Fear and Chief Wahoo

by Cleveland Frowns on August 27, 2012

Here’s an excellent sports-related article by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the latest issue of the Atlantic that everyone should read: Fear of a Black President.

Coates presents a compelling history of white supremacy in America that makes it especially easy to see “the thoroughly racialized backlash to Obama’s presidency” as coming from the same place as the backlash faced by the anti-Chief Wahoo crowd.

“What we are now witnessing is not some new and complicated expression of white racism,” Coates explains. “Rather, it’s the dying embers of the same old racism that once rendered the best pickings of America the exclusive province of unblackness.”

The whole thing is a comprehensive, concise, and especially enlightening reminder of how far a nation has come, how far it has to go, and how hard evolution can be so go read it or print it out to read later or whatever.

In more specific Wahoo-related news, the Indians have made it clear that by the time the Browns finish their season in January, it will have been seven consecutive MLB, NFL and NBA seasons that a Cleveland team has failed to finish with a winning record since LeBron left town in July 2010. At that point we’ll be left to count on the 2013 Browns, Indians or Cavs to keep the streak from reaching double digits.

Alright. Nothing more on Friday’s Browns game that we didn’t cover on Saturday other than an as yet unconfirmed report that a fan was kicked out of the Stadium for “standing during the end of [the Browns] TD drive in the 3rd quarter.” We should have a really fun post up tomorrow, and Cheddar Bay Reality Football 2012 will kick off this Wednesday with rules and instructions to be posted then. Hope everyone’s week gets off to a decent start in the meantime.

  • Dood

    wish I had something more constructive to say right now, other than I’m glad you posted about/saw this piece.

  • rgrunds

    FrOrange….I love you, but that article is just an insufferable polemic by some self-absorbed demagogue posturing as an intellectual.

    Instead of embracing a victim status, NaKeisha, or whatever his name is, should recognize that a person of Negro, African descent and his equally Negro, wife of African descent inhabit the White House.

    The most race conscious people in America are American colored people.

    People who look different from one another will always favor their own. It’s the way of the world. Just so happens that the dark skinned people of Africa couldn’t maintain themselves against them brutal European colonialists.

    The American race problem has become less one of race, than of class. The American Negro still suffers from the historical legacy of Slave culture. They became a powerless and ignorant people, turned against themselves. ANY group oppressed in that manner would have behaved the same way. The Nazi’s proved this with the Jew in Ghettos. By creating shortage, brothers would turn their sisters in for food.

    Chief Wahoo is NOT a sambo. He is a CARTOON. Just like Yosemite Sam. Is Yosemite Sam a racist caricature against white westerners? The Cleveland baseball team chose the name “Indians” because of the noble, stoic and physically able character assigned to them.

    N’daLaKeisha should shut the fuck up. Can’t the Atlantic find a better author?

  • rgrunds

    No. I can’t believe it. You deleted me.

  • bupalos

    TNC is one of the best writers on the web and probably his generation’s best writer on race period. I think I learn as much from his long-form stuff as from anything I read. He’s good on the NFL too. Great to see him get a hat tip!

  • BIKI024

    Fear of a Black Planet is hands down one of Top 5 hip-hop albums of all-time

    • http://www.autismspeaks.org/ PML

      Fear of a Black Hat was an even greater documentary.

      • BIKI024

        it was funny, but actually CB4 was funnier. neither put a flame to the album though.. so many classics:

        Brothas gonna work it out
        911 is a joke
        Welcome to the Terrordome
        Can’t do nuthin for ya man
        Fight the Power

        • http://www.autismspeaks.org/ PML

          Agreed re: CB4 –

          Straight Outta LoCash sounds like a real song from that era.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwc4gCVXTcM&feature=related

          Public Enemy never did a lot for me, but I get why people like them. I found Chuck and Flava Flav’s voices insufferable but enjoyed Terminator X’s beats.

        • Petefranklin

          Sweat from my balls!

    • clay

      Yo Bum Rush the Show was the best P.E. album. Everything after is too political / racial. Chuck D is a racist in my opinion, and Professor Griff is a racist documented.

      • http://www.autismspeaks.org/ PML

        I did find it ironic that they are all about racial inequality issues and Flava Flav is the walking embodiment of a minstrel show. That’s like Chik-fil-A hiring RuPaul to articulate their stance on same-sex marriage.

