And now Affirmative Action

The always sharp Richard Kahlenberg nudges Obama toward class-based Affirmative Action. Count me in as a supporter. I just wonder how much it will be on the agenda.

The Question is Moot!

Haha. I saw this when I was like four. So. Awesome.Jesse Jackson killed on SNL.Dig the Elaine Benes appearance.

Sarah claps back

Sorta.

Let us now speak of a great man of Chicago

What, Barack? You're bugging. You know I've maintained Jim Brown was the greatest, but looking at this video man, I don't know. Sweetness was the truth. It's so weird so see a dude running holding the ball in one hand like that, and doing that high step join in mid-run. He was sick, and apparently an incredibly, incredibly kind person. Gone too soon.

More on Prop 8

Dan Savage is pissed:

I'm done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there--and they're out there, and I think they're scum--are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

Fair enough. I have no way of judging how much of a problem "gay racist white men" are for me. I don't even have a way of knowing whether gays are more or less racist than straight people. Moreover, I don't much care. But Dan's logic basically only works if you see black people strictly as a group who've been shitted on. In other words, if you believe that racism is a singular and uncomplicated variable, that black folks aren't effected by any other factors, than you'll probably agree with Dan.

But if you believe black people are not just receptacles for bigotry, not just automatons programmed by centuries of racism, if you believe they consume oxygen like the Irish, that they ingest solid food like the Italians, that they enjoy a good drink like the denizens of Appalachia, that they like to party like gays of any color, that they like to dance like white women, then you understand that no group, anywhere, ever was ennobled by oppression. (The Jews, maybe? No?)

Groups of people who end up on the bad end of history aren't heroic, they aren't better for it, they're just down--and, in most cases, they'd put the victors down if they could. What's the old saying? Black folks didn't object to slavery, they objected to being the slaves. Heh, we don't regret the Middle Passage, we regret the Sahara Desert. We regret not having guns and ships. We regret not being first. And so it is for most of humanity. It's true that individuals sometimes draw wisdom from suffering--but nations tend to be all about the zero-sum.

Look, rightly or wrongly, I'm embarrassed by whatever role black folks played in Prop 8. But that's not because I necessarily think black people are the crux of the problem, it's because I'm black and I want us to fucking represent. I'm not gay, and Dan is grappling with something that doesn't affect me in the same way. But I do know a bit about anger and generalizing. I know that, together, the two are likely responsible for some of the biggest blunders of my career. I know that they generally lead me wrong. I know that whenever I lead with broad statements like, "huge numbers of homophobic African-Americans"--or conversely--"huge number of racist Appalachians" instead of precise questions, people tend to shut down and stop listening. As well they should.

UPDATE: Sebastian shows us all how to math. It's worth reading.

Two ways of being an intellectual

I was watching that Ralph Nader clip with Kenyatta yesterday, and telling her, I don't understand why people find it hard to say, "You know what I fucked up." I don't get the obsession--especially keen among public figures--with digging the ditch even deeper. And then this morning I saw Glenn Loury on bloggingheads doing the right thing.





Let me first say that this is self-serving--I'm happy because I disagreed with Glenn's analysis of Obama. That said, I'm not so much pleased to see him say "I was wrong" as I'm pleased to see the internal grappling over that, the willingness to actually interrogate what that means. In other words, the desire to be sharper the next time out. I have great, great respect for that.

With that in mind, I don't know what to say about Shelby Steele. I think a lot of people will read this and get angry. But they shouldn't--they should be sad. Steele--according to George Will--is black America's foremost intellectual. Given that status, you'd think after publishing a book subtitled, "Why we are excited about Obama and why we can't win," you'd not rush out and publish a column cumbersomely subtitled, "Barack Obama seduced whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of racial motivation."

I not even sure what Steele's point is. I didn't like his book, so maybe it's not meant for me. But there's a deeper issue. I don't know the use of thinking for a living, if you're not exploring. Writers who exist to simply reinforce what they already think they know, are dudes on the corner shooting the shit about the world, knowing damn well they've never left the block. They are travelers, but only in their own minds. They don't want to see the world--they think the world should come, should bend, toward them. This is not a game. I moderated a panel with Steele last summer in Aspen. A few nights earlier, he'd blame the failures of the Iraq War on white guilt. I bullshit you not. What do you say to that?

Africa Dumbatta

I just typed up a post dissing Sarah Palin for not knowing that Africa was a continent. And then I deleted it. There's been a lot of stuff reported around Palin--a lot of it true. But the horror of that Katie Couric interview and Palin's general cluelessness make it easy to believe almost anything. I don't know why, but the Africa thing just smells fishy. I've got one reporter saying that Palin, essentially, knows less about the world than my eight year old son--when he was five. Maybe it's true. But I've played myself before. I'm gonna try not to do it again.

