Prometheus 6

IMO,

 they used Black 'journalists', well columnists, to get this ball rolling. That guy from the Los Angeles Times, Debra Dickerson,Stanley Crouch, Cynthia (I forget her name, but she's with the Atlanta Journal- her appearances on Chris Matthews on this subject raised my blood pressure) and several other columnists, have brought out this 'issue'. It hurt that Black folks would actually be full participants in this claptrap, but let's not deny it - they were.

 It actually was an issue in his race against Bobby Rush, just like Sharpe leveled it against Booker the first time he ran, and like Booker, he was clobbered with it against Rush. Not so much in his Senate race, though Keyes DID bring it up, but it's back again. I've said before that it's a question for White people, and Black people who want to undermine him.

they used Black 'journalists', well columnists, to get this ball rolling.

Like I said, Black Conservatives and Tucker Carlson. 

I didn't see Cynthia McKinney's contribution. 

The NPR discussion was a good one overall, which is not to say any issue was settled in any way. 

But the woman from the Atlanta Journal/Constitution's first name IS CYnthia - pass the paperbag test, long hair, full lips. She's been a full participant in this from the getgo. She might have not been at the NABJ, though I'm sure she was, but when this first began, she was ' all up in it'. She just won a Pulitzer Prize.

Cynthia Tucker. THAT I saw.

So. Black Conservatives and Cynthia Tucker Carlson. I think my point is holding up quite nicely.

Interesting perspective...

I think there probably are some African-American journalists who have written columns/articles about the Obama's "blackness," but like you, I imagine that they're few in number. I agree with you that, for the most part this has been a debate pushed by outside agitators like Tucker Carlson. But, if I might add to your imaginary poll, I'm also curious to know how many of those journalists, reading the stories from their colleagues, stopped and decided to voice their opinion--not a defense of Obama, per se, but a defense of blackness (and all its varying shades of grey). I'd imagine the numbers for those two polls might be comparable.

Given that, I'm not entirely convinced that Obama responded to the "black enough" question at NABJ because of a specific gripe about the journalists themselves; instead, I think he saw this as an audience shares his struggles. Are there any black professionals who have grown up and become successful (as the members of the NABJ presumably are) and not gone through this quandry? I've never been asked personally if I'm "black enough" but I have met black enough's twin sister, acting white...and I imagine that pretty much everyone in the NABJ crowd has shared that experience...

Yes, he did preface his discussion of the issue by saying that it's been "perpetrated through our press," but I think that could have been as much about their silence, as it is about whether they'd written about it themselves. I'm not sure.

Overall, I thought this part of the Q&A was insightful--certainly offering Obama the opportunity to be professorial, which is a role he clearly enjoys. I appreciate that he broadened his answer on the "black enough" question to being something beyond "can I hail a cab?" to this. I think he skirted the physical appearance issue a bit (as was addressed in the NPR segment), but I can understand why.

For those interested in the audio of this particular conversation (in its entirety) from the NABJ, I've cut it from their podcast and uploaded it. I thought his answer to the first part of the question--that is, why, given Harold Ford's loss in Tennessee and Ken Blackwell's loss in Ohio, he was hopeful that America was ready to elect a black president--was great. I'm not sure that I've heard him address the fact that people who wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race aren't likely to vote for Hillary or Edwards either because of their ideology...which is something I've waited to hear him say.

"I'm not sure that I've heard him address the fact that people who wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race aren't likely to vote for Hillary or Edwards either because of their ideology...which is something I've waited to hear him say".

 Is that a fact? 

It is NOT a fact. Largely true but not absolute. I'll probably link that audio in a post tonight, though.

    I agree with P6, I dint think the Black press is driving this question. In my mind this is nothing more than an attempt perpetuated by the white media to try to shape Black America’s opinion of Obama. If they can get a good portion of his real base – Blacks – to question his Blackness then his chances of becoming president becomes even more remote. It is well known that African Americans are the true base of the Democratic party. (I have always questioned our wisdom to be the base of either party that won’t reciprocate.) And the white press continues point out how Obama is tailing Clinton in the poles among Blacks. (I seriously question the sampling pool of such poles because I have yet to speak to any Black person, of any class who has asked such a ridiculous question. And most, though not all, that I’ve spoken support him outright and to see him in no other light but one of eager anticipation and hope.)

    I think this is apart of a loose strategy to eliminate Obama, or at least minimize him as a candidate. Without Black America there would have never been a Clinton Administration to speak of. The Clinton campaign knows this and the white media, which support them, know this. I think that the Clintons and the media are no more confident in Hillary’s (or as I call her Billary) lead in the poles among Blacks than I am. It is my belief that the closer to Primary time it gets, the more support Obama is bound to get from Blacks. And I think he will probably get close to 95% of the Black support. This would mean disaster for Clinton and the other democratic candidates in both the Primaries and the General elections. I could be wrong about this, but I think the Clintons and the media know this, and are trying hard to artificially siphon and split his support among Blacks because they are worried about his Primary chances more than they are openly letting on. At least in the Primaries, Obama poses a serious threat to all the candidates, not just Clinton. This is why, in my mind, we’re witnessing the gang-up on Obama in the debates, especially the one here in Chicago.

