[
Views
]
[
Top Five Views
]
[
Blog Roll
]
Discuss:
Not My Brand of Hope
Member Comments
-
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By:
mindsofawoman at 07/03/2008 6:47:14 PM
Comment:
WOW! I coudn't have said it better. Thank you! I feel bad for us (black people) right now. They think this man is going to save them. Obama ain't my hope, I really see him as a set back, a distraction for the Black race. He hasn't mentioned one thing about certain injustices that happen to black people rather he try to convince us that racism doesn't exist because look at me, i made it... Bulls- - -!!!
Daf
MoAW -
Posted By:
Bisi386 at 06/03/2008 10:17:00 AM
Comment:
Dr. Hill
Do you honestly think that a win for Obama is truly a win? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that even though it is entirely possible that he may win the election, he has had to tweak and adjust (change) himself to fit in with what mainstream America condones as acceptable. From separating himself from Reverend Wright to having every facet of his beliefs questions and interrogated, it seems to me that he has not truly been able to be himself without question. Do you feel that this is the case? ...also do you think that there will ever come a time when black people can run for such an office, without having to change who they are even in the slightest bit? -
Posted By:
joey gold at 05/07/2008 12:40:25 AM
Comment:
Dr. Hill
It is true that Obama is running a campaign of hope. But, the question is hope of what and for whom is this hope ? It sure isn't my idea of hope for the Latino community. Its seems that whites as well as black are playing the same old games over and over again. Obama will never be my brother and hillary will never be my sister. That is of no concern to the Latino community. You have to remember that blacks have learned much of the ways of the whites especially when it comes to politics. At the levels of government you still have the same old tiresome issues of race. The guy working all day doing labor whether black, brown, or white doesn't view the world in color. My concern is about the economics of the united state. How are we going to restructure the workforce and compete in the world economy. What are we going to do about the youth. Big deal that the Jews are in there homeland. Do we really need to take care of the blacks in Africa when we have our own here in the united states. Martin Luther King had a idea that never came true and never will. Not all idea come to fruition. Lets get back to the reality of what we are doing here in the united states of America life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not blacks and whites climbing a mountain top holding hands. plz -
Posted By:
gsalomon at 04/03/2008 10:37:07 AM
Comment:
Good Day Marc,
Very insightful article indeed. Your article is very disheartening as well however I am not disappointed because a great deal of the supposed intelligent African Americans are doing exactly what you are doing. Instead of showing alliance to a brother who actually has potential to be the first minority candidate to have a legitmate shot at the office you choose to highlight his short comings. I guess you want to publically show his weakness so maybe we can look at another candidate maybe Hilary or maybe more of the same McCain. I do not recall Barack stating he was a perfect candidate and to be honest with you, " do you actually think Obama would have a chance of being elected if he came out and was in favor of anti-corporate america policy or to drastically change the political structure of this country? I dont thinkyou can actually think he would have a chance if he took that approach. In to make real change brother Marc, you have to first get a seat to the dance. Lets see what Barack does if he gets to the office, then provide feedback. I believe from what I have read about you, that you know how this country works, if Barack took a Malcolm X approach per se would that help him get elected no it would not. It is a shame that some blacks do not believe that Barack has to be a perfect candidate to vote him. If our great grandfathers were here do you think they would be picking apart this man's polictics or they would care about the man's character. Marc you are correct the political structure and corporate influnced structure of America has to change for real progress to take place until then lets show the world that Black People not just Americans can actually support one of their own. Also one last thing to add and I will get off my soapbox we as black people in this country have gotten weak and complacent. I believe since the civil rights movement people of African Descent have allowed changes to affect us versus being aggressive in the propose of shaping changes that properly reflect our needs as a people. We do not march for anything or unite for anything of substance. When we do march like the million black men march where is the follow through on the issues discussed or the support structure needed to assist each other. We may continue to grow financially in this country but the divide amongst us people of African Descent is still there. Perfect closing we are still battling the W.E.B Dubos and Booker T Washington approaches in this country. Stand for something people and realize we need each other to make real change. Why should any group listen to us if we continue to allow them to treat us as second rate citizens of a country we built when we are not even unified as a people?
Gregory Salomon
Email: gsalomon78@gmail.com -
Posted By:
rdsweet at 03/25/2008 12:18:44 AM
Comment:
You had me guy. But this article loses me. It is not nice. Reminds me of Eric Dyson's wife just wanting to be on TV to talk the defense. Come on guy. Take this down before someone sees it. -
Posted By:
bluesminor at 03/21/2008 7:31:03 PM
Comment:
While I respect your right speak I find your logic to be a tad pedantic and hard to follow. Allow me to break it down for you: You are in the same boat as the rest of us. You will not get out of this world alive. Eventually you will stick your head in the trough and eat the same slop as everybody else. You need to order from the menu or starve. Your high minded esoteric banter places you outside the realm of relevant discussion. You can do better than that. So, "Are you serious?" Why not come down and sit with us and try to pull this ship upright. You are living proof that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Peace -
Posted By:
Rockforlight at 03/03/2008 10:28:10 AM
Comment:
We may not be, at present, living the dream that Martin Luther King preached 45 years ago or in a country that has been able to completely "heal the scars of a nation wounded by racism" but to dismiss Obama's achievement in gaining such a wide and diverse following and to suggest that white Americans voting across color lines is simply a way to manufacture a "finale piece of evidence that America has reached full racial equality" is to dismiss the intelligence of the American voter.
People are choosing Barack Obama not because he is black but where he stands on the issues and what he promises to do once in office. If white Americans wanted to end racial inequality in our country by voting for a black presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun or Al Sharpton would be in the White House today.
Finally, the "Cosbyesque" gospel of personal responsibility that some fear black Americans will suffer if Obama is appointed as head of state is not a credible threat. It's like trying to spook a recently emancipated ancestor that life is going to be more difficult now that slavery is over. Who's going to feed, clothe and house you now that the slavers have ended their "patronage?"
Self-determination and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of social and political change in our country. I would much prefer to find myself in a 21st century America where I am responsible for the quality of my life fighting for public policies in a government whose leader spent his formative years as a community organizer - fighting and assisting people in defining their mutual interests - than waiting, wishing and depending on the support and kindness of a distanced politician. "Dependence leads to subservience," as Thomas Jefferson once said. I am content with suffering the "Obama did it, so can you!" comments as long as I have a president who is creating a spirit of "Yes I can!" -
Posted By:
Rockforlight at 03/03/2008 10:25:40 AM
Comment:
Obama's campaign carrying the flags of "hope" and "change" are not a perversion of the words nor does it purport to position him as the Martin Luther King of his generation. Firstly, all viable Presidential candidates, by default, are invested in the political system. It is impossible to raise the amount of money needed to run a popular campaign if you do not have a vested interest in the opinions of the majority of the US population or conversely willing to champion the issues of the most wealthy individuals and organizations in our nation.