The shopping stuff seem a lot more solid:

As first reported by Newsweek on Wednesday, McCain aides said some of that money was spent on clothing for Palin's children and husband, Todd, who may have received between $20,000 and $40,000 in wardrobe purchases. The money also included thousands of dollars in shoes. Several aides also said the items included jewelry, but a Palin aide disputed that.

Top McCain aides Schmidt, Rick Davis and Nicolle Wallace were flabbergasted by the magnitude of the spending as the receipts began trickling into the Republican National Committee, aides said.

Wallace had arranged for a stylist to shop for Palin before the convention because the Alaska governor did not have a chance to return home after she was selected as McCain's running mate.

Aides familiar with the campaign's internal discussions said Wallace and other top aides authorized the purchase of three outfits for Palin to wear during convention week and three ensembles for the campaign trail. But cost was to be kept to no more than $25,000 to $35,000.

When Schmidt learned that Palin's staff was putting clothing purchases on personal credit cards, aides said he called them to stop it.

One word--ghetto.

Umbragefest--the Joe Scarborough edition

I'd likely be more sympathetic to this impassioned plea, were it not coming from Scarborough. I agree with him on the merits, sorta. It's a great day for America whenever a lot of people participate in the process, no matter who wins. I also think that are quite of few of us writers on the left, or wherever, who would benefit by living somewhere else besides New York or  Washington, D.C. I don't think we always understand the diversity of the country. I'm talking beyond race, gender and sexual orientation. I think more of that understanding is better for us as writers, and is better for the debate in general. Furthermore, the idea that education makes you more enlightened is noxious.

That said, beware the man who castigates closed-minds, while taking time to celebrate the openness of his own. Seriously, I don't know how to take a plea for more intellectual subtlety and empathy across ideology, from a cat who routinely uses the Upper West Side and Georgetown as short-hand for liberal America.

Owned--By Shep Smith, no less

This is, like, a mixture of tragedy and humor. I laughed, and then I was embarrassed for Nader. Tragicomic, I guess. Sorry, I'm not making thoughts...so. .good. Anyway, what's truly tragicomic is that I can't not blog. I love the O.C. shout-out at the end... Time's Up indeed.

I don't know but today feels kinda odd...

Johnathan reminded me of this joint. That's it, I'm off.

A note of thanks

Well it seems we've reached the end of a long journey. I actually was going to shut this blog down after the election. Then the Atlantic came along with their contracts and their wage-slavery. Anyway, I wanted to take a moment to say two things.

1.) There will be no more posting today. I take that thing about black folks and Obama winning and no work seriously. It's not a game, white folk.

2.) I owe all of you more than you know. I think my overlords would kill me if I divulged any traffic secrets. But I think I am free to tell you that, since joining the Atlantic, the viewership level has surpassed my wildest expectations. I expect to return to Earth with the end of the election. But I'd ask that those of you, who've liked what you've seen here, consider sticking around. I really do love a packed house party. I don't know what I'll do if I have to go back to DJing for myself.

Open Thread...

Seems like a good idea today, no? Also, I think I'm on BET at 10 AM EST. Check it out, if you've got a second.

Work to do

I've been working my way through this thing on blacks, homophobia and marriage equality. I don't regret any of my arguments. But, this is hard to take:

Every ethnic group supported marriage equality, except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them: a staggering 69 - 31 percent African-American margin against marriage equality.

I've given my take many times, and I stand by it, though it should be said I was wrong about Latinos. Still on a gut, emotional level, this makes me sick. If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't, at its root, boil down to "yuck," I guess I'd love to hear it. But really that isn't the point. I've always maintained that you don't have to like black people to do the right thing. Same thing here. I'm not very interested in folks's homophobia. I'm interested in why they think they should be in the business of dictating terms of love to two consenting adults. It's disgusting. And we need to let this shit go. There may be great, sound reasons beyond--the blacks are pathological!!--to explain this. But there are no great, sound reasons that excuse it. Cut this shit out. We know better. Even if other people didn't.

UPDATE: Shutting down this thread. We need to breath. We'll return to this in the morning.

One last time--We need more folks who've got a good crazy

Presidents to represent me...

Live-blogging commences soon. For now, go ahead and start talking. I'll jump in like 7-ish...

Barack Obama--Our Second Black President

Here's our first...Man, things done changed...

Jeff Goldberg testifies

He's no Joe Lowery, but he brings it all the same:

Huey Newton rises from the dead to an ensure Obama victory

Sigh....

