Barack Obama, Darfar, And The Congo, What Should Be Done?

Syracuse Prof Boyce Watkins Remarks on Barack Obama

I recall endorsing Barack Obama back when it was simply wishful thinking to hope for a Black President. During a CNN appearance over a year ago, I mentioned that his backing by Oprah Winfrey would change Obama from being “Hillary Clinton’s black baby brother” into a man who could run one of the most significant presidential campaigns in American history. This is one of the few times when I enjoy being able to say, “I told you so.”

President Obama is, quite simply, the Tiger Woods of American politics: another Black man of mixed heritage, who used the power of tremendous focus, creativity, intelligence and preparation to do the impossible. Like his counterpart Tiger Woods (who happens to be a Republican), Obama went into the domain of White males and dominated in ways that simply transcended his chosen field. Similar to the way that Tiger’s greatness attracted droves of fans that’d never cared much about golf, Obama brought in millions of voters who would never have cared much about a presidential election.

I am proud of Barack Obama for the way he ran his campaign. His choice of advisors and campaign strategy has changed the face of American politics for the next 100 years. He dismantled the “Death Star Clinton Regime” through the use of innovative, daring and powerful tactics, a sound choice of advisors and lots of good old fashioned intelligence.

I am proud of Barack Obama for liberating our minds. For the first time in quite a while, millions of Black boys had a chance to see an intelligent Black man consistently profiled in “mainstream” media. This man showed our kids that you can be a “balla” without dribbling a basketball and a major “playa” without being played. Greatness is not achieved with a football, a hand gun or a microphone; it is achieved with a textbook, a college diploma and a sound economic plan.
I was proud of Barack Obama long before he became our president. I don’t need validation from the rest of America to feel good about whom we are as a people. We were just as great, just as strong, and just as accomplished and just as meaningful on November 3 as we are right now. The presidential election is essentially a popularity contest which leads to uncomfortable tradeoffs and “deals with the devil” that reduce the glitter of addictive political gold. The respect I give Barack Obama for raising hundreds of millions of dollars to get access to the Whitehouse is matched by the respect I give Dr. Julianne Malveaux for raising tens of millions of dollars to educate young Black women at Bennett College. Being President of the United States is not what makes Barack Obama a great man: He is a great man because he is a great man.

I am proud of Barack Obama for marrying Michelle, who served as one of my primary reasons for trusting him. I have a hard time imagining a man who can sleep with Michelle Obama every night and not be influenced by her beautiful mind. Michelle Obama is not a “buppy” soccer mom, Stepford Wife, or wannabe Barbara Bush. Michelle is a super sharp and relentless “sister girl”, who demands the most of her African American husband. She makes the first family as beautiful as Barack Obama makes it strong.

I am proud of Barack Obama for his willingness to take his life and career into the lion’s den. He inherits a terrible economy, an unjust war, a sickening healthcare system and an educational system which cripples our children for life. Like the first Black football coaches in the NCAA, Obama has been granted the reigns of a team with a serious losing record. Furthermore, he must bend and twist to satisfy citizens of the same country that was naïve enough to consider mediocre characters like George Bush and Sarah Palin to possibly run our great nation. I sincerely wish Obama the best as he attacks these problems, and I hope that this brilliant Black man with the middle name “Hussein” can negotiate the balance between our quest for a better world and America’s consistent commitment to anti-intellectualism.

As proud as I am of President Obama, I am also proud of America for showing that it has the ability to choose the right person for the job, instead of the right WHITE person for the job. By choosing Obama, we have shown our capacity for fairness, and how much progress we’ve made to overcome some of our racial demons of the past. The easiest thing to do, however, is to think that having a Black president is going to change the lives of most Black people. The reality is that BLACK PEOPLE THEMSELVES is going to change the lives of Black people and if we do not embrace the power of financial independence and unity, we will simply remain perpetual socio-economic slaves in the domain of a new overseer. The same way America rolled back the political gains of the 1960s, the Washington-based rewards of the new millennium could be just as fleeting.