Moreover, to affirm to and successfully preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States requires that you have an intimate understanding of the mechanics of constitutional law. Excluding the self-educated prison lawyers most people gain their exposure to the US legal system by way of a higher institution; one that is intrinsically wedded to the fundamental political structure of the nation.
Secondly, presidential candidates are not social activists and social activists fail to be of relevance once they become viable presidential candidates. It's for this reason why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never ran for office. It is impossible to not dilute your particular cause once you take on the responsibility of being the leader of an entire nation.
What makes Barack Obama special, and authenticates his use of "hope" and "change" is that he is actively revolutionizing the political process within the confines of standard US politics. He is one of the rare politicians to not base his leadership on fear. Instead he is calling on the American people to cultivate fearlessness.
Obama is asking America to manifest for ourselves the leadership that so many of us crave, he is calling on all of us to become active participants in governing our nation. And, congruent with great leadership, his big request is predicated by big action. Obama's "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" is making it easier for the American people to know where and how federal funds are being spent.
In addition he has fought to limit the power of special interest lobbyists; paving the way for a fair battle, one where the average citizen is equally capable of influencing political policy just as the multi-billion-dollar special interests groups have done for so many years.
In spite of the historical evidence to the way American politics has been managed and organized in the past, Obama's leadership can help to actualize in our country a political process that was previously unimaginable.
It is his winning actins against "politics as usual" that perpetuates hope and elicits change. -
Posted By:
Rockforlight at 03/03/2008 10:25:24 AM
Comment:
Obama's campaign carrying the flags of "hope" and "change" are not a perversion of the words nor does it purport to position him as the Martin Luther King of his generation. Firstly, all viable Presidential candidates, by default, are invested in the political system. It is impossible to raise the amount of money needed to run a popular campaign if you do not have a vested interest in the opinions of the majority of the US population or conversely willing to champion the issues of the most wealthy individuals and organizations in our nation.
Moreover, to affirm to and successfully preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States requires that you have an intimate understanding of the mechanics of constitutional law. Excluding the self-educated prison lawyers most people gain their exposure to the US legal system by way of a higher institution; one that is intrinsically wedded to the fundamental political structure of the nation.
Secondly, presidential candidates are not social activists and social activists fail to be of relevance once they become viable presidential candidates. It's for this reason why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never ran for office. It is impossible to not dilute your particular cause once you take on the responsibility of being the leader of an entire nation.
What makes Barack Obama special, and authenticates his use of "hope" and "change" is that he is actively revolutionizing the political process within the confines of standard US politics. He is one of the rare politicians to not base his leadership on fear. Instead he is calling on the American people to cultivate fearlessness.
Obama is asking America to manifest for ourselves the leadership that so many of us crave, he is calling on all of us to become active participants in governing our nation. And, congruent with great leadership, his big request is predicated by big action. Obama's "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" is making it easier for the American people to know where and how federal funds are being spent.
In addition he has fought to limit the power of special interest lobbyists; paving the way for a fair battle, one where the average citizen is equally capable of influencing political policy just as the multi-billion-dollar special interests groups have done for so many years.
In spite of the historical evidence to the way American politics has been managed and organized in the past, Obama's leadership can help to actualize in our country a political process that was previously unimaginable.
It is his winning actions against "politics as usual" that perpetuates hope and elicits change. -
Posted By:
julisha at 02/19/2008 9:48:06 AM
Comment:
I'm voting for Barack Obama because I believe he is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and do not intend to vote for his wife because 1) I do not believe Black People fought and died in this country so that the Bill and Hillary Clinton's plan for world power and domination could be realized; and, 2) I'm looking for a new brand of politics where Dems and Repubs can work together toward solutions. That may be idealistic, but of my two choices, Barack is the only candidate (I think) trying to do this. Hillary seems to be playing the gotcha politics. I'm tired of the partisanship that continues to divide all Americans and I'm not interested in candidates that are out to settle old political scores from the 90s. I built my bridge to the 21st century and I'm over it! I am tired of defending "Billary" against the conservative hate machine. I may not agree with Barack on everything, but he has my suppport. Mr. HIll is entitled to vote for whomever he likes, but like other posters on this site, I don't think that Obama is a Black Messiah (as the media contends) I'm not sure why as black people, we have higher expections for Obama to solve our problems and we don't put the same pressure on Billary. -
Posted By:
williebigs3 at 02/18/2008 2:06:25 PM
Comment:
We can't expect Obama to come along and fix centuries of institutional racism. What we should be doing is taking it upon ourselves to fix the problems that plague this country and stop waiting for a saviour to swoop down and fix it all. The electing of an African American to the Oval office can not be denied as a symbol of changing times (that is if you believe in the electoral process). A country that was built on slavery of Africans elects an African American as President. Come on, that is progress. Obama's success in the primaries speaks volumes alone. It's a shame that so many people including African Americans are in such a hurry to discredit him. Truth be told he is a poilitician. In politics you get what you pay for. What African Americans need to do is organize economically so we can begin to pay for the candidates that we want to run the country so that our interest is covered. As long as candidates have to depend on large corporate contributions to run campaigns, corps will always have control of our politicians no matter their race or religion. Personally, I see the Obama bashing by black writers as a way to get some attention. Period. -
Posted By:
williebigs at 02/18/2008 1:55:50 PM
Comment:
We can't expect Obama to come along and fix centuries of institutional racism. What we should be doing is taking it upon ourselves to fix the problems that plague this country and stop waiting for a saviour to swoop down and fix it all. The electing of an African American to the Oval office can not be denied as a symbol of changing times (that is if you believe in the electoral process). A country that was built on slavery of Africans elects an African American as President. Come on, that is progress. Obama's success in the primaries speaks volumes alone. It's a shame that so many people including African Americans are in such a hurry to discredit him. Truth be told he is a poilitician. In politics you get what you pay for. What African Americans need to do is organize economically so we can begin to pay for the candidates that we want to run the country so that our interest is covered. As long as candidates have to depend on large corporate contributions to run campaigns, corps will always have control of our politicians no matter their race or religion. -
Posted By:
stonesideinc at 02/17/2008 9:25:44 AM
Comment:
Even the young Martin Luther King Jr (who died in his young 30's) was dismissed by many critics. The good thing is that history does not lie.