        • mo_by_dick

          Responding to both: First, good luck putting “too political” in context over the course of humanity and its creative endeavors. Second, racial equality is all about Flav being able to turn his steez up to a trillion as the offbeat hype man. Third, don’t get Frowns started on some rap music up in here, cuz it does not go well from there for you or for anyone.

          • clay

            Too political, as in I personally dont want a political message in the music I’m listening to 99% of the time. Music for me is an escape from real life bullshit, that I usually enjoy while having a drink and/or a smoke. Love Rage Against the Machine, very similiar, but a little less so. As there is an exception to every rule – Bob Marley and Bob Dylan. What I was getting at was, if you know the lyrics of Fear of a Black Planet (which I know them all), it’s about as racially motivated an album as there is. They basically say they want to kill the governor of AZ for not making MLK day a holiday, among a list of other references I dont care to post. Basically, I’m just disputing Biki’s top 5 rap albums of all time comment. Off the top of my head I’ll throw 5 out in no particular order: Wu-Tang 36 Chambers, Outkast Southern Playalistic, NWA Straight Outta Compton/ Niggaz4Life, Bone E 1999 Eternal, Thug Life Vol 1. Having said all this, I dont really listen to rap anymore, new stuff anyways, so dont come at me with any new shit.

          • Beeej

            2Pac All eyes on me and Makaveli
            Biggie: Ready to Die and/or Life After Death
            Good on the Bone. Too bad their follow-up stuff wasn’t nearly as good.
            Puff Daddy…no I’m just kidding. All his stuff sucks.

          • http://www.autismspeaks.org/ PML

            As a minority I can say that my word is bond when it comes to the hippity hop. Frownie knows his rap, though.

      • BIKI024

        Griff wasn’t on FOTBP

        • clay

          Didnt rap, but was on stage and in videos. Was always part of the “posse”

        • clay

          And now, cause you trying to defend yourself, Griff is listed as the “The Minister of Information” in the liner notes on at least one album (too baked to look it up). Google – Professor Griff / Jews and see what pops up. Dont question me, you talk a lot of ish on this site, and I’m checkin you here.

          • BIKI024

            “checkin” me how? yes, Griff was part of the group and said some inappropriate comments and was kicked out of the group.

        • clay

          Biki “not a racist” top 5 favorite rap albums is Fear of a Black Planet. Do you even listen to the lyrics? It’s “reverse” racism at it’s best. If you would like to get a dry-erase board, a sack of kush and a bottle of Beam, we could hammer out a top 50 that does not include that album.

          • BIKI024

            to each their own, Fear of a Black Planet is one of my favorite albums, with or without kush and beam

  • Hopwin

    Any news on who the remaining 5 dudes the Browns cut are? Does Holmgren/Heckert/Shurmur know they need to be down to 75 by 4 PM today?

    • ClevelandFrowns

      Benard a goner. Sad.

      Auston English and Antwuan Reed are the other two.

      • BIKI024

        poor marcus just couldn’t stay healthy. that damn motorocycle

  • Bryan

    I start this post with the note that I am an independent who voted for Obama and will likely vote for him again. I don’t believe what I am saying below is political in anyway, but I am sure some of you will accuse me of evil racism:

    The main conceit of this article seems to be the argument that Obama can’t express opinions that are truly “Black” because of a complicated form of residual racism that persists in our country. This strikes me as wrong. A much simpler explanation exists – it is the duty of any President (minority or not) to pursue the interests of the nation at large, not the interests of any given sub-population.

    For example, this quote from the article, to me, proves the opposite point that the author uses it to support:

    “The thing is, a black man can’t be president in America, given the racial aversion and history that’s still out there,” Cornell Belcher, a pollster for Obama, told the journalist Gwen Ifill after the 2008 election. “However, an extraordinary, gifted, and talented young man who happens to be black can be president.”

    This statement is true of any minority. Any minority candidate that runs for President under the hopes of designing policies that focus on his minority’s specific issues will fail. If an Irish guy, or Italian guy, or Muslim guy, or Jewish guy, or any Woman ran for President with a platform that boiled down to: “I will be true to my minority’s struggles and consider their specific perspective on every issue” would get killed. We live in the most diverse country in the world. Our President’s job is to represent all of that diversity to the best of his ability. Obama is a not man who lacks courage, or who is stuck in a prison of some “Uncle Tom” syndrome that forces him to suck up to whites. Rather, he is a smart politician that understands the only way to get things done is to build consensus. That is his job. I think he has done it less effectively than I hoped, but he at least has the right approach.