President Obama did his job, now it’s time for us to do ours. Good luck over the next 4 years.

Your Black Woman: Did Fox Leave Jesse's Mic on Intentionally?

Like everyone else I was taken aback by the comments made by Rev. Jackson about wanting to, well in essence, castrate Senator Obama. Making comments about emasculating Black men isn’t something our community appreciates even if another Black man says it. But Rev. Jackson apologized to the point of stopping short of offering his own “nads” up as a peace offering and Senator Obama graciously accepted his apology. What I was wondering is was the taping really an accident?

Most of us know this isn’t Rev. Jackson’s first slip of the tongue. We have had to opportunity to sit back and watch his Presidential bid crash and burn when he made his famous Himey town comment. He is human he also comes from an era where every little thing that was said anywhere didn’t have the potential to be taped. He should also know that in this day and age there is always the possibility that someone is listening. I listened to the whispered conversation clip on the news and without subtitles I really wouldn’t have known what he said. I have a hard time understanding Jesse when he speaks normally but I’m going to assume that they quoted him correctly because he didn’t deny that he said it. Rev. Jackson should be savvy enough by now to know that there is always a possibility that the microphone is on. Here is where my conspiracy theory question comes in, was the microphone really supposed to be off?

Rev Jackson was being interviewed by Fox News, can you say red flag? Fox News is known for not agreeing with most of the Black Leaders in our community unless they are saying something bad about us. Why would I think that they would waste and opportunity to try to catch anything they could by just ….accidentally…..on purpose….having the mic on, knowing that Rev. Jackson is known for making what he thinks are “private” comments. Who is the first one to jump on this story? Why it is ole buddy Bill O’Reilly, need I say more? Although Bill is more into “Lynching Parties” I’m sure a little Black male castration would be right in line with his Slave Master mentality. This would be the same Bill on the same network that ran a story last September that reported that Rev Jackson said that Senator Obama was “acting like he’s white” when referring to how Senator Obama was responding to the Jena 6 case. But you want me to think that this network that employs three of the most intentionally ignorant men in media wouldn’t pull a stunt just to embarrass a prominent Black leader? Okay and I would like to buy some of the land in Costa Rica that was for sale in the email I got the other day.

This just gives them more reason to talk about things they have no intention of learning about and to discredit our leaders and cause tension in our community. You notice now they want to have a discussion about the differences we have within our community with each other and our philosophies but no one wanted to touch why the majority of African Americans that I talk to from all socioeconomic and educational backgrounds agreed with most of what Rev Jeremiah Wright said. Let’s not have a conversation about why so many of us listen to and respect Father Flager and those like him. Fox and their “Three Stooges”, just denounce anyone who criticizes America and points out racism as being bad, without trying to understand the history and the experiences behind the statements.


So although I think Rev Jackson should have been smart enough to learn from experience and keep him mouth closed, especially in a FOX studio, I don’t think it was his fault entirely. I think it is obvious by the people the network employees that they are willing to play dirty. I fully believe that they left Rev. Jackson’s microphone on purpose and they got what they wanted. Congrats to Rev Jackson for once again opening mouth and inserting foot and thank you FOX for probably setting him up with the opportunity to do it. You have once again proven to me what a classy organization you really are. Can we get on with the real issues now?

Angry Black Women

Dr. Boyce Watkins


For those who may not understand why I had to critique Barack Obama's contribution to the perception of black men being irresponsible, perhaps you can get it now. Fox News recently did a segment about "why black women on TV tend to be angry". In the segment, they make continuous reference to the "angry black woman", and point to several examples of black women who tend to be angry during interviews. The video clip is at the bottom of this comment.