The apartheid system of government ended in South Africa with the election of Nelson Mandela. This does not mean that South Africa has completely overcome its racial problems. But you will definitely agree that the election of Nelson Mandela (he is and was not perfect).
The election of a black president in the United States will definitely not end racial discrimination overnight, but will definitely be a step in the right direction. There is probably no perfect leader out there, and there will never be one. -
Posted By:
mjguk at 02/15/2008 8:24:20 PM
Comment:
On the bright side, I think Dr Hill's comments surrounding the need to be wary of the emphasis we place on the symbolism behind Obama's candidacy, or indeed future Presidency, are sensible and to the point. However, the idea that we should not elect a black President incase that happens, is deeply flawed. Indeed, not once in this campaign have I heard Senator Obama deny the racial inequality that still unquestionably exists in The United States. 90% seems a fair figure - although obviously a ballpark one at best - when you consider that we've moved from worrying about the honest inequality of public segregation and lynching to the hidden, subtle and concealed racism that troubles America today. Huge steps have been made in a relatively short period of time, but that is not to hide the work that lies ahead.
On the other hand, whilst Dr Hill is correct to point out that Mr. Obama is indeed a centrist on most issues, I reject the idea that this is in any way negative or off-putting to the majority of Americans. You discuss Obama's intentions and somewhat question the truth behind his 'Politics of hope'. To most Americans, actions speak louder than words. Senator Obama has religiously denied money from lobbyists and corporate interest groups; no candidate should be forced to refuse donations from an individual supporter on the basis that they 'work for a company' and such suggestions are ludicrous. I judge Senator Obama on his work as a community organizer on the streets of South-Side Chicago, I judge Senator Obama on the pragmatic solutions that he proposes on universal healthcare and other policy issues. I judge Senator Obama not on his promise to be 'different' in the future, but on the evidence of his actions so far.
The article is right to conclude that Obama is essentially a centrist. I simply reject the notion that this is a bad thing. -
Posted By:
annevilla at 02/15/2008 4:36:32 PM
Comment:
NEW on YOUTUBE - "OBAMA SONG PORTRAIT: WE ARE THE CHANGE by Bjarne O."
The Composer, Bjarne O. writes:
"I combined Latino Rhythms, Chinese Erhu, African- and Native-American Voices with the Contemporary Symphonic Orchestra - in the great spirit of Unity - for this Song in support of Obama's great and true message: "Our Time Has Come; We the People are the Change we've all been waiting for. We are the Hope for the Future - YES WE CAN."
Check it out!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LCQYTu8u7Sg
YES WE CAN - ALL OF US TOGETHER
Anne -
Posted By:
Mollygirl at 02/14/2008 6:34:10 PM
Comment:
This is in two parts. I couldn???t fit it all in one submission.
This is my take. Faith is the substance of thinks hoped for, the evidence of thinks unseen. So simply put, you think people are putting their faith in Obama because of his words of hope. You are wrong! People are tired of the status quo and are willing to see what the unseen future holds in a candidate unlike any other in history. Although Obama is of mixed race, some would say he is African American. His political ideology is pronounced and unafraid and he is openly religious. Whether his vantage points are real or fairy tale will be revealed in the very near future the same way those of past presidents have been. To ask different of Obama is borders on paranoia and lacks racial esteem.
Obama an no other candidate is going to fully support a universal health care system until there is a real chance of getting one to work. People love to through out Canada as a test, but Canadian flock to get to the United States to take advantage of the quality health care available in the U.S. Welfare programs never worked and I take offense that welfare is an issue that tops the list for African American issues. We live in a global world. The days of focusing inward (the me, me, me syndrome) will hopefully come to an end in my life time. I am African American, I am first generation this and that, received public assistance as a child like many others. I believe this, the way that ???we shall over come??? is overcoming, doing.
Your article reads like an insult to American, particularly African American intelligence. It sounds like you agree with the media that Obama received the African American vote because he is of similar racial origin. This line of thinking is ridiculous on so many levels. I would love to see an African American president, but to vote for one based on race has never cross my mind. I am sure that the thousands of White people who vote for Obama will not be called ???*** lovers???. On the same vain, to consider that somehow -
Posted By:
Mollygirl at 02/14/2008 12:24:09 PM
Comment:
Obama an no other candidate is going to fully support a universal health care system until there is a real chance of getting one to work. People love to through out Canada as a test, but Canadian flock to get to the United States to take advantage of the quality health care available in the U.S. Welfare programs never worked and I take offense that welfare is an issue that tops the list for African American issues. We live in a global world. The days of focusing inward (the me, me, me syndrome) will hopefully come to an end in my life time. I am African American, I am first generation this and that, received public assistance as a child like many others. I believe this, the way that ???we shall over come??? is overcoming, doing.
Your article reads like an insult to American, particularly African American intelligence. It sounds like you agree with the media that Obama received the African American vote because he is of similar racial origin. This line of thinking is ridiculous on so many levels. I would love to see an African American president, but to vote for one based on race has never cross my mind. I am sure that the thousands of White people who vote for Obama will not be called ???*** lovers???. On the same vain, to consider that somehow those that do vote for him (by the way, I am not a person who fully supports Obama YET) have fallen for the proverbial ???banana in the tail pipe??? is absurd. I am sure you have more soul than that. I hope so anyway. -
Posted By:
Mollygirl at 02/14/2008 12:23:10 PM
Comment:
This is in two parts. I couldn???t fit it all in one submission.
Does this mean that successful African Americans should sidestep ambition in the name of perpetuating the courses of racism, systematic flaws in our federal framework, white guilt, and ignorance across the country (specifically African Americans)?You devoted three paragraphs to discuss what white America would think about racism after Obama???s election. This sound very propaganda-ish to me but I digress. Who care! I am going to assume that you were on a role and couldn???t stop yourself when you wrote this. No disrespect intended but half your article sounds like you feel still under the thumb of white oppression. Who says that white people get to decide when racism goes in the closest like an ???undercover brother.??? God forbid, if we feed into the notion that white people have more control over our thought processes than we do. Obama is not Martin Luther King, he is himself. You accuse Obama of being overly idealist but your words are doing the same thing. Your article brings to mind an essay written by Allan Locke. When I read it initially, I felt he was being overly idealistic. I still believe that but felt that you were being overly idealistic to the other end of the spectrum.
You want us to believe that (not to confuse things) that we believe that Obama is going to send and Angel down, spiritually impregnate a women who gives birth to a savior. The fact is this: We don???t believe that Obama is the next Dr. Martin Luther King (nor to we want him to be). This is a different time and space. We don???t believe that Obama is anything but what he says. He may have some skeletons in the closest like most but that is a moot point.