    I also found this quote particularly dramatic (and kind of silly):

    “Obama’s genius is a remarkable ability to soothe race consciousness among whites. Any black person who’s worked in the professional world is well acquainted with this trick. But never has it been practiced at such a high level, and never have its limits been so obviously exposed. This need to talk in dulcet tones, to never be angry regardless of the offense, bespeaks a strange and compromised integration indeed, revealing a country so infantile that it can countenance white acceptance of blacks only when they meet an Al Roker standard.”

    How does this idea have any relevance to the job of being President? Again, a President serves the entire country. If a black president appears to be seeking the “Al Roker” standard its not because of some subtle, complicated racial conspiracy that is holding him down from expressing his true feelings. Its because he is PRESIDENT and has a duty to represent all Americans. A president’s job is not to be a radical. It is to seek common ground between radical positions to move the country forward.

    Of course, this is not to say that the issues the author raises are illegitimate or unimportant. It is simply to point out that the President of the United States is not the person to take them on. Obama was elected with a higher share of the popular vote than any president in 20 years (more than Mr. White Boy George Dubya). That means that he is representing the majority of America, and has a duty to represent their beliefs.

    I can already hear the counter-argument: But Obama has a “moral duty” to fight any injustice in society, especially those specific to his race? My ass. In the case of the 1960′s (as well captured via the astonishingly ignorant quotes of Byrd and Buckley in the article), this was true. The Office of President, with its unique executive power, has a general moral duty to support and demand the removal of laws and public facilities that clearly operate based on an assumption of differences across race. This is what was at stake in the 60′s, and it required action from the President independent of what was popular. The closest issue to that today is the lack of marriage rights for gay Americans. The Trayvon Martin incident, in which a minority man killed a minority man, and in which the facts surrounding the incident are still being uncovered, is not such an issue. The President does not have a moral duty to respond to every incident that some set of society perceives as a racial or social injustice. The President has to use judgment to identify only those incidents that rise to the level of a clear universal racial or social injustice. I see Barry Obama as holding that promise, and struggling to figure out how to implement it. Let’s hope he does. And let’s hope he ignores articles like this.

    That is all.

    • manc

      well done.

    • ClevelandFrowns

      “The main conceit of this article seems to be the argument that Obama can’t express opinions that are truly ‘Black’ because of a complicated form of residual racism that persists in our country.”

      You’re not the only one to respond to the article in this way but your reading is off. The point isn’t that Obama can’t express “blacker” opinions because of racism, it’s that he can’t do a number of good and useful things because of it, and that his own presidency (in that there is a black president for the first time) has, in newly measurable ways, both exacerbated the problem and also brought it into a new light (see, e.g., difference in national dialogue on Trayvon before and after President spoke on it, etc.).

      I doubt the author would disagree with most of what you wrote (most of your points here should be assumed), though it’s definitely wrong to suggest that anyone, including the President, would be better off if the President ignored such an enlightening article. Anyone should be thankful to have a clearer picture of the obstacles before him.

      • BIKI024

        people should focus on his policy, not so much his words. i haven’t heard too many complimentary words towards his black policy.

        • ClevelandFrowns

          Black policy?

          • BIKI024

            yes, Black Policy. my friend who works at Harvard has been involved in organizing the Black Policy Conference at Harvard since it’s inception 8 years ago: http://www.blackpolicyconference.com/

          • bupalos

            Maybe they can push for something like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That should work out great!

    • bupalos

      There’s a part I think you’re getting here and a part you’re not. The part you are getting is the point about any minority being in the same boat in politics. That’s true. For instance, in the 50′s you could have said that John F. Kennedy had the same dilemma, that he had to tap dance around issues that could be perceived as “Catholic” because acting on those items could stir animosity that transcends policy. The part that you’re not getting is that many issues that get labeled “Black” or “Catholic” or whatever aren’t necessarily pursued as agenda items for that constituency, but they are in great danger of being labeled that way simply because of the majority bias. For instance the “welfare work requirement waiver” that the GOP wants to talk about now is quite simply a bi-partisan, totally non-racial issue of allowing more governance on welfare at the local level. It’s not about dropping the work requirements at all, and it’s not even a majority Democratic initiative. But since it can have the word “welfare” in it, Obama simply is not able to respond either way on the issue without the opposition using it to stir the racial pot. You can see how that works.

