Whatever one may think of Rush Limbaugh, the controversy surrounding his attempts to participate in a consortium buying the Rams has made for some strange bedfellows. Apparently Limbaugh was falsely accused of making racist statements he did not make. Juan Williams of FOX News stood up for the truth and was told he should “get back on the porch.” Understandably, Mr. Williams was furious. While he has at times been critical of President Obama, it is not his habit. Imagine his horror when he realized that if he dares for once to tell a truth that is not “politically correct,” he too will be thrown under the bus by race baiters.

Mr. Williams interviews commentator Tammy Bruce and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, PhD, a former NFL player, conservative pastor and African American who is close friends with Mr. Limbaugh. This 7:45 video is well worth your time…*

This segment speaks truth to power. What do you think?

Once again, I am in the minority. While I stood and still stand as a member of the 18 million strong majority of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, I represent an infinitesimal minority as a member of the less than 10% of African Americans who did not vote for Senator Obama. In this peculiar, yet familiar position, I find myself reflecting on the current state of race relations as it applies to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.

I have been shocked and saddened by the leeway and passes, concerning transgressions no non-black person would be permitted, that the black community, by and large, has given to Senator Obama, all in the name of “the struggle” (read: getting him elected). He has been allowed to blatantly discriminate against religious and ethnic groups.

Had it been McCain or Hillary doing the same to African Americans, there would have been outrage, and justifiably so. However, too many brushed it aside as “something he has to do to get elected.”

Senator Obama was allowed to defame the black church by conflating it with the racist rants of Rev. Wright in order to save his political career, and the majority of the black community acquiesced, some nodding their heads, others looking the other way.

Senator Obama has been allowed to ignore our community on several occasions.

A few of us got upset and spoke out, but were quickly silenced with threats and intimidation. I’m sure we all remember how Tavis Smiley spoke his mind:

And then, this happened:

Tavis Smiley, the bestselling author of the “Covenant With Black America,” is in a world turned upside down. He said he’s being “hammered,” “barbecued,” and is “catching hell” from black Americans for suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a major mistake by declining to speak at the State of the Black Union event that Smiley plans to host next week in New Orleans.

“There’s all this talk of hater, sellout and traitor,” Smiley said to me in a telephone interview. Smiley even mentioned getting death threats, but wouldn’t elaborate. He said his office has been flooded with angry e-mails. “I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It’s getting to be crazy,” Smiley said.

…

For Smiley, the tumult is a major turnabout. Until now he was a darling commentator in black America. His passion for the people endeared him to many. People listened to his commentaries on the popular Tom Joyner Morning Show, and snapped up so many copies of the “Covenant” that it made the top ten lists of the both the New York Times and the Washington Post. When Smiley talked, black people listened.

“One of my friends said, ‘you are being barbecued in the blogosphere,’” Smiley said. He told Black America Web writer Michael Cottman’s that “I’m catching hell.” In our interview, Smiley said: “This is the first time in my entire career that I have found myself in this kind of relationship with some folk in black America. I now know what it feels like to have the weight of the Internet world bearing down on you. Man, it’s an eye opener when you get caught in the middle of it.”

In the same breath, Tavis Smiley, a man who has endeared himself to our community and worked and spoken out on our behalf, is called a sell out for not unquestioningly supporting Senator Obama, a man we hardly know, who’s “credentials” with the black community pale in comparison, but Obama is praised and passionately protected for essentially selling us all out to get elected. Something isn’t adding up.

Currently, I believe too many of us in the black community are painting Senator Obama as someone and something he is not. Senator Obama is not a champion of the black community. I’m hard pressed to find one African American supporter of Senator Obama that can name one thing he has done for the black community, other than give a speech or two (for his own political gain) and run for president. None of which have anything to do with us as a community.

I’ve heard African Americans say, “Well, he’s trying to achieve Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.” This, to me, is the ultimate disrespect and perversion of Dr. King’s dream.