They (Black) are an integral part of the large industrial and social problems of our present-day democracy. And finally, with the Negro rapidly in process of class differentiation, if it ever was warrantable to regard and treat the Negro en masse it is becoming with every day less possible, more unjust and more ridiculous. The Negro too, for his part, has idols of the tribe to smash. If on the one hand the white man has erred in making the Negro appear to be that which would excuse or extenuate his treatment of him, the Negro, in turn, has too often unnecessarily excused himself because of the way he has been treated. The intelligent Negro of today is resolved not to make discrimination an extenuation for his shortcomings in performance, individual or collective; he is trying to hold himself at par, neither inflated by sentimental allowances nor depreciated by current social discounts. -
Posted By:
fem at 02/12/2008 9:23:07 PM
Comment:
Amen!!! Mr. Hill. This is exactly why I am NOT enthusiastic about Obama. He has been an apologist for oppression and racism here and abroad. He has not been silent about the Zionist occupation of Palestine but has been corting the israeli lobby in the US. Israeli newspapers praise him as just as pro israel as all the other candidates. now, why should a black woman from oakland care about the middle east? because if my president cannot stand up against blatant aparteid in palestine/israel I know he won't do it here in the US. Hard working black folks, just like hard working folks around the world, want universal, single payer healthcare, women want equal pay, access to affordable childcare, we want quality and public/free education through university, and we want protection for workers. These are social goods that King fought for. these are values that obama only provides lip service for. Wasn't it brotha Malcom who said that black folks are chumps if they still vote for Democrats that promise them much during an election year but ignore them the rest of the time? If that makes me an extremist then i don't want to be anything else. -
Posted By:
worldwide477 at 02/12/2008 10:39:49 AM
Comment:
Dr. Hill's comments are representative of the mentality that continues to regulate black people to second class status. Instead of orienting ourselves towards taking advantage of the opportunities for excellence we have, Hill would have us not participate in the political process at all - unless the candidate is so far left that he/she has no chance of being elected. Obama is a centrist, like Bill Clinton, he proposes to move our country forward by compromise. Declaring Obama not radical (or black) enough marks Hill and those who would follow his socialist leanings as extremists in the same mold as GW Bush, Karl Rove and the other NeoCons who have wrecked America's standing in the world. Any such candidate that shared Hill's views, if elected, would be a collossal failure, just like the present administration. And by the way, what is wrong with the concept of personal responsibility? Are we so weak and helpless that we cannot control our actions? If so, we truly are as inferior as some think we are. -
Posted By:
Stealth at 02/11/2008 12:21:28 AM
Comment:
I think it's important to perhaps realize what wanting change means. Obama has seemed to convince the public that wanting change means voting for him - there, you've done your part. All these "on the verge of apathetic" idealists in college love to hear that change can happen by a little check mark. But the Civil Rights movement did not happen through LBJ, it was the power and force of men and women standing for change their whole lives - one man does not take anyone off the hook and no should rest easy.
My line is that Hillary at least fills me with a sense that we need to be in it together and fight. Her progressive health care policies generate a real example of change and hope. -
Posted By:
JKinSF at 02/09/2008 2:02:08 PM
Comment:
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with pundits telling me what I ("white people") think, and with having my support for Senator Obama dismissed as self-admonishment for our country's rich history of racial injustice. (Does this not qualify as a form of racial prejudice in it's own right?)
You assert, as others have, that Barack Obama is too much of a centrist. However, in light of his being ranked as the most liberal senator of 2007 (according to National Journal ratings), your critique simply doesn't hold water.
There's no point in rebutting your implicit argument; that electing a President Obama - a "Leader of the Free World" Obama - would be meaningless within the context of existing racial inequality. Your words speak for themselves.
Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that you (and readers who share your views) will keep an open mind over the coming weeks and months, and reconsider Senator Obama's candidacy. -
Posted By:
JKinSF at 02/09/2008 1:39:56 PM
Comment:
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with pundits telling me what I ("white people") think, and with having my support for Senator Obama dismissed as self-admonishment for our country's rich history of racial injustice. (Does this not qualify as a form of racial prejudice in it's own right?)
You assert, as others have, that Barack Obama is too much of a centrist. However, in light of his being ranked as the most liberal senator of 2007 (according to National Journal ratings), your critique simply doesn't hold water.
There's no point in rebutting your implicit argument; that electing a President Obama - a "Leader of the Free World" Obama - would be meaningless within the context of existing racial inequality. Your words speak for themselves.
Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that you (and readers who share your views) will keep an open mind over the coming weeks and months, and reconsider Senator Obama's candidacy. -
Posted By:
Voxdoc at 02/09/2008 11:02:22 AM
Comment:
If you think a candidate who supports razing the building rather than dismantling it brick by brick can ever get elected in this country, you need to step back from the mirror. Leadership, the kind that can convince people to change their minds and move forward, is our only (yes, I'm using it) hope. Sorry, your anger, which is understandable, is not the way to go. Push produces pushback. Leading defines itself. -
Posted By:
kolo at 02/09/2008 4:16:52 AM
Comment:
What could satisfy Prof. Hill? Who could possibly build the credentials, gain the experience, and excite the support necessary to run for president...and be black, better than Obama has? What is he suggesting? That Obama should lay a guilt trip on the legions of white americans who are excited to vote for him, regardless of or, even partially because of, his race? That's absurd.
If Prof. Hill demands 1) an agenda that would be untenable in a general election, and 2) an overtly racial platform, before he can support Senator Obama, then Prof. Hill is no different from the Conservative PAC zealots who boo John McCain for working across the aisle.
Each of us imagines a perfect scenario in which everyone sees the world exactly as we do. But to demand that a candidate look through your eyes as a precondition for support is counterproductive, ridiculous, and will only serve to deepen the racial divide that Prof. Hill despises so much. If one can somehow view the choice of a black presidential candidate as a step backward in race relations in this country, then his mind is a slave to the corrupting racial labels he decries. -
Posted By:
nricet at 02/09/2008 4:09:42 AM
Comment:
I don't believe you. I am white, 30 and male. I believe that the rise of Senator Obama is the direction that many people are looking for. Maybe its not my place to tell you so. But If he is elected you could expect change in ways you never imagined...or shoud I say ways you refuse to see. -
Posted By:
Bob_Roberts at 02/08/2008 11:38:36 PM
Comment:
I didn't have time to read every comment made, so I apologize if I'm redundant.
Professor Hill argues that Sen. Obama is intentionally presenting his candidacy as both more Leftists and also more directly aligned with the specific goals of black voters. I simply don't agree with either of these suggestions.
