[quote]Professor X wrote:
Uh, yes, and now that 2008 is here, we STILL have not had a black president EVER yet you seem to think we have reached full equality.
I know that things have changed for the better over the last few decades and am very glad they have. There are still improvements that need to be made yet you seem to believe otherwise.[/quote]
There could have very easily been a black president in 1996 - unfortunately, Colin Powell chose not to run. Does his choice in 1996 affect the state of the nation?
Here is an excerpt from an article I read by a British journalist from a couple weeks ago - interesting observations:
[i]This blend of charm, grace, and steeliness also influences Obama�??s ethnic image. One might raid the store of (I trust) inoffensive ethnic stereotypes to describe Obama’s personality as a combination of black charm and Swiss efficiency. That in no way intends to suggest that he is running away from an ethnic identity as a black man. Quite the contrary: In his autobiographical works, he embraces such an identity very warmly when he could have presented himself as of “mixed” race. But he is not running as a representative black candidate in the resentful mode of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
When Obama deals with issues of particular concern to blacks, he stresses their social-justice aspects rather than their specifically racial components. And when he discusses identity issues, he does so as someone advocating an America united on the basis of fairness rather than a racial spoils system. There are illusions and deceptions built into this approach, as we shall see, but his rhetoric and appeal reflect a political identity that rises above race and ethnicity. He is the candidate of a post-racist America.
His electoral support reflects this post-racist appeal. In both New Hampshire and Iowa, he won votes disproportionately from higher-educated voters, young voters, wealthier Democrats, first-time voters, independents, and crossover moderate Republicans. Hillary held on to most of the Democratic base among poorer, less educated, and more partisan Democrats. When all Americans are asked �?? Gallup again �?? whether they are optimistic or pessimistic about whether Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Huckabee would bring about real change, Obama scores highest among all Americans as the candidate most likely to effect change. Among Democrats alone, Hillary wins this contest by a large margin. Significantly, both Obama and McCain score well in general because they both have a strong appeal to the other party.
…
This sense of “change” already achieved explains why veteran black activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been so nervous about the Obama campaign: A black man in the White House would undermine the politics of white guilt/black exploitation that has long been their stock in trade. It also helps explain why Obama’s campaign has such a joyful, relaxed, and oddly uncontroversial “feel” to it. On the morrow of Iowa, it seemed almost an apolitical celebration; though the New Hampshire defeat later cooled the celebration, it did not alter its nonpartisan quality of complacent moral self-congratulation. It is not a very bold prediction to say that if Obama gets his party’s nomination, the post-Iowa mood that America had a moral responsibility to elect Obama will be restored on steroids. [/i]
My question is this: Given Obama’s candidacy, does he really need to win the election for blacks to judge this as a statement about where the country stands? Is the idea that if voters prefer McCain, America must be a racist country?