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East.Mr Obama’s position then is that even though he supports FIGHTING OUR ENEMIES he ONLY supports fighting our enemies in certain THEATERS OF WAR – Afghanistan or Pakistan. Unfortunately THEY DON’T RESPECT GEOGRAPHY as Mr. Obama and the Anti-War contingent does!!This ties back to me not believing Obama’s foreign policy statements because everyone’s trying to get elected. That said — I’ve always thought our reaction to the violence of Sept. 11th was illogical. Terrorism is more of a police action than an invasion/occupation action due to the fluidity of the enemy. Under the present administration’s logic we should have occupied a plurality of Europe, especially Germany, Spain, Denmark and Great Britain due to the number of extremists there.It would have made more sense to beef up Interpol, work in conjuction with other intelligence agencies and treat terroism like a police action, not a military action. We should be infiltrating and busting up cells, not dropping bombs and occupying countries.Also it doesn’t make sense to practice collective punishment (re: Palestine and Israel) as it only makes the extremists bind closer to the community out of shared sacrifice. We should develop alliances and encourage human rights rather than charge in, guns blazing, screaming “shock and awe” and producing nothing but anarchy.I’m pretty sure my view of “everyone’s lying about what they would do” is an unflattering view. I know it’s also cynical and pessimistic, but I’m going into this thing with my eyes wide open. I can tell what is likely sincere and what is not. You have to remember that Obama has to exaggerate is foreign policies ideas because he doesn’t want to be labeled as a light-weight. It’s the same reason why Hillary is hawkish and McCain talks about “victory” all the time. No one wants to be Gerald Ford and have to officially declare the war lost.Side note: I get that you want to foster a dialog, your presentation though was so initally abrasive that it was really oft putting to me because I felt you were making rash judgments of me based on me just doing what I like. I don’t mind dialoging on anything, I obviously like to write and talk. But I’d appreciate if you didn’t make assumptions about me and would just ask what my opinion is rather than label me as some sort of blind Obamaniac, Obamatron merely spouting superlatives and talking points. It’s sort of like asking a defendant “So when did you stop beating your wife.”So dude, really stop assuming things. Just ask me what my opinion is, don’t tell me what my opinion is then demand that I defend it. Half the time I agree with you, but you label me so resolutely that I have an overwhelming negative reaction to you. I wonder, why bother to respond? He’s got it all figured out anyway. He doesn’t really want to hear my opinion.I focus on this rather than your views, which don’t bother me at all. It’s simply the presentation and tone you take with them.So I think after airing that, I can move on from this and we can have a regular back and forth like I have with all the sites readers.

  3. wow… the comments were almost as interesting as the post… i just wanted to say that the possibility of an obama-powell ticket is interesting… not highly likely, but interesting, nonetheless. the “white guilt” chatter would never cease.also, am i the only one who sees the “war on terror” as a bad idea? is there anything wrong w/only wanting to attack those who attack us or actually mean us harm? is it really possible to quell everysingle terrorist group/sect on earth? and who defines what a terrorist is? just a thought…

  4. fantastically misunderstood me: Colin is interesting to be because he’s been at the center of so many controversies since his time in Vietnam. He’s like the smart Forest Gump of Republican military/foreign policy based maladies.But at the same time he’s done other things that if our present occupant of the White House had adhered to perhaps there wouldn’t have been this gallop towards an ill planned and irresponsible war.As per the War on Terror, I think the phrase has been so overused to some extent it’s lost it’s intended meaning. It’s more buzz slogan than reality. How can you declare a war on something as ethereal as terrorism? When I hear it, it makes me think of the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, never ending sagas that have no resolute end.There are rarely any specifics on our “War on Terror.” Anyone can be labeled as a terrorist at any time without rhyme or reason. It’s just incoherent and impractical.