Dr. King didn’t march, suffer abuse, get arrested and die so that Barack Obama, or any person of color for that matter, could be president. Dr. King was not so shortsighted. He fought for equality, for equal opportunity, so that all would be judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King fought so that if a woman or man of any color or creed were worthy and deserving of the presidency, then they would not be denied due to ignorance and prejudice.

Today, too many African Americans are simply judging Barack Obama by the color of his skin, and not by the content of his character, much less the depth of his achievements and length of his resumé.

There is no need to pretend that this is not the case for many (not all), for when we are in “friendly” company, the truth comes out. One woman looked me in the eye and said, point blank, “I’m voting for Obama because he is black. Why shouldn’t I? I’ve been voting for white men all my life.”

A friend of mine apparently had an African American male at a restaurant tell her, “A vote for anyone else is a vote for slavery. Obama ‘09 [sic]!” I know black Republicans who vehemently disagree with Obama on all policy issues, but are voting for him and have the audacity to chastise me for not supporting Obama and claim I’m “forgetting the movement.” That many of us feel this way is sad, yet understandable, but not tolerable.

If voting for Senator Obama isn’t about race, why have I been called an “Uncle Tom”? Why have I been called a “race traitor”? Why have I been called a “house n*gger”? Why is the harshest treatment of “dissenters” reserved for those of us of similar pigmentation to Senator Obama? It’s best we are honest with ourselves.

For all of the racism (yes, that is what it is) festering within the black community, the paranoia surrounding non-black racism (termed such because Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, etc. are being rampantly accused of racism as well. “White racism” does not begin to encompass the range of accusations) has reached fever pitch.

Many are and have been arguing that calling Senator Obama inexperienced is racism; recalling the truths that many of us believe that we must and often do have to be twice as qualified, if not more, than white candidates in order to be chosen for the same position. Academic studies bare out the truth of this, and the same truth for women of all colors competing against men.

Too many claim, loudly and directly, that any person, who is not African American who chooses not to support Senator Obama does so primarily due to racism. Yes, there are individuals who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is half African, but there are also people who refused to vote for Senator Clinton because she was female, and there are still some who will refuse to vote for Senator McCain because of his age (African Americans are not the sole targets of oppression). But these people do not make up the majority of voters. The majority of them voted for Senator Clinton, not against Senator Obama and vice versa.

Most importantly, for the overwhelming majority of those who did not vote for Senator Obama in the primary, and for those who will not do so in November, racism was not and will not be a factor.

I have written all of this because I believe we are at an important impasse. The way our community, and the American citizenry at large proceeds from now on will determine the trajectory of race, gender and generational relations for decades to come. I have thought for a long time about how to express an empathy but also a gutteral disagreement with the aforementioned sentiments as they apply to Senator Obama.

During my thoughts, my mind stumbled upon a memory of an episode of one of my favorite political satires, The Boondocks. The particular episode deals chiefly with R. Kelly, the allegations against him, and the reaction of the black community. As R. Kelly has recently been acquitted on all counts of child pornography, this episode holds even more relevance for the current time. Moreover, I find humor is often the best way to deliver the toughest message.

[Disclaimer: The Boondocks is a show aimed at political commentary and social satire of race relations, specifically as they apply to the black community, seen through the eyes of some in the black community. As such, while the following clip contains some offensive language, it should be viewed through the lens of satire and critique. Also, at roughly 2:00 in the video, it seems the original uploader has inserted music that is not original to the episode. Please disregard it.

Lastly, I will not respond to claims of "racism," concerning the video clip, in the comments (as a black woman, frankly, I am tired of them, and am fully capable of recognizing and critiquing racism when I see, exhibit or experience it). If you can't handle political satire, perhaps you should not be on the internet.]

For me, Huey’s speech (the young man with afro), beginning at 2:21, is the part I find most relevant and most in sync with my current viewpoints regarding Senator Obama and how many in the black community view him. Huey’s speech is as follows:

“What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Every famous n*gga that gets arrested is not Nelson Mandela. Yes, the government conspires to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges, but R. Kelly is not one of those men. We all know the n*gga can sing.

