There has been a lot of hullaboo lately about Rev. Jesse Jackson’s disparaging comments about Barack Obama’s perceived relationship to African-American voters.
"I said it can come off as speaking down to black people," Jackson said on CNN’s "The Situation Room."
"And then I said something I felt regret for — it was crude," he added. "It was very private, and very much a sound bite — and a live mike. And so I feel — I find no comfort in it, I find no joy in it. So I immediately called the senator’s campaign to send my statement of apology to repair the harm or hurt that this may have caused his campaign because I support it unequivocally."
Alright, whatever. What he really meant to say is that he jumped on the Barack Bandwagon, but he doesn’t really believe in Obama at all. He’s just along for the popularity party, another loyal Democrat following an empty and thoroughly inexperienced suit.
Since Bill Clinton successfully alienated black voters in South Carolina and made race an issue, doubts about whether Obama is "black enough" - whatever that means - have somewhat melted away. At least on the surface, anyway. Obama’s feel-good message of unity and group hugs has managed to filter through and wipe away most anxiety, at least on the surface.
However, it’s apparent that Jesse Jackson - and possibly other black leaders as well - are not actually sold on the idea. They’re disappointed that Obama isn’t what they had expected, and don’t feel entirely comfortable with him. Having not been a foot soldier in the civil rights movement, Obama doesn’t seem to have "earned his bones". He adds insult to injury with his extreme popularity, essentially brushing aside Jackson’s own attempts at running for president in 1984 and 1988, when he twice failed to capture the Democratic nomination.
This election must be wearisome for Jackson, now confined to the sidelines to watch as an upstart does far better than he did. He can’t even get heavily involved, for fear that he might alienate mainstream voters - but he certainly can’t sabotage the campaign, or he would be painted a traitor. How unfortunate.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:15 am
I agree with Jackson I’d like to cut Obamas nuts off too!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:52 am
It’s about ****ing time this sleeze has been caught telling what he really thinks.
*bangs fist on table*
July 10th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I wish they would just publish what he said already… I keep hearing people call it a “crude remark” over and over again. Just tell me what he said and let me decide if it’s a big deal or not.
Fox News Channel is really getting annoying. It’s the news, not a trailer for a new movie that’s being leaked. If he said something newsworthy, tell us what it was.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Here’s part of the tape.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=32159
Apparently there’s more of this clip that will be released tomorrow, or so I’ve heard.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Jesse said he wants to cut Barack’s nuts off. Or maybe dick…one or the other. Whatever, right?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:45 am
I’ve observed black people by-and-large tend to be ingrates, as Jackson, Sharpton, Obama and their likes have repeatedly shown. They waste no time in stabbing even their own kind in the back. It’s high time someone cut Jackson’s, Sharpton’s, and Obama’s nuts off.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Ok who let the klan in?
July 10th, 2008 at 4:24 am
That’s funny, I know a lot of white people who are the same way. I’m noticing a pattern here.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Ehhh… who cares? This would be a strong example of the type of thing I would say about a co-worker– even one I liked. jackson is just blowing off steam.
Austin, you think FoxNews is annoying?!? No…
July 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
LOL! And Ron called some other guy a racist in another thread for less.
Oh well. Maybe Jackson will get the same treatment as Don did. LOL! Yea right!
July 11th, 2008 at 1:18 am
And none of this would have come out if it wasnt for that tech working overtime @ night.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I’m still a little unsure what issue you conservatives have with Obama over Jackson’s remarks. Let’s see… a black politician like Obama calls for responsibility on the part of black males? Isn’t that the issue you cons have had for years with black politicians– namely that black politicians would pass the buck so to speak and blame poverty or racism for African-American irresponsibility? And now… a black politician says what many conservatives have been saying about the lack of accountability for black males in African-American society. Shouldn’t conservatives be applauding Barack Obama for his principled stand that goes against some elements of the civil rights’ orthodoxy?
My suspicion is that the real issue many conservatives have about black politicians is that they simply don’t like black people. After all, it wasn’t too long ago when conservatives were sicking dogs and spraying water cannons at black people who were merely asking for the right to vote.
I guess I do, infact, have suspicions about your motivations in opposing Barack Obama especially in light of the fact that the reasons for your vociferous opposition seem so flimsy– like his proclivity for fist pumping.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:22 am
There’s a lack of accountability across the board, not just with whoever you define as being black males. My problem in this particular case is with Jackson’s somewhat petulant reaction to what *he* sees as having to play second fiddle to the person that *he* sees as his successor. Obama doesn’t seem to view himself in that role though, which is all the more frustrating for Jackson.