  5. [quote]The series is about black conservative thought on Obama. It says that in the first sentence. Once again, while Obama is a focus of the piece it is more about the psychology of black conservatives who are attracted by what Obama represents, but are conflicted by his values.[/quote]Ms Black Snob – you know that this is not what I said with respect to “Obama-centric”. Of course this entire series is about the so called “Black Conservative” outlook on Mr. Obama.I also stated that you APPEAR to take the position that Obama is the “1.0” and thus “CORRECT” and these commentators are the ones who must prove their worth.I ask you and other (seeming) Obama supporter to view “Obama – Machine member” and point out where in reference to this machine that already dominates Black America do we see the great promises that they have made over time being expressed in the various cities where Black people are most concentrated that this machine also has a lock on the political activities that take place within.I have previously made the analogy that the Black Political Machine that currently dominates us has marketed the notion of UNITY to us. They asked as as Black people to stay together as we scale this mountain. While this was justifiable during the Civil Rights Movement as petty differences might have fractured our very freedom and attainment of our rights under the law – it is the POST civil rights era in which these operatives began to fuse their actions with respect to ONE party and ONE IDEOLOGY – both of which that they still defend today. It is UNITY behind both of these elements that has seemingly trumped any “Black Best interests” that can be objectively measured. Having successfully obtained control over various cities (please check out the documentary “Eyes On The Prise II” which featured Cleveland in 1968 with the election of Carl Stokes) this same machine asked us to stay POLITICALLY and IDEOLOGICALLY unified behind this Black leadership because to fracture into different parties would also mean a dissolution of the Black vote. They focused on unity and punishing those who strayed than on delivery of what could be called OUR INTERESTS. Today as we reside on the plateau on the side of the mountain, having taken control of the operations of these various cities – having mayors, city councils, state reps/senators and US Representatives of our own choosing – the response to the CONTINUED GRIEVANCES within our community is CONTINUED EXPANSION rather than EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT of that which they already control. In the smoke of our simmering frustrations there is a CALL ANEW – let us stay together and climb behind us to this new plateau!! “Think of the positive effects that the young Black males on the street upon knowing that the PRESIDENT IS A BLACK MAN!!!!”. Onward CHARGE up the side of the hill! Let us rise to this next plateau!For me – I am of those who are ASKING QUESTIONS and thus are seen as a BASIC THREAT to the agenda. “What have we gotten out of your previous conquests via our support? How is this future conquest going to be any different past the two parties that we will go to – The Election Eve victory party and the Inauguration Party?We may indeed get a “Black President”. I am looking for measurable benefits WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY that did not occur previously once a “barrier” was surpassed before. You know the old saying “Fool me once…..”?

  6. [quote]also, am i the only one who sees the “war on terror” as a bad idea? is there anything wrong w/only wanting to attack those who attack us or actually mean us harm? is it really possible to quell every single terrorist group/sect on earth? and who defines what a terrorist is? just a thought…[/quote]Misunderstood Me:The concept of “Only wanting to attack those who attacked us” IS NOT POSSIBLE. This is a SUBJECTIVE measure at best. If you want to be technical “the people who attacked US are DEAD” – 19 of them having been killed on their respective aircraft. (That is UNLESS you believe that Bush orchestrated it all in the first 8 months of his presidency – the Loose Change/Rosy O’Donnel crowd)Let us walk through your theory of “only attacking those who attacked us”. Just as the CLAIM is that the American presence in Iraq has CREATED TERRORIST – the same is the case with a war exclusive to Afghanistan. As soon as the first Afghanis who were not Al Queda members pick up a rifle to repel those “infidels” (that is the USA) who has invaded their country – you have EXPANDED beyond “those who have attacked us”.Secondly I notice that people who have your theories do best with people who “GIVE A DAMN about YOU, What You THINK about them and their alignment with INTERNATIONAL LAW”. The problem comes in in dealing with those WHO DON’T GIVE A DAMN about what you think and who are NOT attempting to live according to any particular law. (Sadly for some of you – I JUST DESCRIBED GEORGE BUSH). I am frustrated as I listen to various Anti-War operatives seek to manage the war EXCLUSIVELY via their pressure upon the United States and the evil George Bush. No amount of killing of innocents via the other side – will cause them to go to that respective nation and age a protest in front of the offending power. You and I both know that their protests won’t register. Thus we have the asymmetric anti-war response that we see today.I can’t help but to notice a bit of assumed inferiority and assumed savagery of those who the United States is fighting. There is no assumption that they are to be held accountable for their killings as the United States is, no standards for torture, or detainment. Hell – they don’t have detainees. All the people they capture are found floating in the Tigris River.The best way to fight “the war on terror” in my estimation is to show those who are our potential adversaries the COSTS of their actions. Surely these costs are recorded every day on OUR SIDE via our open press. (4,000 dead and $650 billion spent) It seems that the people of the Middle East need to have the costs that they bear being posted for their awareness more. THEN maybe they will choose to stand up and prevent those who seek to suppress their free and open government via terror tactics – ESPECIALLY if they are their family, friends and neighbors plotting a terrorist attack.The “Blame America First” crowd – of which Mr. Obama seems to be a member of as is his pastor will quickly look to what AMERICA did to provoke an attack on OUR shores.I simply cannot imagine that they would dare tell the people of Afghanistan or Iraq what THEY did to provoke an attack on THEIR shores……it was BUSH who did it in their estimation.