But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums? You a fan of R. Kelly? You wanna help R. Kelly? Then get some counseling for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some older women. Hide his camcorder. But don’t pretend like the man is a hero…and stop the damn dancing! Act like you got some G*d damn sense, people! Damn! I’m through playing around here!”

Huey, as our protagonist, speaks truth to power. I believe his general sentiment can be translated to the current situation within the black community regarding Senator Obama and his candidacy.

Every black man that runs for office is not a saint, nor a victim. It is not our responsibility as African Americans to vote for him, protect him from legitimate criticism, or turn a blind eye to his glaring short comings because of a coincidence of pigmentation. Yes, there is racism in our society.

Yes, many African Americans and other ethnic minorities, as well as women, have been qualified for positions, only to be told to work harder as they were passed over for a white, or younger, or male (or all three) lesser experienced individual. Yes, the United States Federal Government, state governments, and local governments, have propagated injustices, and continue to propagate injustices against African Americans.

Yes, many, including Republicans and Democrats have used dirty tricks, back room deals, and racism as a weapon against a plethora of candidates, black, white, female and male, robbing them of their ability to achieve and to serve.

But Senator Barack Obama is not one of those candidates. We all know the man is a decent public speaker. We all know he is the first candidate of color to come this close to attaining the presidency.

“But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums?” If you are a supporter of Senator Obama, and want to help him, then instruct him to go back to the Senate for a few years, at least serve his first term, and gain some experience. Introduce him to some non-radical non-domestic terrorist, non-racist and non-anti-semitic preachers, and non-convicted on 16 of 24 counts of corruption friends! Help him form a platform and a record, and teach him not to change his position on an issue every time he goes to a new state or switches from primary to general election mode. But do not pretend like he is above reproach, a saint, or a messiah. And stop covering up for him or threatening and intimidating those who disagree with you. He is a politician!

And please, stop the chanting and fainting. It’s creepy.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

______________

I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.

His political repertoire has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did—i.e., getting props both for emoting with the black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming “tough love” message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor black communities. Because he’s able to claim racial insider standing, he actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.

It may be instructive to look at the outfit where he did his “community organizing,” the invocation of which makes so many lefties go weak in the knees. My understanding of the group, Developing Communities Project, at the time was that it was simply a church-based social service agency. What he pushed as his main political credential then, to an audience generally familiar with that organization, was his role in a youth-oriented voter registration drive.

The Obama campaign has even put out a misleading bio of Michelle Obama, representing her as having grown up in poverty on the South Side, when, in fact, her parents were city workers, and her father was a Daley machine precinct captain. This fabrication, along with those embroideries of the candidate’s own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin narrative. However, in Obama’s case, the license taken not only underscores Obama’s more complex relationship to insider politics in Daley’s Chicago; it also underscores how much this campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.)

Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz, a Clinton supporter, noted that the Obama campaign advisers have tried to have it both ways on the race question. On the one hand, they present their candidate as a figure who transcends racial divisions and “brings us together”; on the other hand, they exhort us that we should support his candidacy because of the opportunity to “make history” (presumably by nominating and maybe electing a black candidate). Increasingly, Obama supporters have been disposed to cry foul and charge racism at nearly any criticism of him, in steadily more extravagant rhetoric.

The campaign’s accusation that the Clinton team made Obama look darker in a photo or video clip than he actually is—and what exactly are we to make of that as an accusation?—and the hysterically indignant reaction to Geraldine Ferraro’s statement that much of Obama’s success stems from the fact that “the country is caught up in the concept” of a black candidacy are no different from the campaign’s touting its “historic” character. Obama supporters fulsomely attacked even Clinton’s attempts to portray him as inexperienced, which is standard fare in political campaigns. They also charged that she was playing to racism. See most recently Harvard sociologist Lawrence Bobo’s characterization that she was “disrespecting” black people, a leftover canard from Jesse Jackson’s campaigns (which, lest amnesia overtake us, were also extolled as historic firsts).

