Like Senator Barack Obama, I’m also perplexed by the question of whether he is “black enough” or not.
First of all, does the white community ask if Hillary Clinton or John Edwards is “white enough”? And if Barack isn’t deemed to be “black enough,” does that mean Black democrats will vote for a white person instead? I’m confused by the whole logic of this line of inquiry. I don’t ever criticize Asian-American politicians as being not “yellow enough” be voted for, or Asian-American actors of not being “yellow enough” to act.
Considering the United States has had only white male presumably heterosexual married (Masonic?) presidents since its inception, any deviation from that is refreshing. We’ve had one Catholic president. Maybe we could have a woman or “black enough” president soon. Who knows?
Well actually, we have had one bachelor president. Good ol’ James Buchanan. Sort of the exception that proves the rule, though, what with him being therefore known as the “bachelor president”.
Agreed on the “black enough” sentiment. It’s the most amazingly stupid argument, and I can’t believe any people who actually consider themselves journalists give it any credence.
Thanks for the correction. I didn’t know Buchanan was a bachelor.
“Black enough” :) What an idiotic racial comment.
If Frank Zappa was still alive and he was a presidential candidate, and of course I was a U.S citizen that’s who I would have voted for. He was neither a democrat or a republican, so I guess that would not work anyhow?
I’m glad we have more than two choices in Norway.
Because of the “black enough” i started thinking of a really cool zappa quote : I’m not black, but there’s a whole lot of times I wish I could say I’m not white
It is not a question. It is a seed of doubt with a meaning that cannot be defined, but can, with repetition, become a true reason to dismiss the validity of the candidate without argument .
The same as the phrase I am seeing a lot that H.C. is ‘fatally flawed’. How? why? No real substance to it, but it is there for an opponent to claim, and sheeple to accept , as a reason for dismissing her as a valid candidate. Negative reinforcement.
It is propoganda. J. Goebbels would have been pretty impressed!
Very well put, Zimmer.
I am not at all perplexed by that question. I believe that asking whether Barack Obama is “black enough” is merely another way of asking if the policies that Obama advocates seem to advance the well being of the majority of black folks. While taking the question literally makes it seem like a stupid question, taking it metaphorically makes it a very serious and justified question. Surely black folks, just like any other group, are entitled to ask and to have answered how the policies of any candidate will affect them as a group: even when the question is asked metaphorically.
Sarge: If that’s the case, are black people going to vote for a white person? Is a white person more likely to have policies that benefit blacks? Is Clinton “black enough” to vote for?
I feel compelled to point out that even if you interpert the statement this way, it’s still inherently racist. It is a question that inherently states that one race should or does have a policy advantage based solely on race.
I’m curious what will happen in the upcomming elections. Americans in general are apathetic about voting. Is the presence of a history making candidate enough to get them to come vote? Will more black people come vote because there is a blank candidate? Will more women come vote because there is a female candidate? Or will collective apathy still remain the norm, after a lot of big talk, and we end up with another president that fits Ubuntucat’s description?
As much as I’d like to see a woman president, I don’t trust Hillary as far as I can throw her.