Firstly, on the issue of race, Barack Obama has made a very admirable and consistent effort to transcend identity politics in this election. Now, no such effort can ever be entirely successful under our present circumstances, but this is hardly a factor under his control. He has not attempted to position himself as the 'black candidate' or as a 'black leader.' He has made his case on his credentials and leadership abilities, not on his status as a prominent black politician. He has had many opportunities to inject the issue of race and racism into the election, and he has refused them all with a minimal of fanfare.
Secondly, I have not heard Barack Obama attempt to portray his political stances dishonestly. He has never claimed to be on even ground with Dennis Kucinich and the far left, What we do know is that he has compiled one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate during his tenure. It seems that the article implies that he intentionally allows this perception to exist - if it exists outside of Professor Hill's perception, of which I'm not sure - as it is a de facto component of his status as the 'black candidate.' As the senator rejects this label and has, to my knowledge, not attempted to portray himself as more liberal than his policies and votes demonstrate, I fail to see how this is possible.
I would also argue that Barack Obama is not much "aggressively sidestepping" issue like African poverty so much as he is not given much of a forum to discuss the issue at the moment. I don't see why he wouldn't have a compassionate and reasoned policy of third world aid and development, yet the article suggests that he's a borderline Buchanan-ite because the issue hasn't been major point of discussion so far.
In conclusion, it looks to me as if Professor Hill has taken the liberty of bestowing the title of 'the black candidate' and all its implications on Sen. Obama, a set of restrictions and assumptions he surely wishes to avoid, and then has also accused Sen. Obama of policy subterfuge and dishonesty because he fails to meet the standard's of leftism that Professor Hill believes to be necessary for a proper 'black candidate.'
Other posters very effectively addressed the problems with Professor Hill's assertion that an Obama presidency will convince white America that racism has been eliminated, so I'll only say that I agree with their criticisms on this front. -
Posted By:
idiv22 at 02/08/2008 10:53:41 PM
Comment:
I am curious who the author would recommed for president? Or what of slate of candidates would be acceptable to illustrate his point? -
Posted By:
LiWilliams at 02/08/2008 10:29:20 PM
Comment:
I have been following the campaign trail closely and found it interesting that your commentary was filled with comments that Senator Clinton makes in her speeches. I don't mind that you do or do not support Senator Obama. I mind that what write is not very original and it is mean spirited. I think that you and this new online endeavor could do so much more to elevate the discourse. Let's show that the legacy of affirmative action has more to offer.
Many thanks Li Williams -
Posted By:
cathnealon at 02/08/2008 10:06:52 PM
Comment:
Thank you, it's interesting that the truth finds a way even through all of the cultish hype surrounding obama's candidacy. It's nice to know that someone sees the forest for the trees. By the way the more I listen and really watch his performance I see a smugness and occasionally a smirk that reminds me of all people, Cheney. -
Posted By:
Craig_ema at 02/08/2008 10:05:04 PM
Comment:
Why do black people hate on each other?
BO is empowering a generation of young people. A good amount of them are of color.
To some people corruption, hate and mistrust become the norm. It becomes comfortable like old leather. Wrong is wrong. Even though you have found a niche in an evil machine. This has made you comfortable. If the machine is torn down and rebuilt, where doe that leave you?
Your op.ed is the rantings of someone comfortable in the establishment. Even though your place in it is to criticize it and rage against it. You scared of the establishment changing and leaving an expert in a dead art.
There are still Latin professors my good man. Albeit poor ones.
With this I say, most black people didn't care to watch golf until Tiger Woods and now most young black people are watching there government because of Barrack Obama. He is reaching a generation of white and non-white Americans in a way your brand of self aggrandizing pity has failed.
You have been pwned.!!!
Much love
Craig Emanuel
American of AfroCaribbeanAsian Decent. -
Posted By:
cathnealon at 02/08/2008 10:03:05 PM
Comment:
Thank you, it's so interesting that even through all of the cultish hype surrounding Obama there are still those who see the forest no matter how many trees. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment and his grin and smirk lately reminds me of Cheney. -
Posted By:
DarrenH at 02/08/2008 9:54:16 PM
Comment:
I suspect that the Obama-maniacs will have difficulty digesting much of what Mr. Hill has written, given that it lays bare a reality that they probably have not considered: They are voting for a Centrist whose vision of "change" is based in pragmatic realities that "leftist" values like universal health care won't sell in Kansas.
With the exception of his initial opposition to the war, 90% of his policies mirror Clinton's. Yet the media never mentions this. His calculated approach to politics mirrors hers, as well, but he is a "builder" while she is a "divider".
What happens in 2010 when this reality is laid bare and the approval ratings drop to the 50s? I predict serious dissatisfaction and a one term presidency.
Darren Holingsworth -
Posted By:
itsnotmi at 02/08/2008 8:50:51 PM
Comment:
Was hoping to read an objective article on the substance of Obama. This reads like sour grapes. I have not formed an opinion on any candidate, and this makes the task that much more bewildering. -
Posted By:
MSONmd at 02/08/2008 8:00:51 PM
Comment:
Thank you for saying what so many have clearly missed. Obama is so much a Centrist that many Independents and Republicans don't mind voting for him. Considering the likelihood of keeping a Democrat controlled Congress, he is not far enough to the left to move the party's agenda forward.
I also feel that a lot of his speeches are nothing but rhetoric, and the substance of what change he will bring a bout is completely lacking. -
Posted By:
Adam at 02/08/2008 7:10:27 PM
Comment:
Idiot! Calling Obama a centrist when the same non-partisan group that labeled John Kerry as having the most liberal voting record in the senate during 2003 has now given the #1 spot to Obama for 2007. Hmmm. If he's got the most liberal ranking in the senate, how can he be a centrist? -
Posted By:
sandrina at 02/08/2008 6:49:07 PM
Comment:
Summary: I am a lefty professor. Obama is not. Bwaaaahhhh!! -
Posted By:
sandrina at 02/08/2008 6:48:34 PM
Comment:
Summary: I am a lefty professor. Obama is not. Bwaaaaaahhh -
Posted By:
reed_dg at 02/08/2008 6:42:19 PM
Comment:
To begin with the overall tone of this piece sounds like sour grapes- cynical and jaded. I can understand why a message of hope would get the author riled up. The impression that I got from the article was that Sen. Obama is a pretender and sham. Something I don't agree with. Why is it that when someone or something from a marginalized sector of society becomes mainstream they are automatically denounced as a sellout? Selling out happens, but I think in this instance it is not the case.
And certainly racism will not end when Obama is elected and anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. However, I believe that an Obama presidency would be a significant milestone in the much longer journey away from racial hatred and prejudice. It wasn't more than a few years ago that I thought it was impossible for an American of any color other than white to be elected. In addition, a president is about more than race. A president must advocate for all races, classes, ages, genders, religions and orientations. I believe Sen. Obama is willing and capable of doing this.
As for his phony credentials I completely disagree. I'm also not sure why the author believes he's trying to sell himself as some radical revolutionary. He is after all in a national party. He may not be as liberal as Kucinich, but I think he is more liberal than Clinton in many ways.
He has never supported the Iraq War, unlike Clinton.
He recieved a 100% rating from Naral Pro-Choice America.
He recieved a 96% rating from the League of Conservation voters.
He wants to repeal the defense of Marriage Act.
He voted against CAFTA.
He voted against giving immunity to gun manufacturers.
He is in support of restoring habeas corpus.
He wants open up dialogue with all countries regardless of diplomatic standing.
Most importantly his campaign does not take money from lobbyist or PACs, unlike Clinton's. This is very important in a corporate sponsored universe of meaning.
Finally, I love radicals that spout idealogy, "true" change, and revolution, but then want to disregard the fact that there are 300 million other people who have varying interests and concerns. Yes compromise and negotiation is for sellouts. I hope the sarcasm is coming through.
Man, I haven't been this fired up in a while.
GO OBAMA.
Something that the author seems particularly concerned about -
Posted By:
earlybird3 at 02/08/2008 6:31:40 PM
Comment:
Well this is of course a classic case of sour grapes. Sour grapes! Sour grapes! You will only be satisfied when your black Lennin is running for president, but then how many will vote for your socialist imaginary messiah? Obama is possibly short months from displacing one of U.S. history's worst presidents, and all you can do is whine about how he isn't left enough. How a page in racism isn't really being challenged by Obama's surging bid for our lands highest office, how we're alll apathetic if we vote for him because he's too far to the middle, and not ideological enough for you. You don't consider someone who will respect the constitution, and will attempt to soothe the roiling waters of partisan divide a noble cause? I feel sorry for you, and your nearsighted intellectual stinginess to not give credit to those who won't vote for Obama because he is black, but will vote for him because he is the best person for the job. Moderate and all. -
Posted By:
Sweetivory at 02/08/2008 5:14:03 PM
Comment:
You should be ashamed of yourself. You definitely have a talent for twisting the vernacular, however, it is not one man's responsibility to change the world...it is everyone's responsibility. You are just another racist who wants everything one way....yours....pity you. -
Posted By:
jpart at 02/08/2008 4:39:57 PM
Comment:
I have neither time nor room here to answer all of your ridiculous arguments. The fact is, if Obama is elected, both the country and everyone in it will be better off, although it may be a hit to professors like you who cling to the notion that blacks are "consistently assaulted by the forces of white supremacy." Obama is not a sell-out because he supports free trade. Free trade helps black people around the world. Just ask black citizens of Brazil who are prevented by U.S. subsidies from marketing their goods, thus ensuring that they remain in their poverty-stricken state. I think, sadly, that you're out of touch with the world today, and I feel sorry that your students have to be exposed to your miopic view of race and culture today. Leave your classroom and take a walk through West Philadelphia, and its plain to see that white supremacy is not what is keeping the residents down. -
Posted By:
mj1978 at 02/08/2008 4:36:41 PM
Comment:
I find it amazing that we have become so cynical--even on the left--that we don't even recognize the genuine article when we see it. I suppose there is some self-congratulatory satisfaction to be gained by declaring the emperor has no clothes. But to demand that a political candidate should be operate as little more than a left-wing bombthrower is as inane as it is shortsighted. Anyone paying attention to the principles the Obama campaign adheres to can see that his election would radically redefine American politics. (And it has nothing to do with race.) We are caught up in an endless cycle of division and disgust and apathy and fear. And unfortunately, as your piece demonstrates, we are gripped by a cynicism that runs far deeper than we care to admit. -
Posted By:
EdC at 02/08/2008 4:27:44 PM
Comment:
I have to say the idea that there are only two valid sides to an argument and somehow Obama is weak for not taking the fully leftest side is very wrong. On the idea of free trade most notably taking the side of protectionism is very very wrong and will hurt far more jobs then it will help in the long term. There should be changes in NAFTA and other agreements that ensure an equal playing field where all countries need to provide basic rights for workers yes (Obama has said as much) but to say the only valid position that would show him to be the real deal is to lock our ports and say America is closed for foreign business is just silly. Obama more then any candidate since Bill Clinton has a strong understanding of the complexity of the world. Additionally I think Obama has a much better chance of making a difference since he won't have the baggage that dogged Bill Clinton his entire presidency. The country does not need Kusinich leftest solutions that often only look good on paper (IE are impossible to afford realistically) it needs a strong centerest leader who will do right for all Americans. Its easy to point to the plight of the poor and ignore the middle classes like Hillary and galvanize the uneducated masses who don't really understand the way the world works is more complicated then a plant closing here or there; there's a reason that Obama transcends race and its the way he connects with the minds of the intellectuals in the party, what he says may not be fully partisan but it certainly makes sense; I want a leader with practical not partisan answers and Obama is just that. -
Posted By:
Ethan at 02/08/2008 4:18:21 PM
Comment:
Are you kidding me? I don't profess that Obama is the saviour of the modern world or could erase racism in one swipe, but can't progress be recognized when it stares people in the face? Extremism, either from the far left, or far right has never produced much social change, because it automatically makes 50% of the population defensive. Social change is about compromise, it happens slowly, in bits and pieces. While that may not be an appetizing thought to ponder, history proves it correct. -
Posted By:
boerby at 02/08/2008 4:05:56 PM
Comment:
A Kucinich leftist is also not a "new breed of candidate". Obama offers a difference in process, not policy and this has been demonstrated by his campaign. If he can open up the process and allow Americans to truly believe that the corporate structure must be overturned than he provides a hope to provide us with the keys. The revolution you are looking for is just not supported by the American population. Even the civil rights movement had large support before it took off (not where it needed to take place in the South, but in the North). As demonstrated by Edwards the anti-corporate message is far more complex since many Americans get cheap stuff and are employed by corporations and they fear the overturn of this system. I do not deny that what Obama is offering is not what you are looking for, but I do deny that he is suggesting that what you want is what he is offering. -
Posted By:
MarkShepherdstown at 02/08/2008 3:58:39 PM
Comment:
This cynical article doesn't accept a new way of looking at the world that transcends the idea that politics and, hence, people are inherently corrupt. I see Obama's candidacy as a beyond the tired construct of racial identity politics, but as a post racial identiity politics. We are a family. -
Posted By:
ntabor at 02/08/2008 3:55:39 PM
Comment:
This is a compelling opinion piece, but one with several built-in biases and an overt lack of evidence. First, Hill's central point is one of interpretation: that Obama serves as an ideological opiate for those unsettled by the spectre of racial inequality but unwilling to do anything about it. This may be true for some; however, true bigotry needs no such interpretation to justify racial-political inequality, while many others can use it as the Algerist evidence that one can transcend race to gain political power. He provides no evidence that the former interpretation of the Obama campaign outweighs the latter.