The Jackson comparison points to one of Obama’s key contradictions: Like Jackson, he wants to appeal to blacks with the “it’s our time now” line, and to white liberals with that, as well as with the “I’m black in a different way from Jesse” qualifier and the religious conversion rhetoric. A friend said that Obama’s campaign, in stressing his appeal to rapturous children and liberal, glamorous yuppies, offers vicarious identification with these groups, as well as the chance to become sort of black in that ultra-safe and familiar theme park way.

I often tell my students that, even though Paul Wellstone was my good friend from college to his death and an individual for whom I always had great respect, no politician in this system is likely to be a person you’d want for your sister-in-law or brother-in-law. And, as many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November.

Frankly, I suspect that Clinton can’t beat him either, but there’s no way that Obama will carry most of the states in November that he’s won in the primaries and caucuses. And, while it makes some liberals feel good to think that a majority of the American electorate could vote for a black Presidential candidate, we should keep in mind that the Republicans haven’t let one dog out of the kennel against him yet. The Jeremiah Wright contretemps is only the first bark.

Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people. And Obama’s belonging to Wright’s church in the first place was quite likely part of establishing a South Side bourgeois nationalist street cred because his political base was with Hyde Park/University of Chicago liberals and the foundation world.

For now, the Jeremiah Wright connection probably won’t hurt him too much, partly because the Republicans at this point mainly may want to keep him and Clinton bleeding each other as long as possible. And his Philadelphia compromise speech—a string of well-crafted and coordinated platitudes and hollow images worthy of an SUV commercial, grounded with the reassuring “acknowledgment” of blacks’ behavioral inadequacies—has gained him breathing room by holding out a vague promise of racial “reconciliation” that has appealed to centrist liberals ever since Booker T. Washington’s comparably eloquent 1895 accommodation to Southern white supremacy. Obama gets credit for “opening a conversation” on race, for “taking the matter on squarely.” But he doesn’t really speak to what we ought to be doing to address the injustices, past and present, that he mentions. Despite all the babble about Obama’s transcendence, Obama persists in portraying black Americans as a stereotypical monolith: blacks feel x; whites feel y. And the trope of black “anger” is a tired chestnut that neither explains nor characterizes political grievances or aspirations. (By the way, Obama’s casting Wright’s alleged “anger” as generational is entirely consistent with his earlier praise of Ronald Reagan for sensing Americans’ desire to undo the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.)

Because he’s tried carefully to say enough of whatever the audiences he’s been speaking to at the time want to hear while leaving himself enough space later on to deny his intentions to leave that impression, his record represents precisely the “character” weakness the Republicans have exploited in every Democratic candidate since Dukakis: Another Dem trying to put things over on the American people.

Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

Correction: Adolph Reed Jr. apologizes to Katha Pollitt for stating that her daughter influenced her to support Obama. Her daughter did no such thing.

Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

::::::::::::::

Reprinted by permission of The Progressive. Reed’s article was part of a debate on Obama in the May issue that included an affirmative by Edwidge Danticat.

Some parishioners at the United Church of Christ are so steamed by Barack Obama’s condemnation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that they say the presidential hopeful might want to find another place to worship.

“I don’t think Obama will still be welcomed here,” said Odean Lathan, 80, who was attending a bible study session. [...]

“[Rev. Wright] should have waited until the election is over,” Lathan said. “I hope Obama stays strong. He’s looking weak.” [More below.]

Blogger jlazard10 wrote “A Sad Day For Uppity Negroes: The Day Obama threw Wright under the bus” at Uppity Negro Network:

[W]hat is my aught with Obama? It’s plain and simple: he’s refusing to be true to himself. [...]

When the next racial flare-up happens (as is sure to happen, I mean, this is the United States) will Obama pander because he’s not the president of the United States of Black America, but rather the president of the United States of America including everyone?