I have heard alot of brothers write off black women as angry, bitter and nasty, and with equal force, I INSIST that they not characterize the entire black female population by the actions of a subset. Although I've had much personal experience with negative black women, I choose to

describe them as collectively beautiful and marvelous, without allowing bad apples to spoil the bunch. I only ask that the same respect be given to black men, without using the actions of bad men to describe us as a collective. Instead, I am hopeful that you can focus on the many black men who've chosen to "man up" and do what is right with their lives.

I received about 130 emails yes terday from people who had mixed opinions about my article on Senator Obama's comments about black men needing to learn the art of fatherhood. They've been interesting and seem to call for more discourse. I noticed that the opinions were right down the middle and many of them were very strong in either direction. I also noticed that many of the emails came from a position of intense pain: Brothers dealing with "baby mama drama" who wanted to see their kids but were pushed out of their lives, or women dealing with some pathetic man who has chosen to ignore his responsibilities. I too know this pain personally, as my father abandoned me when I was a child, and I've also fought like hell (sometimes unsuccessfully) to find a place in the life of my own child. I have 7 god children and I mentor dozens of black youth around the country, many of whom do not have fathers or mothers who are doing the right thing, so I know the problem quite well. I will do a video on the topic soon, but I wanted to pose some quick thoughts I had while reading your emails (and yes, I do read my email and try to respond to you. I only ignore people who come off as flat out lunatics, since I don't mess with crazy people). Here are my thoughts.

1) Why do we assume that a broken family implies that a man "ran away from his responsibility"? Is it not also the case that many relationships end due to actions of the woman as well? All of us know of at least one "insane baby's mama" - either you have dealt with one, been in a relationship with a man who was dealing with one, or perhaps you have BEEN ONE! This does not imply that the end of the relationship is most likely the fault of the woman, but it does take two to tango.

2) No. I didn't make my statements for political purposes or to make money. I don't get paid for what I do on the internet, and I am NOT a politician. I honestly don't trust politicians and life is too shor t for me to spend all my time hoping that people like me. Telling the truth is the only way I can sleep at night, even if it implies that some people don't like what I have to say. One thing you will always get from me is a straight shot, I assure you of that. I guarantee that if you know me long enough, you will eventually disagree with me.

3) Yes, I support Obama 100% . Critiquing someone and keeping them honest doesn't mean you hate them. I critique my mama and I love my mama. Also, even though I love Barack, I put him in the same category as most "selectively honest" politicians. If a man loves his pastor and church for 20 years, and then suddenly realizes that he should disown them, I can't believe that he just had the wool pulled over his eyes for two decades. I am not in the business of abandoning those who've remained loyal to me for 20 years straight, that's not how I was raised. That's also why I'll never be a successful politician.

4) Obama has made a commitment to being race neutral in this election. However, if he or anyone else chooses to address race in this election I ONLY ASK THAT THEY BE FAIR. For Barack (or anyone else) to shut down anyone who speaks honestly about racism, and then to contribute to racial stereotypes about black male irresponsibility is not balanced. For those who feel that Obama was "telling it like it is", please remember this: Dr. Jeremiah Wright was also "telling it like it is", but he was attacked, disowned and told that his words needed to be muted. Honesty should not know racial boundaries. If Barack Obama is not comfortable going into a group of white males and being honest about their weaknesses, then it is not acceptable for him to do that to black men. Being bi-racial, Obama has just as much moral authority to speak on the negative choices of white males as he does for black males.

5) There are ALWAYS going to be people in every group who do the wrong thing. White women are not stereotyped by the actions of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I would never stereotype black women for the actions of a few "insane baby's mamas". So, the notion that it is ok to define black men by the actions of a select few is equally problematic. However, it is comfortable to say "these brothers need to start doing right" because it alleviates anyone else of the guilt of whatever role they play in the breakdown of their families, and it also contributes to the 400 year tradition of defining black men as being socially inferior. A person could just as easily celebrate the great choices of positive black men as he could mulling over the actions of the irresponsible.Here is the issue: I do not feel that Barack would go into any other venue and paint any other group with a blanket indictment. He would no t say "too many Jews support killing Palestinians", or "too many Catholic Priests are molesting little children". So, I am not sure why it is ok to say that "too many black men are ignoring their responsibilities and not being fathers". While all three of these stereotypes may have some element of truth to them and one could claim you are "helping" the group by criticizing their collective behavior, it seems that "truth in stereotyping" is only acceptable when dealing with black folks.