  7. constructive feedback:I also stated that you APPEAR to take the position that Obama is the “1.0” and thus “CORRECT” and these commentators are the ones who must prove their worth.Well, I don’t. I’ve never said as such. And I didn’t think that needed to be present for that particular series.I don’t hold any false allusions about a Barack Obama presidency. And as I said before, if there is disconent with a member of the present power structure elections were created specifically for the removal of those deemed not helpful to their constituancies.I do not believe that the individuals that reside in the districts of these black lawmakers are so blind as to follow someone who they feel have done nothing for their districts. As with white politicians, this discontent often surrounds a “get the bums out” that really translate into “get someone else’s bum out. I like mine.”That’s why so many of them backpedaled to Obama under threat from their voters.I don’t see the politicians as being the leaders. I see them as a reflection of the interests they hold and the larger black population that is insular, that does reject alternative views and is socially conservative. Al Sharpton is not an independent actor, without people willing to support him he would fall to earth and crash. This is why black conservative influence is limited. This is why alternative candidates who don’t come from specific civil rights backgrounds struggle to gain traction. We have imprisoned ourselves. Our politicians are a mere reflection of our society. They are there because we want them to be there.That’s why I’m largely uninterested in them. This is a Democracy. They only have their power because we gave it to them. If they stray from the line they will be rejected as the great black mass has rejected people who got out of line before. They can forgive infidelity, most crimes and corruption, but if you are perceived as a race traitor all the good works you’ve ever done will be tarnished and you will be rebuked.The closed-minded movement surrounding some segments of Barack Obama supporters come from that same place. These are the people who push for the monolith. Most black people WANT the monolith. Why else would people take every alternative view as a personal insult to blackness? No leader told us to do that. No leader told me to be anti-intellectual and to celebrate ignorance. But there was plenty of pressure from classmates and friends, relatives and neighbors. Maxine Waters is not personally walking into every black home in America and turning on BET.When it comes to an alternative view, we are the minority within our minority. In their mind the masses believe machine works for them, they blame other things for their suffering. They do this because their appointed leaders represent their views. It does not matter if these views are flawed or counterproductive. I think fighting about interracial dating is a pointless exercise, yet Jet, Ebony and Essence still dedicate pounds of ink to the subject.The news media often makes the mistake thinking that Rush Limbaugh created the right wing riot when it was that riot, that always existed, that created him and annointed him their speaker. If he goes against their view they will turn on him and rip him to pieces.I don’t see the closed-in nature of African American society being any different.

  8. Oh, goodness gracious.A great addition to this series, Black Snob! Gen. Powell has certainly been very positive about Sen. Obama so far, and you’re capturing the sentiments of Obama’s less likely supporters perfectly.Transcribed from <A HREF="

    REL=”nofollow”>this video of Gen. Powell at around 2 min 10 sec: “…Mr. Obama has done an incredible job in coming to where he is now on the Democratic side, and I think he’s been an exciting person on the political stage. He’s energized a lot of people in America, and he’s energized a lot of people around the world. So I think he’s worth listening to, and seeing what he stands for. There are positions he has that I wouldn’t support, but that’s the case with every candidate out there.”I think every American has an obligation right now, at this moment in our history, to look at all the candidates. To make a judgment not simply on the basis of ideology, not simply on the basis of political affiliation, but on the basis of who is the best person for all of America[…] Which candidate is ready to take America in a positive direction.”

  9. [quote]They can forgive infidelity, most crimes and corruption, but if you are perceived as a race traitor all the good works you’ve ever done will be tarnished and you will be rebuked.[/quote]BlackSnob:I had quoted other portions of your words. This is the key portion of your post, however.The notion of the “Race Tratior” is based on some notion that A GIVEN BODY OF BLACK PEOPLE ‘controls the race’ and has special dispensation regarding WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RACE.I have no problem in YIELDING to this force……all that I ask is that they PROVE IT!!!! Show me WHERE in our community, with them as the dominant force that they are able to indeed express the BLACK BEST INTEREST in an organic fashion. This does not mean throwing up a good fight against WHITE FOLKS. This means in communties where they are all alone by themselves – being able to express law and order, quality education and economic prosperity.One of the key themes in my platform is “Popularity does NOT equal EFFECTIVENESS”. You say later on in your post that some Blacks seek and enforce uniformity of thought. In truth this is nothing more than evidence of the ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY within the Black community. Those who knwo that they don’t have to answer to anyone DON’T!!! They fight the perpetual fight for dEMOCRACY in the space they share with White folks in this country yet they prove that they have LEARNED WELL FROM THEIR ENEMY and use the vary same tactics of supression of thoughts and questions from other Blacks who dare to do so.I am proud to say that BLACK PEOPLE ARE HUMAN!!! Just as “absolute power corrupts absolutely” when it comes to WHITE GOVERNANCE that is allowed to do so – we suffer from this same fate as a people. The same enforcement of national unity that the Dixie Chicks faced is what goes on in Black America.

Leave a Reply

Back to top
%d bloggers like this: