Are We Living In A Post-Racial Society?

With the election of Barack Obama to the presidency the question has come up, are we living in a post-racial society? In other words has the concept of race lost its cache, or meaning? Let's examine this and see what we come up with, it may be that we've reached that land that Dr. King saw from the mountain top. Of course, it may be as illusory as a mirage in the Sahara on a hot day.

What lies at the heart of this question is the notion that something fundamental has changed within society, either as a result of Obama's campaign or independent of that campaign. As we consider this question it would be good to lay out some facts that we can take into account. First of all 53% of Americans voted for Obama, or against McCain, as the case may be. While an almost equal number voted for McCain/Palin or against Obama. This being said we're talking about millions of people on each side of the line in almost equal numbers. You'll recall it was the independent/undecided voters that tipped the scales in Obama's favor.

Fact number two: throughout the campaign Obama was dogged by questions of lack of experience, etc. This was not the first time a candidate was labeled with that tag, but it was particularly galling in Obama's case, because it was very reminiscent of the infamous "grandfather clause." Witness the contrast here between McCain, who like Bush had generations of "leadership" experience behind him, while Obama had only his own experience in college and community organizing. How was he to overcome this gap without going back in time and rewriting history. It appeared to be an insurmountable gap.

Fact number three: everything was thrown at him, including the kitchen sink, by Hillary, McCain and Palin. No stone was left unhurled, including the use of his middle name as a label of unfitness for the job.

Fact number four: everything was thrown at him short of playing the obvious race card. Obama was cool enough to never even bring up race, but he did respond forcefully when his opponents tried to broach it in a circuitous manner.

Fact number five: race was an issue, albeit an unspoken issue. It was the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, but Obama deftly avoided it to the consternation of some of his Black supporters, who in the end were understanding enough to know why he was leaving that issue alone.

What his opponents did say about race came through when they spoke of his numbers. They always tried to make him "the Black candidate." In the past other candidates, like Carl Stokes, were dogged with accusations like this and came up with creative ways of addressing it, without alienating his supporters of either race. Obama was just as deft in dealing with the Reverend Wright issue, which was a race issue; his middle name issue "Hussein," which was a race/religious issue and the terrorist association issue, which was not so much a race issue; but spoke to how "different" he was compared to the other candidates.

All of the above issues were couched in a blanket of "difference." All the diversity training in the world was not enough to keep the other candidates from pointing out, "he's not like us." The logical conclusion here is that race is still very much an issue that cannot be overlooked, just like that 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

In the end it appears that Obama won not because of some drastic shift in the status quo, or the racial proclivities of whites, but rather by the use of superior strategy, gamesmanship and good timing.

The fact is America is as backwards when it comes to attitudes about race today as it ever has been. In a presentation I'm readying for publication entitled, "Black Men On The Money," I'll deal with the some of these attitudes and perceptions. Here's a little exercise you can do right now to see where you're really at on the issue of race. Take a look at the picture at the beginning of this article and make a note of what race you think each of these people represent. Some of them you may know by name and/or face and others may be unfamiliar to you. Regardless, without using a reference work, or the internet to try and identify them first, just look at them as people and see if you can correctly identify their "race."

When you're done go to www.quadratix.org for information on each person seen in the picture. This is something that we all need to look at very carefully and consider what our own attitudes are toward the persistent question of racial identity in America.

Will The Real Hillary Please Stand Up?

During the debate on Tuesday 2/26/2008 we saw "the real" Hillary Clinton, feisty, scrappy, itching for a fight. Over the last few weeks Hillary Clinton has exhibited signs of extreme aggravation with the fact that she's been losing ground in the polls and apparently has lost credibility as a viable nominee of the Democratic Party.

In the most recent debate she really showed out by lambasting, not only, Barack Obama, but also deriding the moderator and representatives of the major media. Over the last few weeks it's dawned on me that Hillary has an anger management problem, which has not been fully exposed by the media. However, I've recently come across some citations from a variety of sources close to Hillary and the Clinton camp indicating just that. Aside from everything else that's been said about her health care program vs. Obama's healthcare program this anger management issue, I believe, is the primary thing that disqualifies her for the job of commander in chief of all the armed forces.

One thing that Hillary has made real clear is that she's a fighter and that she'll "fight for us". The question is who's she going to fight. Assumedly, she's talking about fighting the Republicans and Al-Qaida. However, this is not clear. Based on her public record Hillary is not averse to fighting Republicans, terrorists, members of her own party or even White House staff members.

One thing is obvious, she has not been known for building coalitions and bringing people together. She has been known for talking negatively about her own White House staff members behind their backs and deriding them in public, however. Gail Sheehy states Bradford DeLong, a veteran of the Clinton administration who worked with Hillary Clinton on healthcare, had it exactly right when he warned, "We must keep Hillary Rodham Clinton very far from the White House for the rest of her life.", Hillary's Choice (New York: Random House, 1999) p. 11.

