May 15, 2008
Black Men Can Wait (Armstrong Williams)
Just one year ago, pundits like myself were speculating about how in the world Republicans would be able to cope with the racial subtexts that haunt them every presidential election cycle — that awkwardness of appealing to minority voters and visiting NAACP candidate forums, the mass exodus of Latinos from the party due to failed immigration policies; the list went on … Yet here we stand, not ruminating about McCain being "too white" for this color-wheel country, but wondering instead if Barack can get past the argument that black preachers in black churches say the darnedest things.
I have to believe that the Obama campaign longs for the days where they could play the race card on their opponents, or, better still, rise above the veiled innuendo and make Bill Clinton look foolish in the process. But those days are gone, and identity politics are back in full effect.
The sad irony here is that Barack Obama is not the biggest perpetrator of this phenomenon. Rather, it's Sen. Clinton who peddles this issue the hardest, for she stands to gain the most from its success. While hers is a brand of identity politics far more subtle, you hear it in her speeches out on the hustings — the talk of how, for too long, a woman's place was in the kitchen. For too long, the identity politics of the 20th century dictated that sisters should bide their time; and the Oval Office was a room they could only hope to clean, never govern from. "Those days are over," she says triumphantly.
But are they? What about the same opportunities for the political advancement of the black man? Does he not count this election cycle? Should he not count? You see, to agree with the Hillary camp, to accept her premise that this is the Year of the Woman, you must acknowledge the converse of that argument: Black men can wait.
Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 13 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Excellent post!–there have been so many racist dog whistles used by the Clinton camp in this electoral cycle, it’s appalling.
HRC missed her opportunity in 2004–THAT was her year and completely misjudged 2008, the change election.
Isnt is ironic that the lady married to a guy from Hope, AR–is losing to a new guy running on a change and hope mantra?
Someone needs to apply Kubler-Ross' grief cycle to Clinton and her legions of followers.
Comment by Theard — May 15, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
A black man who doesn't believe in the craziness endemic in the black community has a very good chance of being elected. Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Larry Elder: these are all wonderful candidates who are head and shoulders above McCain, let alone Obama. Anyone who has to pay homage to the Sharpton/Jackson/Wright contingent to win over the black vote is not a good national candidate. More people like Reverend Manning of Harlem need to appear to speak the truth to the black community.
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Igor u surprise me…u know Rev Manning?—wait–I am sure he's made the rounds on the conservative talk shows and blogs.
JC Watt?—r u serious.
You forgot Alan Keyes..
Comment by Theard — May 15, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
It will be a truly great day when men are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
As far as Sen. Clinton and her campaign, it is her right to continue to ask for votes until all states have spoken. And to the "super delegates", if you would had gotten off your butts a few months ago, we could have wrapped this thing instead of dragging it out. So don't blame Sen. Clinton for not dropping out. I blame you for keeping her in it. If you weren't going to cast your "super vote" for her in the first place, you should have said so long ago. Either you see and believe in the change in Sen. Obama or you just have unwavering loyalty and faith in Sen. Clinton. Either way, stop posturing and make the decision.
Comment by Kenneth R. Himes, II — May 15, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Your identity is not the color of your skin or gender. That can only be termed as the condition of your perception that you are a victim. So what we really have here is victim politics. Not pride in one's self or one's country. No, simply the mindset of a loser, or victim or what ever you want to call it. Sheesh.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 15, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Listen to Igor, saying who should be speaking to the black community.
Comment by Yvonne — May 16, 2008 @ 8:55 am
I didn't know anyone had to have permission or condolences or the right gender of race to speak to anyone in America. The only thing that would make that possible is that if there were a perception that race is a separating factor. The federal government feels it is, hence affirmative action.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 16, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Theard, he made the rounds a while ago with his "long-legged freak" sermon, but lately I came across a transcript of his Obama/Write/Oprah sermon on some random blog and I was just blown away.
JC Watts: I never researched him, but heard him speak many times and was impressed with what he was saying and his energy. Not sure why you don't like him. Alan Keys: I'm an atheist and don't like religious leaders becoming politicians.
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Mr. Williams, do you have any thoughts on whether it's appropriate to draw a parallel between the GAO's rebuke of the Department of Education's for propagandizing by way of paying you to promote No Child Left Behind, a parallel between that and recent revelations that the Department of Defense was engaged in a propaganda program involving "Military Advisors" to TV networks?
Comment by Stamjan Wurstbratten — May 16, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
I find your conclusion compelling but your research in error. The Clintons are devasted to be viewed by the black community as being even remotely "racist".
Hard to believe the Clintons have a heart? Only if one is heartless themselves.
Sadly the biggest issue of this campaign is the cheating that went on in the caucus votes and Barack Obama only wanting to seat Florida and Michigan if the delegate votes can't affect him.
http://www.hillary-wins.com
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 1:11 am
The Democratic party looks not elect the strong and best candidate to defeat John McCain, instead, democratic is going to give another chance to Republan, becasue all smart people knows Mr.Obama is the big talk, he can not win the general election in November 2008, if democratic do not want to win, go ahead to embrace your baby.
Comment by Deann — May 18, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Armstrong, as you know…When Barack Obama announced his candidacy in Jan of 2007 most people, particularly Blacks, didn't even know how to pronounce his name let alone support him. I had followed Obama since his speech in 2004 at the Dem Convention and was particularly inspired by his stance against the Iraq War….a move that could have been political suicide. I started our grassroots organization www.Blacks4Barack.org in hopes of inspiring and invigorating support for Obama, particularly in the Black community at a time when Hillary had 82% of the black support. Keep in mind…black folks LOVED Bill Clinton (the first black pres.) But as folks (of all races) learned more about Obama…the more they were inspired. While the more we learned about Hillary….there was more, not only disappointment but actual hurt due to her and Bill's racist overtones. Because of her own actions, Hillary has lost the black vote….possibly forever. And whereas the media acts like all blacks are for Obama just because he's black….that is absolutely incorrect. Fact is, all blacks were for Hillary at first ! But now the black community feels like the Clintons have slapped them in the face….and in the heart….and that may be unforgivable. Despite the unfortunate divisiveness, the time is now for us all to unite…For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org…Dedicated To Truth !
Comment by Greg Jones — May 18, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Armstrong;
You have been part of this long running fiasco call the Bush presidency. You accepted his money to shill for him and now you want us to believe that you are an impartial observer. Your association with Clarence Thomas and the neo-cons disqualifies you from commenting on our Democratic races. You have been part of this failure.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 19, 2008 @ 3:12 pm