Second, Hill writes that Obama is insufficiently leftist to be a black radical, that his views are too centrist to be revolutionary. Yet this unorthodox correlation, unusual for a prominent black politician, can itself be seen as revolutionary; it uncouples race from a strict Marxist political agenda, one itself historically appropriated by black politicians in order to negatively define themselves against the conservative white status quo. Obama can be black and hold views unorthodox for a successful black politician.
Finally, I'd remind Hill of Martin Luther King's political career. Transcending racial boundaries in constructing a political movement, he spent the first ten years of the Civil Rights Movement breaking down segregated culture in the US, culminating with two sweeping pieces of legislation. Turning his attention to more radical economic issues while moving his campaign to the North, he found no reception in mainstream politics--and losing his efficacy, he lost support among his more radical base. It is possible that King was more correct during the Poor People's Campaign, but most would argue that his being right was not as good as his being effective. -
Posted By:
jjj at 02/08/2008 3:29:02 PM
Comment:
I agree with everything here 100%. I only wish that I could have said it so eloquently. I've been trying to articulate my concerns and instead of them being appreciated, I've been accused of not supporting the Black Man, why won't Black people support other Black people, and loving Hillary Clinton. None of these are accurate assessments of my concerns. He is not a different candidate. I want a different candidate. I would so much love for that person to be Black or female or better yet a Black female. But the reallity is the Black candidate is no different than the female candidate and I'm not running. I've read a lot about Sen. Obama since he became a senator. I wanted to know about the hot, young, up-and-coming, Black Democrat. So, I'm an informed person. His policies do not match mine and excusing them as political necessities to get ahead makes him no different than any other politician. That doesn't sound like change to me -
Posted By:
la_belle at 02/08/2008 2:57:17 PM
Comment:
Extremely good points made in this article. There doesn't seem to be much substance behind the superficial. Despite the fact that I long for racial equality in this country, and love Obama's charisma, I also wonder if his presidency will harm rather than help blacks. While Clinton's centrist positions may not make for radical change she and her husband do have a historical investment both through their work and their own personal philosphys of peace and progression working with the system to benefit "the village." -
Posted By:
rj at 02/08/2008 2:50:07 PM
Comment:
Marc, for a college professor, i'm shocked that you would take such an uneducated position on Obama. I believe that you are wrong on his leftist positions for one, but let's leave that aside and focus on the more important issues.
This is not about race. This is not about Obama being the next MLK. This is not about black progress vs. white oppression.
This is about a man and a movement who can lead our country, all citizens, to a brighter day than where we are today. It's really about progress, Marc.
And, hopefully, you're educated enough to know that progress takes time. Changes take time. Radical change is usually snuffed out before it has time to take root.
But then again, maybe you're right. Maybe this is not your brand of hope and thank god we have a country where you're free to vote as you wish.
Then again, no one ever built a momument to a cynic such as yourself. -
Posted By:
gyude at 02/08/2008 2:31:59 PM
Comment:
Considering that you're a professor, I'm concerned for the minds you're supposedly developing. The kind of parochialism you're demanding of a Presidential candidate would be unacceptable even for a Senator. Blacks make up 12% of the American population, any credible Presidential nominee cannot and will not design his campaign on such identity politics. MLK was never running for public office, he was an activist. Obama is running to become President of the United States against the backdrop of a racial history that I'm sure you know only too well. You expect a Black candidate, with limited Washington experience to run on a leftist platform. Are you serious? In a country of competing interests, every Presidential candidate gravitates toward the middle because that's where majority of the people are. Each President must muster up a governing majority and somehow you expect Obama to do that on a leftist platform. It is already a reach considering his race and time in Washington, but that's not enough for you. I am glad that after an Obama presidency I can tell my son that he too can do anything. You grasp on politics seems clouded by your activism. I'm glad Barrack Obama is not Lamont Hill, it'd be a tragedy. -
Posted By:
IowaDemocrat at 02/08/2008 2:12:08 PM
Comment:
Wow! How much were you paid by the Clinton machine? -
Posted By:
MatteoHacker at 02/08/2008 1:55:11 PM
Comment:
Mr. Hill, you've set up a straw man. This article is less about Obama than it is about political coverage and Dr. King's legacy. It's unfortunate that Slate is so attracted to grandiose and misleading headlines, otherwise I would never have read this article.
While it's true that Obama is not a radical as it regards race in America, he is a radical on the issue of transparency and accountability in the executive branch. Perhaps history would prove me wrong, that Obama is only the least manipulative and inhibited of the candidates running in 2008, but even this is enough to mark him out as the only distinctively different candidate in the race.
As for messianic claims, as someone else has said, I do not believe they are Obama's. Whites will continue to pat themselves on the back for supporting Obama, racial inequality will be glossed over with what white Americans want to believe is the apotheosis of sophisticated American compassion. But if hope is defined as you have defined it, as the possibility of success in a struggle against legally structured inequality as conspicuous as that of the Jim Crow laws and the discrimination against which Dr. King fought, you've decided in advance that Obama is a failure. But in what exactly? You don't do us the favor of saying. -
Posted By:
Peedlum at 02/08/2008 1:28:05 PM
Comment:
Compromise, concession and cunning. Which paragraph was this thesis discussed in? The cynical three about why the election of a black man is somehow a sham accomplishment in the struggle against racial bigotry? The several paragraphs following that falsely equate hope for a change from the current political climate requires a (extreme partisan) leftist perspective? The one where agreeing to pay for our troops to be protected, equipped, fed and housed is somehow a bad thing, despite the fact that the troops are stuck in a situation through no fault of their own? The one that assumes that the only remedy to fixing health care and global poverty is to put tens of thousands, if not millions of people, suddenly out of work as if the laws of macroeconomics have no place in the conversation about how systems can be altered? The next sentence that faults Obama for not talking about the economic underdevelopment of Africa is perhaps placed perfectly to be maximally stupid considering it is directly after criticism regarding supposed economic hegemony. I have not heard Obama compare himself to Martin Luther King, but I will say it is disingenuous at best and viscerally stupid at worst to claim that one should on the one hand dismantle "the triple threat of global racism, poverty, and militarism" while on the other hand maintain a political position that extols the virtues of political and economic non-interference that would (logically, based on denouncement of free trade), include protective tariffs and dismantling of economic structures outside the US. But, I must ask, just how does one dismantle those three vices without interference in global markets? I don't believe that the world has any beliefs that Obama is a "Kucinich" leftist. although the implication that it is necessary to be one in order to effect change in the current system is the true thesis of this article. Too bad that the article is one of hate. It betrays the politics of the left that the author extols. -
Posted By:
Blue Moon at 02/08/2008 12:43:27 PM
Comment:
Ah yes, Obama is no good cuz he likes dem Jooz. You lost me at "zionism" Mr. Hill. Clearly, Israel should have to make peace with people who want them dead. -
Posted By:
ryan at 02/08/2008 12:38:56 PM
Comment:
i basically said the same thing in my essay ( nakedfrogblog.blogspot.com ) but it took me 25 pages.