The moment I went all in...

Iowa got me no doubt, but I still kinda seeing John Edwards. But this speech, after such a brutal race in SC, just got me. It was the end really--"the same message we had when we were up, and when were down, that out of many we are one." I often hear people talk about needing to relate to politicians beyond issues. I never got that before now. It's been great watching this election with my son, because I see a metaphor in Obama has conducted his campaign and how I try to teach him to go through life. Intelligence over bluster. Toughness over machismo. I don't need him walking in the room saying "I'MBLACKI'MBLACKI'MBLACK." Truly, there are so many more important things.

He ain't a crook, son

Just heard on MSNBC--for the 111th time--some fool claim that Dems should fear controlling Congress and the White House, because they won't be able to blame the GOP for anything. Any politico who talks like that deserves to get their head kicked in today. It's not that I don't think Dems can fail--they most certainly can. But this idea that somehow standing on the corner theorizing about what you'd do if you had your gun, is superior to being fully armed and taking some shots--and potentially missing--is silly. OK, so I was single eons ago. I know how this goes. I've been the herb sitting across the way with the gorgeous brown-eyed girl staring at him, and thinking, "If she talks to me, I'll most certainly disappoint!" But had I stayed that way, I'd be a man without a family.

People who think losing is preferable to winning everything fall into one of two categories: One--utter and complete Shook Ones. Two--losers trying to make themselves feel better, when they should be trying to understand why they lost. It's hilarious logic. Could you imagine Tom Brady saying, "Man, if we win the Super Bowl, we'll have to defend and then everyone will be gunning for us!!" Or Ali saying, "Man, if I win the belt, I'll have to fight the best boxers in the world!" It's laughable. Of course Dems might fail. So what? Are we bout it or not? The GOP would swap places with them in a second. And if they wouldn't they need to get another profession.

A little more on Crouch, but not quite...

Not to pile on, but I thought the following comments were really perceptive and get at a fundamental problem with comparing Obama to other black people on TV. From commenter Ben:

In the mind of Stanley Crouch, Barack Obama is a black politician, and Louis Farrakhan is a black politician, and therefore they are an obvious pair to compare and contrast.

That's pretty ridiculous, in the sense that there are plenty of people one could compare Obama to and learn more than comparing him to Farrakhan. These include both white and black politicians of Obama's generation. And Farrakhan's illness has basically removed him from the national scene. Obama and Farrakhan really don't have much in common beyond the ability to draw a crowd. Oh, and blackness. Which seems to be the main thing Stanley Crouch sees. If a white pundit was obsessed with making this comparison, even favorably to Obama, I would pretty much call it straight-up racism, or racialist thinking at best. Maybe we shouldn't call it that from Crouch. But, maybe we should.

And

What I'm seeing is that Crouch is stuck on the Farrakhan bogeyman as a crutch for his arguments. Again, I don't think he's using it against Obama; actually I think he's disregarding all the other political figures who weren't Farrakhan or Jesse Jackson. He's slanting the argument by using Farrakhan as symbol of the old, when there were plenty of non-extreme black politicians 20 years ago too. Harold Washington or John Lewis didn't get crowds of hundreds of thousands of people when they ran for office, but if it wasn't for people like them, Barack would not be where he is now.

I don't disbelieve his argument about increased diversity and post-simplicity. But I don't think one can prove that the attitudes of the country toward race have changed, by comparing an extreme figure like Farrakhan to a mainstream one like Obama. Of course they have different appeals, because they're very different people.

A more interesting evolution in politicians, to me, is from the generation of big-city black pols who got elected as pioneers, often on civil rights cred (Harold Washington, Marion Barry, Tom Bradley, Andrew Young, ...) to a new generation who get elected as technocrats (Cory Booker, Michael Nutter).

There's been this weird temptation to compare Barack Obama's style of leadership with Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's. I've done it myself many, many times. I think Ben gets to the heart of why that comparison is bogus, sloppy and lazy. Obama isn't an activist. He reps for the state of Illinois. Civil Rights leaders, likewise, rep for whatever cause they chose. Farrakhan isn't running for office. He isn't passing any legislation. He isn't holding any hearings. Likewise, I don't expect Obama to be leading a protest march. If you're going to compare him, it's best to juxtapose him with other actual politicians. Compare him to Edmund Edward Brooke or Doug Wilder. If you want to dis the past, at least give me a Sharpe James.

