|
|
Obama is the right one
E. Ablorh-Odjidja
It has to be asked whether Democrats, the Clintons, and Black
America share the view that Obama is the right one for the
presidency this time. The question has to be asked because of
what Democrats profess publicly about the black race.
But seeing how the Clintons are fighting hard to knock Obama off
the presidential race gives one pause to think. Rather than
stepping aside for this singularly bright star to be “the second
black president” after Bill, the Clintons’ objective remains
unchanged - a return to the White House for Hillary at all cost.
The Clintons will stop at nothing to get to the presidency. A
look at the political trajectory of Hillary will show how
determined team Clinton has been: From Arkansas to the White
House, back to Arkansas for a moment of respite, then carpet
bagging it all the way to New York for a safe trip to the Senate
so as to use her seat as a stepping stone to the presidency..
In the race for the Senate, so determined was team Clinton that
it never occurred to them that a black Democrat politician,
preferably raised in New York, like the perennial gubernatorial
candidate H. Carl McCall, could run and win that seat. Instead,
they had it fixed that Hillary had a better chance.
In fairness to the Clintons, so did the Democrat party of New
York. The machine never imagine that a native son, however
black, could do better than a carpetbagger from Arkansas.
And now the Clintons and Democrats have Obama in their sight. Is
his candidacy a nuisance for the party or are Democrats
nationwide ready to vote for a Black man for president and can
Obama be that man?
In the January 2008 issue of Black Enterprise magazine,
Publisher Earl G. Graves, Sr., gave his answer as to why Barrack
Obama should be the next president.
In a piece titled “Barack Obama for President” he argued that
“No one asked if America was ready to see a black man in Major
League. It wasn’t – until the right man, Jackie Robinson,
accepted the challenge and made most of it…:”
Major League baseball is the appropriate metaphor, because the
reason why Robinson and his like were kept out of the ball game
was not how badly they played, but how dark the color of their
skin was.
Graves goes on to argue that “Similarly, Barack Obama is the
right person, in the right place, at the right time to be
America’s next president. If we continue to lend credence to the
idea that it can’t happen, that we as a nation are not ready….
Then it won’t.”
The idea of Obama not being ready has been bandied about, even
among blacks who for some unstated reason will not like to see
him as president. Some, like BET founder Robert Johnson, have
thrown their weight behind Hillary,.
But the question about Obama “not being ready” has to be asked
and amplified. Not ready because he is black, like Jackie
Robinson versus Major League baseball; or that America, still a
racist nation, will not elect a black president; or not ready
because he lacks experience?
Here, Graves explodes the myth about the experience surrounding
the two other major contenders for the Democrat nomination -
Clinton and John Edwards.
Graves does “not put much stock in the value of their experience
(Clinton and Edwards). Claims to an edge over Obama in this area
are exaggerated.” Clinton and Edwards , he said “never held a
national office prior to 1999 and 2000, respectively.”
With this background, and in this manner, “experience” could be
a code word – blacks need not apply!
Luckily, there is no black contending for the presidency on the
Republican side to muddle the issue. The Democrat party is where
the black vote is. A January 2008 poll, conducted by Washington
Post and ABC News, indicated that blacks nationwide supported
Barack Obama 2 -1 over Hillary Clinton.
Blacks are speaking, indicating currently a majority preference
for Obama and not going along with the Democrat party machine
which the Clintons control. So what would the response of the
party be to its most loyal group, would they follow the Obama
trend? Would things change?
It becomes more interesting when you consider the theme for all
three Democrat front runners – CHANGE! They all want change. The
reality is this change has its own dialectics and that points to
Obama.
Hillary and Edwards represent the status quo, if you would
acknowledge that the presidency has so far been a white bastion.
Gender is not the issue here. A Hillary Clinton, as a white
woman, has been more privileged, historically, than a Condi
Rice, a black woman in America.
Change, therefore, should be something more drastic. A claim
that says “I represent change because I oppose George Bush” will
not be enough. That kind of change, even if it is needed, is
going to be a very superficial one.
Also, a policy that says America has to “change course because
the rest of the world hates America” can be childlike in its
reasoning. You don’t have to believe that the world hates
America because of George Bush. It is America that some in the
world hate. In reality, no super-power has ever been loved by
the less powerful.
But if change has to come, then who is the most likely to bring
it and also look the part? Could it be Edwards or the Clintons,
who profess it most but in all actuality form part of the status
quo, the white establishment?
But change sometimes comes in a quaint way and it comes in the
shape of Bill Clinton, the former president of the U.S. His
presence in the midst of a political campaign of this sort is a
historical change. His role as his wife’s chief supporter and
co-candidate, and the attack dog of her campaign is a role that
no ex-president has played in recent history.
Rather, than carry himself in retirement with decorum as befits
his office, he is out on the hustings, jousting it out with the
campaign crowd, debating and making the office of the
ex-presidency more common.
And should they win the White House, the office of the
presidency itself will change: It would be the first time
America would be led by a co-president, who once was the
president. As they say, “Don’t cry for me, America.” This may
smack of the saga of Juan and Eva Peron of Argentina, but it
ought to be remembered that eventually Eva was said to have
selflessly renounced her ambition.
Beyond that, America’s image, so far as the rest of the world is
concerned, would remain intact as it has always been – a
super-power.
Graves states in his concluding paragraph that what an Obama
presidency has to offer “is what our nation needs at this
critical place and time in our history….The question is not
whether America is ready to elect a black man as president. It
is whether America will elect the candidate best qualified to
lead our country and restore our global standing…..”
Sorry, Mr. Graves, America’s global standing is subscribed by
America’s super-power predilections. No American president will
give those up. However, what would be meaningful to the world,
and a symbolism that would not be missed, would be that a once
racist nation has elected a black man as president.
Like the Major League metaphor, Robinson was black and
qualified, but it was his skin color that kept him out of the
game. Obama is, certainly, as qualified as all the candidates in
the field. But will he succeed? His presidency, should he be
elected, can change the image of America like Robinson for
baseball; and more so than Hillary or Edwards can for America.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja,Publsiher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,
January 19, 2008
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce,
with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of
the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at
all.
|