As for Obama, I oppose his being president because I am vociferously opposed to his economic and social policies. The idea of a “new and hip” government also makes me nauseous, but I suppose it’s not a material reason for opposition.
As for race, it’s just a smoke and mirrors show reinforced with imagination and fictional pseudoscience. There’s no quantifiable way to say what racial group anyone belongs to. It doesn’t exist but as a social construction in the minds of the people who take it seriously. I can’t possibly oppose anyone for anything based on that.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Stephen,
Your first paragraph should indicate to you that your problem isn’t with Barack Obama, its with Jesse Jackson.
>As for Obama, I oppose his being president because I am vociferously opposed to his >economic and social policies.
That’s the first sensible argument I’ve heard you put together on Barack Obama. OK, what specific social and economic policies do you disagree with? Do you think that Barack Obama will spend more taxpayer money considering that he wants to spend a hundred or so billion dollars less on Iraq than your guy does?
>The idea of a “new and hip” government also makes me nauseous, but I suppose >it’s not a material reason for opposition.
Yes, you are right. Its not a material reason for opposition so stop making those kinds of arguments. Further, it was your guy that made the first appearance by a sitting senator on SNL and he made repeated visits to the Daily Show where his reputation as a maverick (his words, not mine) was vetted by Jon Stewart. If you have a problem with the mixing of pop culture and serious political debate (and I think you are barking up the right tree on this one) than maybe you should look at your own candidate’s record of shameless self-promotion.
>As for race, it’s just a smoke and mirrors show reinforced with imagination and >fictional pseudoscience. There’s no quantifiable way to say what racial group >anyone belongs to. It doesn’t exist but as a social construction in the minds of the >people who take it seriously. I can’t possibly oppose anyone for anything based on >that.
Maybe not you. But there remain plenty of people in this country that will not cast a vote for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin. By far the vast majority of those people come from the political right.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Sorry Ron, but most racists are on the left. Much like yourself.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:06 am
I oppose his agenda of universal healthcare, his stated unwillingness to privatize social security, his proposals to remove income taxes for the $250k+ group, and his idea of taxing carbon emissions. Also, he really doesn’t seem to like individual firearm ownership, even though he hasn’t recently come right out and said it. That’s what I can recall off the top of my head.
It’s not self-promotion that I have a problem with so much, although that has its limits too. It’s more that I just have a low tolerance for pop culture by itself - particularly the very narrow range of mediocre-quality drivel that just gets recirculated continuously. I suppose both of those have been around in one form or another forever though, and will continue indefinitely.
Race is an extremely subjective feature and is very open to interpretation. Barack Obama does not, in my opinion, have the skin and facial features that would traditionally qualify him as what most people consider to be “black”. But if he says he’s black, then who am I to argue? This is a lot like seeing dragons and spaceships in clouds.
I’m not quite sure what to make of conditioned associations that people have with regard to what they view as specific groups. This seems to be a common aspect of human nature. It isn’t just limited to race, but to a wide variety of cultural norms and issues that people often mentally group together, although they may not actually have anything to do with one another. This sort of thing isn’t overcome easily, and for most it continues to be a recurring feature of life.
Moreover, there is a tendency for some groups of people to dislike other groups of people, or at least segregate themselves from them, based solely on what they perceive as a limited set of differences. This ignores the fact that most people are basically the same, although they may pursue their goals through different means.
I have heard theories that suggest that population acts as a vast system, with every part of the system interacting together, and it is the interactions themselves that form particular ethnic or racial identities. Appearance may cause one to be perceived by others as part of the group of “black” people, and behavior by others will influence their perception and feedback into the originating group. It also plays into other involved or neutral groups. Oddly, one’s status as a member of a group - being “black” or “white” for example seems to be a highly relative thing which is not, and probably cannot be, strictly defined.
What really got me thinking about this once was when someone who did view races in definite terms asked me whether someone I knew was black or white, so I explained that they were about 25% of everything, and even those parts were somewhat in question, and they had married a similar person and had multiple children. At that point, the whole meaning of race becomes totally irrelevant because the calculus would be prohibitively stupid.
Anyway…I guess I’ve ranted for long enough. People are bizarre. I’m going to sleep.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Stephen, I think you have every right to argue that Obama isn’t black. He was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, and had to go to a racist church in Chicago to get any street credit. He’s playing catch up.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
According to evolutionary biologists, all humans originally came from Africa. By the strict definition of “black” meaning your ancestors are from Africa, wouldn’t that mean we all are?
July 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I don’t know about you, but I came from Mars.