     Obama’s race will always be an issue, just like any other minority candidate in America. That’s life in these United States. And they will use it any way they can imagine. “Is Obama Black enough” is just the latest.          

This morning on NPR Juan Williams was pontificating in his usual inimitable style when he declared in response to a question that, in effect, there was no difference between asking Mitt Romney about why none of his five sons have enlisted in the military to fight the War on Terror and quering Barack Obama as to the extent of his feelings of affinity with black Americans because his mother was white. The NPR gatekeeper, aka the anchor, did not, of course, dare to breach the code of presumption among the Inside-The-Beltway-Journalists (aka ITBJ) to inquire as to why Br. Williams felt that there was an equivalency between the two questions.

Williams, God bless his Fox News heart, however, saved the day for those of us lacking sufficient gray matter or having temporarily misplaced our bullshit detectors. Br. Williams said that asking these kinds of questions represented a desire on the part of people to "pierce the veil" around candidates to develop a better understanding of their motivations and actions.

Now, I could be wrong but Obama has always looked like a black American to me. Shoot, he even sounds and speaks, at times, in the cadences and inflections of black Americans. And, by the way, his wife is black and their children look black too. I wasn't aware, until Br. Williams pointed it out, that Obama's blackness was being concealed behind a veil. I also do not know any black people who think that Obama is not black. In any case, it seems to me that urging young people to go die in a war while your own adult children take a pass on the opportunity does require some explanation.

The NPR gatekeeper, aka the anchor, did not, of course, dare to breach the code of presumption among the Inside-The-Beltway-Journalists (aka ITBJ) to inquire as to why Br. Williams felt that there was an equivalency between the two questions.

I'm still annoyed at Mr. Williams' defense of the segregation authorization. He's better than Hannity's Foil, Mr. Colmes.

I think this is apart of a loose strategy to eliminate Obama, or at least minimize him as a candidate. Without Black America there would have never been a Clinton Administration to speak of. The Clinton campaign knows this and the white media, which support them, know this. I think that the Clintons and the media are no more confident in Hillary’s (or as I call her Billary) lead in the poles among Blacks than I am. It is my belief that the closer to Primary time it gets, the more support Obama is bound to get from Blacks. And I think he will probably get close to 95% of the Black support. This would mean disaster for Clinton and the other democratic candidates in both the Primaries and the General elections. I could be wrong about this, but I think the Clintons and the media know this, and are trying hard to artificially siphon and split his support among Blacks because they are worried about his Primary chances more than they are openly letting on. At least in the Primaries, Obama poses a serious threat to all the candidates, not just Clinton. This is why, in my mind, we’re witnessing the gang-up on Obama in the debates, especially the one here in Chicago.

You probably are correct. And, I believe Obama is doing the right thing by concentrating on New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. I'm going to stick to my belief that Black folks main question for Obama is:

WILL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE FOR HIM?

That really is the bottom line for the masses of Black folk. They are skeptical that he can get their votes. And, I believe they are watching him, make it through month after month, running his two campaigns. While there are skeptics who won't vote for him, I believe the majority of Black folk are just taking a ' wait and see' attitude. And, if he can prove that he can get White votes, then they'll reward him down the line when it comes to their primaries. Just my personal hypothesis. Which is why the Clinton camp has desperately been trying to pump up the Hillary Is Inevitable Mantra.

There's an interesting mirror image between the Obama and Clinton constituencies: Obama gets the limo liberals, Clinton has gotten a lot of the old line black "opinion-makers" and intellectuals -- Toni Morrison, et.al., with Cornell West (and Orlando Patterson) being exceptions.

The question is who can actually appeal to constituencies that actually matter -- can either actually appeal to the mass public enough to bring out the vote.

This is a question that the media has basically dodged -- just as the 'mass public' rarely mobilizes to vote, so the modern journalistic profession rarely gets out onto the street.

There are two bigger questions

A) "is Obama 'too black' for 'Reagan Democrats.' and

B) Does Obama and his campaign take the cynical road and avoid 'Reagan Dems' or does he attack Hillary on terrain that is supposedly hers. (i.e. is his campaign too full of limo liberals and bourgie blacks who are afraid to walk into the tracts and projects.)

So far, Obama has been a tough and succesful politician because he has the courage to challenge the establishment's conventional wisdom, and to run on bread-and butter issues of health and welfare, as well as moral issues of responsibility and decency. 

My instinct on these questions: no, and the latter.

It may take Iowa and New Hampshire results to force the cognoscenti to rething what, exactly, a 'Reagan Democrat' actually is.

This discussion is resurrected today in the latter part of an article on Obama in the Washington Post magazine. His comments at NABJ are not mentioned

That's going to be the official narrative. Watch.

I mean, they were thoughtful, deeper than superficial, spoke to several truths about Black professional life, i.e., they showed complexity.

 I ask again, why would they be interested in THOSE comments at NABJ?

After all, you  know what happened at the NABJ, and you saw the AP accompanied story....does it even seem like the reporter was at the same event as you?