One Drop

If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, he will be the 44th white President of the United States. He will also be the first black President, and that is what has been the focus. It certainly makes a more compelling story to treat him as black, and I'm personally happy that there's lots of positive press for a black man. But does it not suggest that we are still of the mind that anything other than 100% white makes one, well, not white. And for that reason, some small percentage of the white voting public will not vote for him although his mother looks pretty much like theirs. Odd irony.

Wouldn't want to be her

Can you say caught between the devel and the deep blue sea? As it stands, only a miracle will save Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. So what's the next step for her? I'm assuming that her amibition to be president won't die with her campaign.

With that in mind, if Mrs. Clinton plays the good little former candidate and forcefully campaigns for Obama, he might just win. That ain't necessarily good news for Mrs. Clinton, because barring a horrendous first term, Obama, the incumbent, will be the Democratic nominee for 2012. In other words, helping Obama win will sink her next best chance to become President; she'll have to wait until 2016 when her age will be an issue.

On the other hand, if she fails to campaign or it's clear that her heart isn't in it, the party faithful are like to blame her if Obama loses, particuarly if he loses by a close margin such that her assistance could have been a true game-changer. She can wave good-bye to her chances in 2012. She might not become a pariah, but I doubt there'll be a rush to annoint her the 2012 candidate. The Obamaites won't forget and will punish her for her lack of support.

It's a no-win situation, as I see it. To borrow from Laurel and Hardy, this is a fine mess she's gotten herself into.

Politically correct on age?

Remember Omarosa from The Apprentice? Remember the controversy she created over another another competitor's statement about "the pot calling the kettle black?" "It's racist!" she exclaimed

Her claim was ridiculous, and it made her look bad to press such an idiotic claim. And there were plenty willing to tell her as much. Such claims as Omarosa made often bring out those who rail against "political correctness" and accuse blacks of being hypersensitive.

I hope that those same critics will rail against John McCain in the same way. Didn't McCain just play the age card? After all, when Obama suggested that McCain had "lost his bearings" in response to McCain's statements about Hamas wanting Obama for president.

I have only one college degree and one professional degree, and I'm well into middle age, so I might be a little slow on the uptake, but exactly where is the ageism in that? I suppose you could say that the statement suggests senility, which one associates with age, but to claim ageism is a bit of a stretch.

Come on, John. Is that the best you can do? But if you want to make such spurious claims, you can start writing your concesesion speecch now. But until then, all you other folks had better watch what you say.

Hillary Clinton, President of Hard-working whites only?

Hillary Clinton keeps making the pitch that Barack Obama can't draw the vote of working-class whites like she can, and that's what makes her the stronger candidate against McCain. Excuse me? Did I miss something?

The Democratic candidate will need the support of working class whites, but that's not all. Lest Mrs Clinton forget, the candidate will need the vote of African-Americans of all income and educational levels. That candidate will also need the votes of young voters, including first-time voters. In other words, the candidate will need broad support, which is fitting since that person will have a darn good shot at becoming the President of theUnited States. The same United States that, as cliche-ish as it sounds, is a great melting pot.

When I survey the results from the past few months, it is Obama that has generated excitement among a broad spectrum of voters.

To the extent that Hillary believes she can somehow pull out the nomination by focusing on one demographic, she'd better remember that she risks alienating the others. I don't expect this to become relevant because I don't expect Hillary to be the nominee. But if she does, she had better not assume that she can pander to one group and write the others off or take them for granted.

We have spent the last 8 years with a President who thinks that only certain groups matter. He is our President in name only, but theirs in reality.

Hillary's latest tact is one likely borne of desperation, but don't make the mistake of failing to appeal to all of us. That's what she should have been doing from the outset, and then maybe she would not have found herself in such a precarious position.

In Memory of Mildred Loving

By all accounts Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were madly in love. They had grown up near each other and fallen in love at an early age. First comes love, then comes marriage, so the saying goes, and that's what followed for them. Nothing particularly unusual about that--just an old-fashioned love story. Except that their union was illegal.

Until 1967, the Commonwealth of Virginia had the audacity to criminalize interracial marriages. The so-called Racial Integrity Act made it a felony for blacks and whites to marry, as Mildred and Richard discovered. Mildred, black, and Richard, white, had married in Washington D.C., but returned to Virginia, and the Commonwealth just wasn't going to have any of that race mixing. Police officers invaded the Lovings' home in the dead of night and upon finding them in bed, arrested and convicted them. They were sentenced to 1 year in prison, suspended, if they would leave the Commonwealth. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions, finding the statute unconstitutional.

The Virginia miscegenation statute had been on the books since 1924. The trial judge that convicted the Lovings stated,

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Commonwealth of Virginia argued before the Supreme Court that the original intent of the framers of the 14th amendment was that its provisions did not apply to interracial marriage. Original intent. The Commonwealth also relied on another familiar argument: states' rights, i.e. marriage is a matter to be determined within the realm of a state's police power.

If there is ever a time one doubts the importance of the Supreme Court, it is cases like Loving that should remind that person of the important role the Court plays in checking the power of the State. How different this country would have been had Virginia and the other Southern states had their way.

Mildred and Richard didn't set out to make history or even to make new law. They just wanted to be married and to live in the community in which they had grown up. That's not much to ask.Mildred died several days ago. Richard has been dead since 1975, killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver.

Stick to the Issues or Get Out!

Six months ago, when I looked at the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, I was as thrilled as preacher at a Sunday buffet. Obama. Clinton. Edwards. Sure there were differences, but all three were strong candidates, and shoo-ins to win the presidency. I could no more imagine not voting in November than I could imagine taking a weekend trip to Pluto. Now look at the mess we Democrats are in.

So, I'm starting my own campaign. Stick to the Issues or Get Out! My campaign is not aimed at any particular candidate. Rather, it is my way of saying that personal attacks and strategies designed to focus on irrelevancies will guarantee only one thing: that a candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee this way won't get my vote. I'll be busy come election day.

Issues that I want to hear about:
1) The economy and what the plan is for giving the poor a hand-up and revitalizing the middle class.

2) Education. What's the plan for addressing our unacceptable high school drop-out rate. What ideas does the candidate have to make higher education more affordable.

3) Iraq. What's the plan for the future there? A precipitous withdrawal would likely be disasterous, but it makes little sense to continue to throw billions of dollars at a warthat should have never been started.

4) Health care. I'd like someone to really push a reasonable plan that immediately provides preventative health care to everyone. I'd like to hear some innovative thinking about how to address the larger issue of providing diagnostic and treatment to everyone if not free, at an affordable rate.

5) Taxes. Our system is horribly out of whack. Why should some lower middle class, single mother pay more taxes than a multinational corporation?



That's just my short list. I know that from time-to-time the candidates do talk on these issues, but I'm sick of hearing about Rev. Wright. I'm sick of hearing about shooting in duck blinds.

If you agree with this, pass this message along to other bloggers and friends. Let's get our own campaign underway.

Does affirmative action hurt minorities?

This article, which appeared in the L.A. Times, poses that question. Clearly the question has no simple answer, but this is a discussion that we as African-Americans should not shy away from considering. Nor should we be reluctant to engage in the research that is necessary to gain clearer understanding of the effects of affirmative action or to allow others to do that research.

My own experience is that affirmative action in some cases can hurt the very people it is meant to help. Perhaps the most startling statement in the Times article is

"Only one in three black students who start law school graduate and pass the bar on their first attempt; most never become lawyers. How much of this might be attributable to the mismatch effect of affirmative action is still a matter of debate, but the problem cries out for attention. "

I've seen that happen first hand. For example, with the best of intentions, Law School A may be willing to admit a student, notwithstanding that all indications are that this student is non-competitive at that particular institution. That's not to say this student is not capable, but rather a realistic recognition that, as is the case with sports, a player may notbe ale to run with the big dogs of the NBA, but in another league, he can shine. In other words, that prospective student might in fact be competitive at School B, although School B may not be as highly regarded as School A. The prestige of going to the better school, perhaps enhanced by a grant of a scholarship, however motivates the student to go to School A.

If this student graduates and passes the bar, affirmative action has worked just as it was meant to. We have added one more minority attorney to the bar. If, however, the student drops out, either voluntarily upon learning that he is at a competitive disadvantage, or involuntary, because of a breach of academic probation, that student will likely never obtain a law degree and will never becocme a licensed attorney. Keep in mind that many law schools have a mandatory gradidng curve, which pits students directly against each other--the weaker students will bear the full brunt of the merciless grading curve. If School A won't give this student a second chance, it is unlikely that any other school will now admit him. That includes School B.

On the other hand, had the student attended School B from the outset, he would have had a greater chance of success. Competing against other students who share credentials similar to his own would have given that student a chance to excell at School B or at least to complete the program. If School B is accredited, upon his graduation, this student would have been eligible to take the bar exam in any state of his choosing, and would be well on his way to becoming a licensed attorney.

Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless it makes the point: affirmative action is not necessarily a benefit if indeed there is a mismatch.

We cannot be afraid to confront difficult facts. Nor can we afford to take our eyes off the prize. We need more African-American attorneys. If what we're doing is not working--and there are indications that it is not--then we must rethink what is the best way to achieve our goal.

I have other thoughts on what we ought to consider in terms of increasing the number of minorities, which I will touch on as time goes on.