Barack Obama and Michael Richards: When Worlds Collide

Hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr'bə-lē) n.A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
[Latin hyperbolē, from Greek huperbolē, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see hyper– + ballein, to throw.]

Similarly: Barack Obama may be the best thing to come out of Illinois politics since Abraham Lincoln.

Some people might call Barack Obama the "flavor of the month" in the Democratic party right now. The rock star receptions, the media buzz, the hype, the book tour. He's got a lot of people singing his praises: from Oprah Winfrey to party strategists and newspaper columnists. Recent polls have placed him second or third in popularity with voters among those Democrats likely to run for president in 2008.

That he is still in his first term as junior Senator from Illinois and receiving such attention has many questioning whether he is too young or inexperienced to run. Others speculate as to whether this country is ready for a black man as its Commander-in-Chief. Some of us say it is about time.

Which brings us to a strange confluence of events: Obama delivers a well-received speech on Iraq and foreign policy to the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs while out in Los Angeles, actor Michael Richards is banned from performing at the Laugh Factory and lambasted by his peers for his racist use of the "N"-word during a weekend performance.

Richards' use of the epithet was not part of his regular act. Unlike the legendary Lenny Bruce, Richards didn't use the word to deliver a homily about race and racism. Unlike the incomparable Richard Pryor, he wasn't trying to turn a mirror on us and expose the cracks in our society while making us laugh until we cried.

That Richards, while onstage, felt (or at least appeared to feel) that he could use the word without consequence reveals a distasteful side about the person most of us only know as Cosmo Kramer. What it reveals about us as a country is just as startling.

Barack Obama has a resumé most of us would love to possess. He is smart, articulate, well-educated, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer and activist, state senator and now U.S. Senator. As this country still struggles to find a word comfortable enough to describe its black citizens, Obama is the walking definition of African-American. The hyphenate fits not because of the color of his skin, but the truth of his heritage: an African father and an American mother.

That he has captured the imagination of so many people, of such diverse backgrounds is encouraging. That he could mount a serious, run-to-win campaign for president is inspiring. And not just the hyperbolic sense of telling a child he could be president one day if...

Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be elected to the highest office. All other standards (foreign policy experience, military experience, was a governor, Washington-insider or -outsider) are politically-imposed and not just on Obama, but any and all other candidates. Forty-three men have occupied the presidency. In this country's history, there have been generals, farmers, lawyers, businessmen, a haberdasher, a bachelor, a Catholic, a really fat guy, tall men, short men, the handsome and the non-descript. But they have all been white.

So maybe, just maybe, 141 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, we are ready to seriously consider electing a black man to the office of President of the United States of America. And finally stop calling him "nigger."

Read Eugene Robinson's take on the story in the Washington Post.

Can't a Brother Catch a Break?

From BET.com Black voters won one and maybe lost one.

If you read Retha Hill's commentary on the results of the midterm election, you get the same old rhetoric about the Democratic party mistreats us, overlooks us and takes us for granted. Retha suggests that the democratic sweep in the midterms might just sweep some long-time members of the Congressional Black Caucus out with the post-celebration confetti. She goes on to posit that the Republican party had done well by its black constituents, giving them a "substantial toe-hold in the Republican Party. Since at least 1994, many African Americans have concluded that putting all our eggs in one basket no longer makes sense, and that true participation means having a seat at both tables."

As her commentary continues, she noted that, "Substantial numbers of African Americans sided with Republicans in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not just when the Republican candidate was Black." Retha? Honey? Were you watching the returns of the same elections I was?

For the record, Republicans put forward 8 black candidates in the 2006 election. Democrats, 41. Republican black candidates who won their races, zero. Democrats have elected the two black governors this country has seen (Doug Wilder and in this election cycle, Deval Patrick.)

If, as you note, black ministers endorsed George Allen because he supports a ban on same-sex marriage, they must have noticed that their man also likes to call black folk "nigger" and "Macaca (monkey -- even when the individual this remark was targeting was an Indian-American). If the Republican party is as welcoming to black voters as you suggest, just why didn't any, I mean not a single, f***ing black republican tell Ken Mehlman and the RNC that the ads against Harold Ford, Jr. had more than just a whiff of coded, racist, good ole southern strategy stink about them and they needed to be pulled. I've looked and I can't find one statement from black republicans on that count.

Michael Steele may have run a good race and picked up some key endorsements, too. But as you note, "in majority-Black Prince George’s County, 31 percent of the electorate voted for him, as did 21 percent of people in majority-Black Baltimore. Preliminary exit poll data show that Steele snagged 25 percent of the state’s Black vote." If Steele is such an appealing candidate, why didn't more blacks vote for him? [Author's note: I think you meant to write that 31 and 21 percents respectively of the black electorate voted for him. Regardless, it still ain't good news.]

Republican Party adviser Tara Wall. “It doesn’t benefit us as Black voters to give 90 percent of our vote to one party. We need to be able to come to the table and level the playing field and have a say in both parties.” Retha, Tara: the playing field isn't level, and y'all aren't welcome at the Republican table.

A little political history: there was a time when Yankee or New England moderates played a large role in the Republican party. They held fiscally conservative views, but were socially liberal. They were the antidote to the racist Dixiecrats of the old Democratic party. Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson changed that. Goldwater yanked the Republicans to the far right and the "southern strategy" (grab the votes of disaffected. southern, conservative, anti-integration, anti-civil rights whites for the Republican party) was born. Meanwhile, Lyndon Johnson's progressive -- damn, let's just call it what it was -- landmark Great Society, with its War on Poverty and Civil and Voting (ahem, let me repeat that, VOTING) rights acts empowered black America as never before. If blacks have been loyal to the Democrats, this is one hell of a reason.

And now the reason for the headline: After all their crowing over what a wonderful campaign Michael Steele ran, and how he is so good for the Republican party comes this: Ken Mehlman, current chair of the RNC announced he's stepping down in January. Republican after republican promoted their new "boy" Michael Steele for the job. Steele was not coy about his interest in the job when asked about it as he made the rounds on the post-election news talk shows. After all, he'd be out of a job in January and could step right in. And since most of the job is dealing with the media, he'd shown that he was articulate and engaging speaker. And as all of his supporters said, he'd put a new face on the Republican party.

Today comes word that the Republicans intend to tap Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida as the next party head. Martinez was just elected to the Senate in 2004. If he takes the job, Florida's governor will have to name a replacement. Martinez is a Cuban-American.

Can't a brother catch a break? Apparently not.