Frankly, I’m going out on a limb and saying this guy can’t be trusted in the black community. …

Here’s more from the news story, “DISPUTE DIVIDES CHURCH’S CONGREGANTS“:

Another congregant, Wright’s next door neighbor, said the controversial pastor wasn’t out to hurt Obama’s campaign – although he “most definitely” did damage it.

“I don’t think it was an ulterior motive,” Ophelia Guillermo said of the fiery rev’s appearance before the National Press Club. “I think he was answering back because he needed to defend himself.”

The 58-year-old nurse, who lives next to Wright’s historic South Side home, said his outburst on Monday didn’t change her vote because she was already for Obama’s rival.

“I’m for Hillary,” she said. “I think you need experience to handle the country.”

Another congregant, Monique Taylor, 49, disagreed.

Obama “never did leave Trinity,” she said. “Rev. Wright is not Trinity. We still go on.” …

Here’s MORE from Blogger jlazard10’s compelling post, “A Sad Day For Uppity Negroes: The Day Obama threw Wright under the bus” at Uppity Negro Network:

Frankly, I don’t care if John McCain or Hillary Clinton became president as a result of all this, I really don’t; there are far greater issues than the presidency at stake here as far as I’m concerned. If Obama had denounced Rev. Wright again, but somehow been able to deal with the issues that Rev. Wright had brought up as far as “different not meaning deficient” and the issues of “the Black Church” then perhaps he would have lost Indiana and North Carolina proving him ultimately un-electable. But for me, as long as those issues had been brought to the forefront of the American conscious I would have said “Job well done Senator.”

[...]

So, yes, it is a very sad day for the Uppity Negro Network and many other uppity Negroes across this country and abroad, as the UNN now officially ends Obamawatch! 2008 on April 29th, 2008 approximately at 9PM EDT, as this Network now is officially throwing Barack Obama under the bus, as The Black Snob suggested “shoved into the subway” or just be toally black about it and “pull a driveby” on his ass! This reeks of politics as usual for those of us in the black community: white politicians and blacks who affectionately call Uncle Tom’s essentially grabbing us by the wrist and bending over to us saying “Naughty, naughty, naughty! I ought to wash out your mouth with soap for saying that!” and then giving us a swat on the backside, sending us back to our crib.

can someone PLEASE do a political cartoon of that!

I think Obama could truly take a lesson from Jeremiah Wright: be true to God and to himself, and no one else; not a Congress, not the white middle-class voters of Indiana, nor even the black community. If his being true to himself happens to lie within one of those contexts, then so be it.

Clearly Jeremiah Wright has no problems speaking on his convictions and neither should Sen. Barack Obama.

Keep it uppity, and keep it radically true, JLL

I sense a great deal of deeply-felt pain in this post. And in the words of Obama’s fellow congregants.

It is not right that African-Americans have to go through this.

jlazard10’s plea to Obama to be “true to himself” is so profound, and heartfelt.

I just wish it were possible.

All these months and months of campaigning, rallies, and debates, and I still can’t figure out what Barack Obama truly cares about or believes in.

Outside of his David Axelrod-created speeches about “hope” and “change,” we haven’t any idea what matters to Barack Obama.

Now we find that Barack Obama also ignores the black media media when it comes to his middle eastern financial war chest.

While the African American media complains that all three of the current Presidential candidates spend less money on and time with them, you can practically feel their hurt when it comes to Barack Obama.

Owners and operators of African-American media outlets throughout the country have just about had it with the Barack Obama campaign.

Yes, they acknowledge the Illinois senator to be the darling of the race – the exalted Great Black Hope, the charismatic champion of change who is making history for the ages as he mounts a formidable bid to become the nation’s first black president.

But they chafe at his campaign officials’ insensitivity to, and total disregard of, the folks who brought him this far and whom he needs to take him through the White House door: Black people.

“Obama’s people believe we black publishers should be promoting Obama’s candidacy for free.”