Additionally, one-dimensional analysis is usually incorrect. If I were to define Bill Cosby as "the man who cheated on his wife, had an illegitimate child, abandoned that child to live without her father, and had the child thrown in jail", such a statement could be considered true. However, it would be flawed, myopic and ultimately incorrect. If doing this to one man is wrong, then doing it to 18 million men is damn near criminal. Black men and black women are equally worthy of love and protection and it is only via mutual respect that we are going to rebuild our families. Blaming men for all broken relationships is not the answer, and neither is defining all black women as "angry". We should all spend time looking in the mirror if we want to find the truth. Finally, racial conversation by political figures must be HONEST AND BALANCED. If you would not say som ething to a group of white men, then please don't say it to me. I refuse to accept someone else's label.

Bless you,
Dr. Boyce Watkins

To watch the Fox News video, click here

Michelle Obama Baby Mama: Keith Olbermann Weighs in for Black Women

Keith Olbermann at MSNBC weighed in on Fox's attack on Michelle Obama. In their story, Fox tagged Mrs. Obama as Barack's "Baby Mama", which Olbermann defined as racist and yet another smear by Fox News.

The video is below. To read Dr. Boyce Watkins commentary on Michelle Obama, Click Here.

Bill O'Reilly aims to Lynch Michelle Obama: How Nice

Dr. Boyce Watkins

www.BoyceWatkins.com

Call me a crazy black man, but why do I keep hearing commentators on major media outlets discussing the idea of lynching African-Americans? A golf channel analyst used the word to describe suggested treatment of Tiger Woods, and now Bill O’Reilly from Fox News has used it as a way to describe his feelings toward Michelle Obama. In fact, O’Reilly even said that he may have a “lynching party”, bringing back images of people gathered for family picnics to watch a charred black body hang from a tree.

In response to Michelle Obama’s recent comment about being proud of America for the first time, O’Reilly had this to say: "I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts that say this is how the woman really feels.”

At least he’s going to make sure Michelle Obama did something wrong before he lynches her, that’s awfully nice of him. O’Reilly’s comment takes you back 100 years to a time in which community Klansmen felt they were being “good people” by waiting to hear the evidence before going to the black man or woman’s home to have them shot, burned, maimed, stabbed or castrated.

Fortunately, Michelle Obama has taken the classy route and is only taking Bill O’Reilly as seriously as the rest of us do. He may as well be called “Irrelevant O’Reilly”, as both he and Sean Hannity gained their popularity in a post-911 world, built on fear, anger and negativity. The “Post-Post-911” period in America appears to be one of bringing people together and moving forward, not allowing the extremists such as Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and O’Reilly to dictate the dialogue. The War on Terror has been as successful as the War on Drugs and we are finding that working together achieves far more than bullying our way through foreign and domestic policy.

I have dealt with Bill O’Reilly up close on many occasions. Three months ago, he had my picture slapped up on his show for 5 days in a row, calling for me to be fired from Syracuse University for insulting him and his Bojangled Caricature of a sidekick, Juan Williams. My refusal to appear on his show earned me an entire episode of anger and nasty attacks by both he and his conservative guests. Perhaps this too qualifies as the type of “lynching party” he plans to give Michelle Obama, I’m not sure. I consider myself lucky, for a “lynching party” 100 years ago would not have consisted of meaningless words, it would have put my black butt in a casket.