Even more telling was the statement by former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers indicating her overall temperament,

"Anyone that stood up... was smashed down and belittled,very personally. [N]ot only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around, Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience."

PBS Frontline, 16 Jan 2001
The Clinton Years

There's also a matter of integrity. The Clintons have been known for, shall we say, stretching the truth, as in the case of Gennifer Flowers, where Mrs. Clinton denied knowledge of the affair before it became public. Of course everyone remembers the Monica Lewinsky case and Bill Clinton's denial of any wrongdoing, "depending on how you define sex". Hillary and Bill have both shown us that they can stretch the truth.

In their recent debate in Cleveland Obama was called on to "denounce" or "reject" Louis Farrakhan, because of alleged anti-semitic remarks that have been attributed to him. Senator Obama did this unequivocally. However, nothing has been said, nor has she publicly acknowledged or apologized for her own, “anti-semitic” remarks, which are quite well documented and attested to by reliable sources. For instance, Jerry Oppenheimer states,

"Hillary hit him between the eyes. She was angrier than Paul had ever seen her. 'You f**king Jew bastard!' she screamed."

author Jerry Oppenheimer
quoting campaign aide Paul Fray
State of a Union
(New York: Harper-Collins, 2000) p. 153

These are words out of Senator Clinton's own mouth. Thus far she has not had to account for them. Is this the kind of person that we feel can finally bring closure to the ongoing war between the Palestinians and the State of Israel? After making similar snide remarks about Mahatma Ghandi (Youtube) from the floor of the U.S. Senate, do we really think that she can now go to India and successfully negotiate with the Indian government concerning nuclear proliferation? Will she be able to direct negotiations with the various Muslim factions in Iraq, so that our troops can begin coming home 6 months after she takes the oath of office, after chiding Senator Obama for putting on the national dress of the Kenyan people, while on a diplomatic mission. Keep in mind, we've seen President Clinton wearing the national dress of Muslim Nigerians. Does this mean her husband is secretly working for Al-Qaida? Is this why she doesn't want to release her tax returns until she's been christened as the nominee of the Democratic Party? In the Bible it states:

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: . . .
a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”

Ecclesiastes 3:1

This passage needs to be plastered on the wall of the White House to help it's new resident keep their eye on the sparrow, especially that last passage about war and peace. The war in Iraq has been a major campaign issue and a real rallying point for voters. The people are demanding an end to the war, however both candidates have stated they will not pull the troops out, while leaving the area as a haven for Al-Qaida. That will require a lot of negotiating between forces that have been adversarial for 100's, if not 1000's of years. I personally don't see that Senator Clinton has the credentials to credibly carry out that mission.

The facts are in! Hillary Clinton is not fit to sit in the seat of power, guiding and directing the most powerful nation in the world. I've only listed a few of the more serious charges that can be corroborated here. It's what's not listed here that should concern every qualified voter in America. Because, whomever the next resident of the White House is, it's an absolute certainty that they will have to negotiate a number of situations with the leaders of many nations, and they'll have to do it in a calm and reasonable manner, with an understanding of their perspective and the perspective of their constituents. This is the advantage Senator Obama has over Senator Clinton. As we've seen him on the campaign trail over the last year, and under serious attack during a good portion of that time, by Senator Clinton, he's been able to maintain his cool at all times. This is the mark of a good leader. He's also shown grace and poise after coming from behind as an underdog to a leader in the polls, he's always maintained a decorum that was professional and respectful of the other candidates and their positions.

When Hillary Clinton says she's going to fight for us, I think she really means it! However, after 8 years in the White House with no threat of being ousted by the electorate; and 8 more years as a senator, she's no closer to passing her health care bill through congress, than she was when she started this fight. As the President of the most powerful nation in the world, the question is not will she fight, it's obvious that she will do that. The question is, can she build bipartisan coalitions that will in fact be strong enough to get legislation passed that will benefit all U.S. citizens. Will she be able to negotiate with these leaders, or will she try to bully them? Will she treat foreign dignitaries with respect, or will she belittle them, as we saw her belittle Mahatma Ghandi from the floor of the U.S. Senate (Fox news report on Youtube)? Will she be able to bring together a cabinet of chosen advisers and work with them, or will we see extreme instability in the White House, as cabinet members turn over faster than hamburgers on an open grill? These are important questions that remain unanswered and until now unasked.

Whoever wins this election and eventually occupies the White House needs to put all of their cards on the table. We're still waiting on Senator Clinton to produce her tax records indicating where her money comes from and therefore who she's beholding to. Senator Obama, on the other hand has made full disclosure and has refused to except any monies from lobbyists and PACs. When are we going to get a full accounting of Senator Clinton's actions and finances? I don't feel that anyone can vote for her and, in good conscience and say they feel that she's the best candidate for the job without this crucial information. At best they can say they like her more than the other candidates.