The "Obama v. Farrakhan" thing or "Obama v. Sharpton" thing or even the "Obama v. Jesse" thing appeals to two types of people. White people who despise those three. And black people, frankly like me, who get sick of those dudes being stand-ins for "what the Negroes think." But it's sloppy thinking that gives no regard to either party--it just lumps them together in a box called "Famous Black People Interest In Politics." I remember Tim Russert foolishly asking Barack Obama about something Harry Belafonte said. I remember thinking, What the fuck does Obama know about Belafonte? He's representing Illinois. That's his job. Let Harry be Harry.

The best dirty trick ever

Oh come on, you gotta give it up for this dude. Hilarious.

We don't believe you, you need more people

Yglesias on the strange, strange Joe The Plumber strategy:

It's fascinating to me how McCain, who spent so much of 1999-2005 at loggerheads with elements of the conservative base, keeps forgetting the distinction between things that make the base excited and things that help his campaign. Sarah Palin is the obvious example, but Joe is in some ways a deeper and truer example. The idea behind the Joe the Plumber saga is that Barack Obama would be bad for people like Joe, a small business owner who is (putatively) prosperous enough to be hit by Obama's tax hikes on people with over $250,000 in annual income. Of course Joe doesn't actually earn that much. But if he had, Joe would just be the very model of a hard-core Republican. Whites are more Republican than non-whites. Men are more Republican than women. Small business owners are more Republican than any other occupational group. High-income people are more Republican than are middle-class and poor people. And among white people, those with no college degree are more Republican than those with college degrees.

Thus, a white male small-business owner practicing a blue collar trade and earning enough money to be hit by Obama's tax hikes is nothing other than the Platonic Ideal of a Republican (think Tom DeLay when he owned a successful bug-killing business). Republican crowds go wild for Joe because they can identify with him. But by the same token, the people who identify with Joe are the Republican base. They can't turn this thing around. And they're certainly not the people you're supposed to be talking to in October. It'd be as if Barack Obama were criss-crossing the country with a young, hip lesbian acting as his main surrogate to attack McCain's health care plan.

Basically. I think it comes from drinking your own Kool-Aid. To these guys, America is still Joe the Plumber. This is why you hear them disqualifying whole swaths of the country with phrases like "the pro-America parts" or "real Virginia." They have mistaken their little retreat in the forest, for the forest itself. Is it not a good thing to live in a democracy? Every four years you get to show your leaders exactly who you are.

Approved by Lando Calrissian

Done my part

Went and voted this morning in Harlem. The line was like an hour or so. Charlie Rangel was like ten or fifteen places back. He stood in line the hard-time. I tried to snap a picture, but it came up all fuzzy.

The twitter renaissance

I know nothing about twittering. I don't even pretend to understand. But a buddy here at the Atlantic has requested nothing but Wu-Tang shout-outs. I think I can oblige. Taking suggesting. Here's some inspiration.

Barack speaks on his grandmother

Classy, beautiful and most importantly, human.

From the department of confusing 2008 with 1988

Stanley Crouch just can't quit Louis Farrakhan. Or Jesse Jackson. Or Tawana Brawley. Or gangsta rap. It's always nice to see a writer who has repeatedly physically assaulted folks for the crime of disagreeing with him, get on his moral high horse. The sad thing is that I agree with some of his point--but they're buried beneath his contempt for the 90s. These guys are going to be fighting with each other until the end. It's like their only way of seeing the world. The young people who organized for Barack ain't thinking about Farrakhan.

Barack Obama's grandmother has died

I guess I've already said my piece. I don't know that I've got anything to add.

Crazy things are happening

I was reading Sean Wilentz piece in the Daily Beast and got pissed off readin him defend Andy Young and Bob Johnson for the dumb shit they said during the primaries. Wilentz actually called Johnson "one of the most respected deacons of the African-American community." But I decided I wasn't going to be pissed. In fact, it was actually quite small of me to be pissed. Instead I'd remember that the best meditation on Barack Obama I've heard--bar none--was delivered, freestyle, by a disciple of Martin Luther King. The fact is that Barack Obama would not have been elected, not just without the past struggles of our greatest generation, but without their current support. They don't want to all be Bob Johnson. We don't want to all be Pacman Jones. Don't believe what they tell you about a "generational struggle." Even when the "they" is me.

Get used to this clip. I may post it ten times tomorrow--though I wish I had better video. Who can tell, indeed.

They don't don't dance no mo'

Folks, I present the Obama Hustle. Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing a Sarah Palin Electric Slide. Props to Nat Moore for putting me on...