since writing it though, i've come to think that we should not be avoid both cynicism and naivitee. look, unless we think that Clinton is going to be "better" than Obama, we might want to keep our mouths shut for the next couple of months. there's a chance that Obama might pull away from the center once he's elected. maybe clinton would do the same. i don't know. but at the very least, the speculation that Obama could drag in a stronger democratic majority could hold some water.
i'm in my early 20s. i assure you, most people my age have no idea why they're so excited about Obama. honestly, it's probably because he's incredibly hot. they don't realize he won't actually end the war, or that his health care plan sucks. they thiink that he isn't beholden to bundlers or special interest groups. they believe him. they're wrong.
but, at this point, so what? no one is left in the race who is Left. it's EASY to criticize Obama from the Left, and yes, it's EASY to point out the incredible discrepancy between his platform and his poetry. i am deeply offended by his incessant plagarisim of the spirit of the Hopi Indians (we are the ones we've been waiting for,) cesar chavez (si se puede,) ghandi (we are the change we want in this world,) and MLK (the fierce urgency of now.) for a man who wants to build a border wall, expand our military, continue a war, and start another one, this is absurd.
but through these means he has generated a tremendous amount of enthusiasm. free-floating energy attached to nothing in particular, completely non-rational. but perhaps this could be a bit of CONSTRUCTIVE brainwashing. i mean, the republicans have clearly brainwashed their constituents and enabled them to enact far-right policies. why not do the same?
how about this: lay of the dems. for now. let's crush mccain. then, once a dem is in power, we hold their feet to the fire. his admirerers must turn into protestors once they realize he might not deliver on his campaign claims. I HOPE this might happen. -
Posted By:
bch at 02/08/2008 12:24:10 PM
Comment:
Marc, I will not take issue here with your claims that Barack's policy is not radical enough for him to advocate for "change," though I disagree with you. But I am perplexed by your apparent argument that Barack should not be elected because the election of a black President would convince whites that we have finally reached racial equality, and would detract from policy measures designed to curtail inequality. Taken to its obvious ends, your argument suggests that equality would better be served by electing a white racist to office. That way, the populace will be constantly reminded that race is still very much a factor in the way people are treated in everyday life, and whites won't take it for granted. I am dumbfounded by this argument. I am certain that Dr. King, whom you invoke later in the article (as so many have recently), would be proud indeed to learn that a half-white, half-black young man from a working class family was making a serious bid for the highest office in the nation. Even if he were not hopeful that such a presidency would be positive for race relations, many others are. Call me simple-minded, but rejecting a black candidate because he is black seems like an odd way to improve equality. -
Posted By:
matt at 02/08/2008 12:22:03 PM
Comment:
This article seems to take it as a given that leftist policy is THE answer to national and global ills. When Obama speaks about hope he seems, to me, to be speaking of the hope of moving beyond the left-right polarity, of which this article is an excellent example. "True believer" entrenchment, that one party or ideology is all right and the other is all wrong, is arrogant and naive. This type of politics is exactly what Obama is proposing we end. This article reminds we of conservative reaction to John McCain, in that simply his willingness to listen to and work with members of the other party has made him an enemy of "true conservatism." However, I agree that Dr. King would not have gone in for the notion that big government would solve such deep-rooted problems as rascism or poverty; it was his conviction that only the transformation of Christ that is embodied in the church could bring such change about. -
Posted By:
andrewravin at 02/08/2008 12:21:36 PM
Comment:
"the zionist occupation of palestine?" are you sill? sure, i think it's incredibly fair to attack american or israeli policy. it's certainly appropriate to recognize there are inequalities and extreme disparities. but, it always strikes me as hypocritical to refer to the "zionist occupation of palestine". there are territories israel should give back, but there are also territories which are internationally recognized as israeli. to parrot a fundamentalist canard, "the zionist" occupation, you've deligitimized the very body we seek to legitimize against international oppression: the united nations. israel is, by all recognized international accounts, a real state. i appreciate your larger points, but i think you've sunk below your position here. -
Posted By:
LicePatrol at 02/08/2008 12:15:26 PM
Comment:
I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove with this article, Mr. Hill. All of your policy criticisms of Senator Obama are present and, indeed, more readily and rightly applicable to Senator Clinton. Supporting military funding? Try voting for the war and not giving any timetable for withdrawal. Supporting corporate-sponsored forms of government? Unlike Senator Clinton, Senator Obama accepts no PAC or lobbyist money. Not strong enough on healthcare reform? Who was it again who set us back a generation on universal healthcare? Oh, yeah - it was (then) First Lady Clinton.
Before you go disparaging the policies of Senator Obama, research the other options, Mr. Hill. Otherwise, you will continue to sound quite ignorant. -
Posted By:
hapkappy at 02/08/2008 12:11:09 PM
Comment:
Great article; unfortunate that Prof. Hill's otherwise valid objectivism was sullied by his use of a blatantly derogatory term, "Zionist." Prof. Hill would be well served to remember that words can demean all ethnic, racial, and religious groups -- not just his own. -
Posted By:
bartholomew08 at 02/08/2008 12:00:07 PM
Comment:
Maybe you just don't understand that Barack Obama does want to change things drastically, he just wants to do them in a different way.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8200e5c2-a250-4532-b318-6182083b698e -
Posted By:
BCinBK at 02/08/2008 12:00:01 PM
Comment:
Mr. Hill,
I think you are being unrealistic. While any candidate could make campaign promises to end global racism, poverty and militarism - its clear that no one could do it single handedly, and without compromise. What we need in this country and this world is a coalition b