Prometheus 6

Since you were kind enough to promote my comment to the front page, I guess I should explain just what I found so awful in Egan's column. There are so many problems, it's hard to know where to start.

Let me start off by telling you this: the one site I read every day is Bob Somerby's Daily Howler. I've been following him for years, and he has changed the way I read media. So the very first thing that leapt at me from Egan's column was the bald, unsupported assertions, like these:

Now it looks like every mention of race – from the overblown dust-up with Senator Hillary Clinton this week to the calculated comments comparing him to Sidney Poitier – is bad for Obama. A victory in South Carolina, with its heavy black vote, will be seen as one-dimensional.

Says who? Has the dustup with Ms. Clinton been bad for Obama so far? I don't know and Egan doesn't help me with that. He just flat out declares it's so and moves on. Bob Johnson's idiot remarks are bad for Obama? Why? Egan won't tell. Will an Obama victory in South Carolina seem "one-dimensional"? To whom? (I mean besides Egan himself.)

When he's not simply inventing, Egan gives us pure, standard media script and makes inconvenient facts disappear:

What tipped it off was a debate over the roles that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson played in bringing about lasting civil rights changes. Hillary said one thing. Barack demurred.

No, that's not what "tipped it off." Egan makes Billy Shaheen, Mark Penn, and Bob Kerrey all vanish. Their racially charged remarks just never happened in Egan's world and race was irrelevant until the King issue popped up.

Egan isn't reporting, he's writing a novel and a novel must have a narrative arc. The improbable candidate who rose against the odds must eventually fall. So Egan conjures up the next part of the tale and tells us how it's all going to turn out (but with appropriate hedging, just in case):

He needs people to look at him and see John Kennedy, or The Beatles, or Tiger Woods in his first Master’s tournament. He needs people to see youth, a break with the past, style under pressure.

When they see black this or black that — even a positive black first — it’s trouble.

Why? People haven't already noticed that Mr. Obama is black? I have a problem with that, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until you spelled it out so plainly:

The First Viable Black Anything has to be perfect to even be considered. That's what viable means when you're talking about Black folks.

Mr. Obama has made it this far, overcome the obstacles, built the organization, raised the money, and won the votes. But now, Egan says, no more of that! "Good show, old sport! Now from here on in, you'll have to stop being so unconventional. Play by the rules, sir! Above all, just hope no one calls attention to the fact you're black!"

If Mr. Obama is good enough--OK, I'll accept your view--perfect enough to rewrite the rule book and get this far, who is Egan to say he is now at the limit of his abilities? That from this point on, Mr. Obama must become someone other than the appealing and competitve candidate who won Iowa, nearly won New Hampshire, and, barring catastrophe, will win South Carolina?

That's just scratching the surface. There's a lot more I could say about Egan's column, but it's late. Let me just get to one of your paragraphs and I'll call this done:

And if you want to know the truth, he's not the perfect candidate for Black folks. All white constituencies expect The First Viable Black Presidential Candidate to demonstrate a lack of favoritism, specifically by not supporting any effort to undo the damage done by slavery and its legacy in white Americans. Any taint of Blackness on him will destroy his chances.

Perfect candidates are hard to come by. Mr. Obama might not be anybody's "perfect" candidate. He's just got to be a better choice than the competition. So far, he's doing pretty well.

As far as the "taint of Blackness" destroying his chances, I think that's only partly true. Other black candidates for President--Chisholm, Jackson, Sharpton--were seen by the press and by most white folks as protest candidates, in the race to try to promote a discussion of a specific set of issues and push the center a little. There's where there's some truth in Egan's work. If the white electorate starts seeing Shirley Chisholm instead of Barack Obama, OK, he's done. So far, though, I think Egan is way off. I think Mr. Obama came out the winner in the battle over the Clinton camp's race baiting.

If I had analyzed the actual article instead the social stuff around it, my post would have read almost exactly as what you just wrote. I think your last paragraph supports my observation about the taint of Blackness, though.

If "Taint of Blackness" is an abbreviation of "perceived as being interested, first and foremost, in issues that matter to black folks," then yeah, that would pretty much end his campaign.

But that's not only true for Mr. Obama. Tom Tancredo was perceived as pushing a limited set of interests--he's done. Ron Paul is widely seen as a candidate with a limited focus (and a loon)--he's drawing single digits.

As long as the white electorate perceives Mr. Obama as running for President (and not Black President), he's a candidate. That doesn't necessarily mean that any mention of race at all is going to work against him. It does mean that when race comes up, he's got to handle it calmly and matter-of-factly--just like has done so far.

"Taint of Blackness" is an abbreviation of "perceived as being interested  in issues that matter to black folks only." At all.

If I understand you correctly P6, then I'm in total agreement.  The whole spectre of the "black" president is to camouflage, by projection, perhaps a couple of things:

1. Whites don't want any of their national political wishes routed through someone Black who is not beholden to them
2. Whites don't feel like Black people issues should ever be addressed, let alone part of America's priority listed issues.

It's not just White people either.   A number of groups think their issues must take priority to and are more important than Black people's issues.  There is talk of Hillary trying to employ a "California Strategy" aimed at ensuring Hispanic voters vote their "my group first" interests.  The weirdest, most revealing thing I've heard came from a Native American female's reaction to this slam on Obama.  She suggested that Obama would be a good spokesperson for Native Americans on the "redskin" issue because he's a prominent public figure who could bring positive attention to the issue.  This was after she talked about how Obama invoking MLK gives him the taint of blackness.

So Obama could champion the cause of any group...  just not African-Americans.    

Nquest, I don't remember you ever misunderstanding me.

Nquest, well said. 

I would add that the skill level required to continually deflect the 'taint of Blackness' over such an extended period of time (the campiagn period) will eventually leave you soulless, spineless, and without roots. 

 See Tiger Woods' recent handling of the 'noose' incident for example.   

I enjoyed it and you told the truth. Speak it.