I am sure Bill doesn’t truly want to physically lynch Michelle Obama, but there are many ways he could have expressed his frustration. Mrs. Obama could have been challenged on her remarks, criticized for them, and even taken to task on O’Reilly’s show. But the fact that Bill O’Reilly, a man whose racism exceeds both Don Imus and David Duke, would choose the word “lynch” to describe Michelle Obama is not only disturbing, it’s downright revealing. What’s more revealing is the fact that Fox News has not felt the need to punish O’Reilly for his remarks, implying that it is ok to talk about lynching a woman who might be the First Lady of the United States. I am not sure he would have gotten away with offering to send a prominent Jewish woman to “the concentration camp”, no matter what she had to say.

Bill O’Reilly is not only racist, he is unpatriotic. How can you love your country when you want to have a “lynching party” against the wife of a Presidential candidate? While he is quick to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon in the War on Terror, O’Reilly is the first to use terroristic words to describe his reaction to the potential First Lady. This should alarm all of us, whether we agree with Michelle Obama or not.

America has many enemies, both foreign and domestic. Overzealous commentators, draped with the American flag, making terroristic threats toward our leaders are first and foremost among them.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com

Michelle Obama: The Angry Black Woman?

Michelle Obama is in the middle of controversy after recent remarks made during a speech in support of her husband, Senator Barack Obama. Conservative publications and some liberals have attacked Mrs. Obama after hearing her remarks.

Speaking at a rally in Milwaukee, Michelle Obama, said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Considered a strong role model for black women (and all women everywhere), Michelle Obama has been called unpatriotic and selfish by many conservatives.

Sasha Issenberg of The Boston Globe said, "So what did Michelle Obama think of the United States before her husband decided he wanted to run the place?"

Mickey Kaus at Slate.com said that Michelle Obama "seems to have a non-trivial chip on her shoulder and it's not a winning quality."

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot, a conservative publication called the Michelle Obama remark "strikingly ungracious."

Jonathon Last at The Conservative Weekly said, "Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview--one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?"

The comments by conservatives strike a tough chord with those who support Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama has been called "my rock" by her husband, and is considered to be one of the strongest potential first ladies in American History. However, to manage the controversy, the Obama campaign issued a statement in response to Michelle Obama's remarks.

"Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change."

Many are concerned that Michelle Obama's "realness" as a black woman can be a liability, especially in an historically racist country such as The United States. Stereotypical images of black women as being angry, defensive and mean toward others show themselves in the reactions of conservatives and even liberal whites.

Senator Obama has been able to dodge the stigma of "the angry black male" primarily because he has shown enough diplomacy and soft talk to make whites comfortable. However, the honesty of Michelle Obama, who reflects the sentiments of millions of Americans, does not match the polite, all-accepting disposition typically taken by the First Lady.

Up Close and Personal With Senator Barack Obama

Up Close and Personal With Senator Barack Obama

This video interview of Senator Obama is awesome. Tavis Smiley interviewed Barack on October 18, 2007. Tavis appears supportive, proud, and loving during the entire interview.

During the interview with Tavis Senator Obama addressed questions on the lack of black support, concerns about his safety, his campaign strategy, his experience, health insurance etc.

After viewing this video one wonders what really happened to change Travis Smiley’s attitude from the interviewer on this video and the Tavis voicing his comments on the Tom Joyner Morning Show on February 12, 2008.

Vera Richardson is the author of “A Case of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Real or Imagined."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=9780615177014

http://politics.yourblackworld.com/2008/02/i-believe-obamas-hope-and-change_12.html

Senator Obama’s Message of Hope and Change Part II

For the last month or so I have been listening to “The Tom Joyner’s Morning Show” in Houston. Today while listening to the show I was surprised at the tone of Tavis Smiley’s comments. His tone appeared to be very defensive and anti-Obama.

Tavis discussed what it means to be a free man in America. I am assuming (and we know what that means) that he was clarifying his right to his own opinions about the upcoming primaries and the candidates.