The future from the right

I haven't been following the "future of conservativism" debate as well as I should have. But I thought this was a pretty interesting, and more importantly, self-aware piece of writing by Ross. I'm interested in where these guys end up:

Conservatism in the United States faces a series of extremely knotty problems at the moment. How do you restrain the welfare state at a time when the entitlements we have are broadly popular, and yet their design puts them on a glide path to insolvency? How do you respond to the socioeconomic trends - wage stagnation, social immobility, rising health care costs, family breakdown, and so forth - that are slowly undermining support for the Reaganite model of low-tax capitalism? How do you sell socially-conservative ideas to a moderate middle that often perceives social conservatism as intolerant? How do you transform an increasingly white party with a history of benefiting from racially-charged issues into a party that can win majorities in an increasingly multiracial America?  etc.

Billy Dee Williams says "Young man, pull up your pants..."

Hah, Obama on the question that vexes all black people over 40. You know where I am on this one. When I was a kid Negroes were wearing their pants backwards--literaly. A few years back, when I worked at the Voice, I couldn't walk through the East Village without seeing a young lady in low-riders with her thong showing. I didn't have a problem with that. Hmmm, that's not the same thing, I guess.

Uhm, moving on...I thought the "Brothers need to pull their pants up" line was pretty funny. It's good to see a dude operating at that level who still has a sense of humor.

Awesome

Yes, I'll have to stop saying that soon too. Anyway, msnbc.com is streaming live coverage. If you're like me, and have no TV, this is a god-send.

Ta-Nehisi sweats himself

Even more this time. Here I am making an appearance in a piece by Paul Frank Bruni (How embarrassing, I was thinking of my Dad as I wrote this. Ugh. Frank, if you're out there, my apologies. No disrespect intended.). I'm referred to as "the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates." Hmm, sounds important. I just as well could have been "that dude who lays on his couch, and orders his son to fetch his shoes, Ta-Nehisi Coates." Guess that's kind of long. And here's a Q&A with Bookslut. Oh yes, there will be Spiderman references:

I wanted to ask about Marvel Comics.

Beautiful.

The fantasy of those books is centered on the idea that you have these kids who feel themselves to be freaks and they get to live out this fantasy where their freaky nature is realized as having these great powers. They end up being sexier, they get to wear tight clothes and they get to beat people up. How does this fantasy play out for a black kid growing up in the crack epidemic, living with a perpetual fear of violence?

I think the important thing is to not internalize your own persecution. "Persecution" is too strong a word.

Oppression?

Yeah, that might be too strong a word too. [pause] Kids are mean. They're beautiful. But they can be cruel. But for all of that, there's the idea that you have more worth than they tell you you have. So don't internalize what they tell you. That's the obvious parable. That's X-Men, obviously. The greatest thing about Spider-Man is that everyone in New York hated him. (laughs) I didn't know that at first. I came to Spider-Man first through the cartoons and then I started reading the comic books. And it was a shock to me that people hated him. They threw stuff at him. They cursed at him. I don't know if it's still like that in Marvel today. He's gone through some changes. But in the '80s, you know, Spider-Man was not liked. That was just so intriguing to me.

13 month old baby, broke the looking glass

Matt has an important post for those of who believe in things we don't understand, and well, are suffering:

Something funny happened in 2004 where a lot of progressives convinced themselves near the end that John Kerry was likely to win the election even though he was narrowly behind in the polls. Then a lot of people have gone and misremembered that as thinking that Kerry was likely to win because he was ahead in the polls, which he wasn't. Thus, many are left unable to believe that Obama's lead in the polls makes his victory likely....

The theory behind "Kerry's gonna win" was that undecideds were likely to break heavily for the challenger -- heavily enough to make up his small gap in the polls. That wasn't a crazy thing to believe, but it clearly had a whiff of wishful thinking about it. At the moment, though, Obama just has a big lead.

It's amazing how we've shifted the blame for our 04 heartbreak over to the polls. It's true the exit polls blew it. But the actual polls called it pretty right--and the gap between Obama and McCain is much larger than the gap between Bush and Kerry. One commenter in Matt's thread makes a great point--the GOP and the Dems have swapped places. This year, there is a class of righties dreaming of a tightening. much as so many of us imagined Kerry clossing in '04. We simply could not believe that the country would re-elect Bush. Now, I don't think a lot of them can believe that the country is going to elect a black dude named Barack Hussien Obama from the South Side of Chicago. And, I guess, neither can many of us. No matter, all this handwringing just gives me a an excuse to hit you with the old school Stevie Wonder.

A bad time for the empire...

Man, Wade Phillips is gonna be Wade Phillips, but my son's team lost yesterday 13-0. Last game of the season. Kinda horrifying to see 8-year old kids crying on the sidelines because they wanted to win so bad. The kid was damn near inconsolable.

In other news, the Titans look real. Consider this your NFL open thread.