Racial Progress in the Wake of Barack Obama

More often than not I find that the "African American Reaction" is really what white people think they would think if they were African American. Specifically, they usually assume that African Americans will support anybody who looks African American. They assume African Americans don't think.

However, in the case of African Americans deciding to support or not support Barack Obama, I actually heard a white New York Times columnist say that most of the African Americans that he'd spoken to had indicated that they were holding back their support for Obama until they see that he's really a viable candidate.

This statement is a significant indicator of racial progress. To me it is extraordinary to see that at least one reporter of the predominantly white media actually thought to speak to a few African Americans before reporting on what some African American might think.

Actually, the Barack Obama campaign has unearthed another sign of racial progress within the dominant culture. Another dominant cultured journalist(white)speaking about the observations of his own kind said that even the most jaded of reporters were shocked by Obama's win in IOWA! The were shockedinto a kind of optimism. That is, he implied that even the 95% white press was nonplussed that 95% white IOWA would pick African American Barack Obama over White Hilary Clinton.

Me too!

The stances on the issues aside, I was surprised but not shocked that Obama might be preferable over Hilary. After all, there is more than one potential prejudice in play during this election season. Let us not forget that all the previous presidents have not only been white but male. What I find shocking and awe inspiring is that the choice for democratic nominee will likely be between a black man and a white female--but I'll still bet that I'm not nearly as shocked and awed as John Edwards.

Unlike Oprah, I am dedicated to and would love to see an African American in the White House. I never thought I'd live to see that day and I am happy at the semi-immediate prospect. However, this election year is unlike other election years in that I expect that a change in the status quo is absolutely necessary. Politics cannot continue as usual with only a slight tweak here and there.

People are dying at an incredible rate due to actions our country has taken in Iraq. The troop surge was successful and there shouldn't have been any doubt that it would be. But as Colin Powell recently said on The Tavis Smiley Show, there hasn't been the corresponding political surge in Iraqi government which was the reason for the troop surge in the first place. And as I've said before, I don't understand how the political surge is supposed to take place if the Iraqi people don't have a unifying voice, a true leader, that they can all rally around.

As for our country, some years a change in the presidency is not much more than a changing of the name plate on the presidential desk. But what happens next in a country at war always matters quite a bit more than what happens next in a country not at war. This next election will not, cannot be a figure-head change. There has to be a real change in direction. Therefore, I'm paying closer attention to who is saying what regardless of jaded I am over how little follow-through politicians usually have once they are elected. As a result, Obama's being African American is far less important to me than it would be in non-war years.

I want to hear what Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have to say about what they've done and what they're going to do. However, my big problem with Hilary Clinton is that she, like most of our representatives in Washington, hasn't told us why she voted to go to war. "I was confused" or "I was misled" isn't cutting it.

A little less than 30% of this country was always against the war and at close to another 20% always had deep reservations and doubts. Meanwhile, our government voted to go to war as if they had no doubts. All of our representatives and senators voted to go to war except one. They failed to reflect or represent We-The-People and Hilary Clinton was a part of that.

Still, from what I've read between the lines about Barack Obama, I doubt he'd have voted any differently. Hilary's charges against him for voting for money for the war don't concern me because for as long as the troops are in Iraq we have to clothe, feed, and armor them. I don't know how to cut President Bush's War off, but cutting off the money seems like a scary way to go. I believe that our current President would leave the troops over there ill-equipped or not then blame every democrat in any office anywhere at any level rather than admit defeat in Iraq and withdraw the troops.

Most people approve of the optimism that Obama gives off in waves every time he speaks, but I am waiting to hear what he's got to say about some of the specifics. I am waiting to hear how we get out of the war on Iraq and how we remove the choke hold that corporations and insurance companies have on this country.