I can honestly understand and relate to the African American community’s frustration with the Democratic Party too. However, it would only be fair to remind them that they are not the only voting block that is sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Party. Florida and Michigan Democrats are not too pleased either right now. Plenty of women have been taken for granted by the Party for too many years as well–and plan to let them find that out the hard way. Latinos, disillusioned with our party, have regularly voted Republican. However, use of a candidate’s financial war chest is not a Party issue: it’s a Candidate issue. After all, without votes of the African American community and their belief in his Hope-Hype, Barack Obama would have been bounced from this race long ago.

While the black media community claims in their complaint that Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a damn about them, the truth is that the preponderance of the African American community knows that both Clintons always gave a damn about them, whether the African American community has amnesia about it or not. I know that Donna Brazile suffers from that very amnesia in a huge way. But how could Hillary not know that no matter what she and Bill Clinton have done in the past — and no matter what she does now, Obama has that community vote sewed up because he is black.

Prior to the playing of the always well-timed Race Card by the Obama camp, a tactic that has been conveniently sprinkled throughout his campaign by his surrogates when needed, the black community saw the Clintons as their beloved. To deny this is foolery. They didn’t call Bill Clinton “The First Black President” for nothing and all African Americans know this as well. When Hopey Obama entered the Presidential race, the torn feelings between the beloved Clintons and the potential for the first African American president was well documented–and understandable.

Hillary’s work for the poor as well as health care for their children was never a secret to the African American community until Obama used what he had already admitted in publication as a most helpful tool: Using Race works. And so, the rest is history for the majority of the black vote in this campaign. So it might be more than a little understandable as to why Hillary would give up that ghost, don’t you think? Besides this, does anyone really think John McCain expects to attract the African American community using media ads in Black publications? Really?

That leaves Barack Obama and the Gratitude Gene he seems not to possess.

Lenora Carter, publisher of the Forward Times in Houston, is absolutely livid about what she characterizes as Obama’s “total disrespect for the black press,” and she takes it personally. “I have bills to pay!” Carter exclaimed.

During the run-up to the Texas primary, Obama’s campaign ran full-page ads in Houston’s white-owned daily newspapers. “I raised hell about it and went through all the channels that resulted in the Fuse agency reluctantly buying two-1/2
page ads with us, but at a reduced price!” Carter said.

“I was really mad when I learned my ad salesman cut our price to get that little action from Obama. We have bills to pay, just like white people,” Carter continued.

“You could see the money he was spending on TV ads. Every time you flipped the channel, there was Obama. They think that we as black people are so anxious to get a black president that we’ll support him no matter what. So why waste money on us?” Carter said.

“It’s been very difficult to get into the same room with the man.”

All of this reminds me of other African Americans who turned their backs on their own community the minute they got their own good fortune after enjoying their support. Clarence Thomas had a good deal of “hopeful” African American support in his bid for an appointment to the Supreme Court, and the minute he got his nomination, he kicked the ladder right out from under him. He has shown no interest whatsoever in the African American community. Then there’s Condi Rice. Need I say more?

I truly believe that, in Barack Obama, the African American community is looking at another Clarence Thomas. The media outlets appear see the handwriting on that wall already.

“The Obama campaign is predominately white and they don’t get it.”

But Obama, on the other hand, is the full-body target of the publishers’ unrelenting wrath. “I believe they have blacks in the Obama campaign who have no power,” said Leavell.

His campaign officials do not have a clue as to the need to develop a relationship with the black media.

They just don’t get it.”

You would think that the Rezko situation with the slums of Chicago would be another huge hint of just how much Barack Obama cares about the poor in general and African Americans in particular. Barack Obama’s senatorial district was simply riddled with rat-infested, decaying “renovated” buildings under the leadership of Obama’s friend who secured $100 million in government grant money and tax credits to “help” the poor. He helped them all right. He helped them live in slums with no heat. And he did it all right under Obama’s nose.

Obama’s friend Tony Rezko proved far more important to Barack Obama than the very community that has supported his faux promise of “Hope”. Hope is, after all, an emotion, and Obama has played it well upon the very people who Hope the most.

As the old saying goes: Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.