Most black people would agree that Tavis has the right to voice his personal opinions on any issue. Being free in America also gives me a right to disagree with Mr. Smiley on this particular issue.

I am a true Obama supporter. One of the ways that I have shown my support for him and his historic quest for the Presidency is expressing that fact on this site. Additionally, this past Saturday I was involved in grass root politics for the first time in my life.

A group of enthusiastic black women and I reported to Thomas Brooks’ home in Sugar Land, TX for three hours of door-to-door canvassing for Obama. Our group consisted of 16 females and Mr. Brooks.

On Sunday I wore by “Texans For Obama 2008” T-shirt to the 12 pm church service at Windsor Village United Methodist Church. I wore the Obama shirt to recruit others to join the movement to elect Obama. I was successful in my mission because several members of the church expressed their desire to get involved.

The writer (norman 922) who posted the following comment on another site has expressed my sentiments towards Tavis’s latest commentary on “The Tom Joyner’s Morning Show."

Senator Obama's Choices: Cater to Tavis' Ego or Run for President?
By: norman922/12/2008 7:19:33 AM

"It's clearer than ever that Tavis Smiley is ego-tripping. By his estimation, attending his forum--with limited exposure--is more of test to loyal to Black folks than winning the presidency and effecting REAL policy that can change the trajectory of millions of lives. PLEASE! We all love the annual forum, but has there been any measurable outcome with the exception of Tavis selling books? After today, Senator Obama is facing an uphill battle in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. He cannot afford to be NOT campaigning for even day. But Tavis would have Black folks believe that him not taking a day off from campaigning to attend HIS forum is an insult to ALL Black folks. Hillary Clinton can afford to take a day off for a number of reasons: she's leading in the polls in all three of the aforementioned states; her husband will be campaigning for her (and a better campaigner than her) and she needs to make inroads with African American. Tavis really needs to back the hell up! Let Senator Obama do what he needs to do: campaign NON-STOP until he wins this nomination."

Vera Richardson is the author of “A Case of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Real or Imagined."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=9780615177014

Senator Obama’s Message of Hope and Change

I believe in Obama's Message of Hope and Change. I suggest that those of you who are judging Obama’s tactics and motives so harshly channel your energy in getting answers from the Bush Administration.

In 2001 Vice President Cheney and his buddies in oil, gas, and energy businesses met behind closed doors. After meeting for months the elite group announced a National Energy Plan. For years Cheney has refused lower court orders to turn over the records of the energy policy task force and/or a list of who attended the meetings.

In 2006 Exxon profits were 39.5 billion dollars. On February 1, 2008, the Associate Press reported that Exxon Mobil posted annual profit of 40.6 billion dollars in 2007. The oil company that produces only 3 percent of the world’s oil credits it astronomical profits to a well-run global diverse operation that’s investing billions to find more energy supplies. Exxon distributed 35.6 billion dollars to shareholders in 2007 through dividends and share purchases to reduce shares outstanding.

Do you believe that Exxon Mobil’s executives were in attendance at Cheney’s secret meetings? Do you believe that Exxon should have also credit the Bush Administration for its record profits? Who do you think received those record dividends? How much tax money did the federal government collect on the 35.6 billion dollar dividends?

Exxon’s 41 billion dollar profit for 2007, it just one example which demonstrates that everything is controlled by the person who occupies the Oval Office. Therefore, if it is true that “the Obama campaign has perverted the concept of hope by wedding it to a dangerous politics of compromise, concession, and cunning” I say well done.



Obama has developed a win- win strategy for himself and for all Americans. We should take Obama at his word. I believe that he is doing what is needed to get elected. After he is elected he can propose and implement the changes that will address and improve the lives of all Americans.

Vera Richardson is the author of “A Case of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation Real or Imagined.”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=9780615177014

http://scholar.yourblackworld.com/2008/02/barack-obama-not-my-kind-of-hope-dr.html