      >>>I can already hear the counter-argument: But Obama has a “moral duty” to fight any injustice in society, especially those specific to his race? My ass.>>>

      That’s simply not the counterargument at all. Many many degrees off. What Coates is lamenting is a very basic and very old and somewhat ironic interaction between the powerful role-model potential of a successful minority person and the need for that person to contort him or herself to please the majority. Not refrain from helping his own: refrain from what he believes to be truly right and good for the country. That’s a very old story but I think Obama in America would be a towering case. You might need to know Coates and his primary interest in fathering and role-models and the boundaries of race to really get where he’s coming from. You might also need to accept that Obama has governed pretty far to the right of the majority of his constituency. This isn’t simply a political argument.

      • Bryan

        Bup and Frowns,

        I understand the irony that the author aims to highlight – because of his very blackness Obama is limited in his ability to honestly pursue issues of race.

        I simply disagree with the author’s thesis that Obama is limited in what he can say about race. Obama has spoken eloquently and bluntly on issues of race when necessary (imo, his greatest speech on such matters was the one following the jeremiah wright fiasco), and (as the author notes) regular carries his “blackness” in a very public way with pride. The reason he does not invoke his “blackness” as much as the author wants is because Obama likely has different views about which issues are truly racial at their core, and important enough for the President to weigh in on.

        This is what I meant when I made my quip about “moral duty.” The author’s argument only makes sense if you believe there are important moral issues related to race that Obama should be weighing in more frequently, but somehow doesn’t because he is afraid of the political backlash (if this is true, then we have the alleged irony – a Black president who could do more “good” but cannot because of how his blackness is perceived). If one believes this is not the case, then Obama reticence to discuss race does not require an 18 page dissertation invoking tragic irony. It is simply solid political strategy that attempts to be in tune with the current racial climate.

        Obama is very nuanced in his understanding of such things. When a stand is needed, he will take it. He has much bigger fish to fry than how he handles race.

        PS: If Romney wins, I wonder if a Mormom dude will write an 18-pager called “Fear of a Mormon President” in which he laments Romney’s inability to pursue Mormon issues more stridently.

        • ClevelandFrowns

          PS: If Romney wins, I wonder if a Mormom dude will write an 18-pager called “Fear of a Mormon President” in which he laments Romney’s inability to pursue Mormon issues more stridently.

          There are no “important moral issues related to race that Obama should be weighing in more frequently,” because white boy who thinks that religion and race are the same thing says so.

          I think you’ve proven your point here.

          • Bryan

            The Romney thing was a joke. Sheesh.

          • ClevelandFrowns

            Mmmhmm.

        • bupalos

          >>>I understand the irony that the author aims to highlight – because of his very blackness Obama is limited in his ability to honestly pursue issues of race.

          I simply disagree with the author’s thesis that Obama is limited in what he can say about race.>>>

          If you’re not convinced by the Martin thing, I’m not sure what to say. I would encourage you to read Obama’s statement again. Gingrich’s characterization of this is wrongheaded in the creepiest and most effective way. The white-right freakout over him opening his mouth at all (in a case where you’ve got a whole chunk of American society about ready to riot and go vigilante) is as good an example as you can get of how this damages America. You don’t accept that I guess, and it’s hard for me to see how that can be, other than by not accepting that the challenges still presented by America’s original sin are important not to some “interest group” but to America.

          To me, where you and Gingrich are missing the boat is that this is NOT a “just a black issue.” This is an American issue. An important American issue. And while in theory we have a great leader for this particular American issue–this intelligent, conservative, thoughtful guy who happens to be genetically and dispositionally positioned to understand and voice both sides– In reality, the political salience of his blackness trumps all that for a majority of the country. He can’t open his mouth without it suddenly becoming even less of an American issue and more of a “black” one.

          You’re invocation of the Reverend Wright speech proves the point. Yes it was pretty good. But there was a lot more “you have to excuse some of my friends, they’re a little crazy at times…” than anything else. It definitely had some Al Roker in there. Yes it shows that it’s possible to talk about race in some sense and not get slaughtered. But you have to do it a very particular way. You better not spend much time talking about old stuff like slavery or lynchings or Jim Crow or lunchcounters– you can mention them but don’t act like that’s any more powerful or important than the indignation felt by Italian Americans who now have to pay taxes for welfare.

          The GOP is fully aware of this racial political dynamic and will throw as many of these traps out there as they can. Black. Foreigner. Welfare. Didn’t build that. Gang. Foodstamps. Birth Certificate. Socialist. Just get the words out there and let Obama twist around trying to get “in tune with the current racial climate.”

          >>> If one believes this is not the case, then Obama reticence to discuss race does not require an 18 page dissertation invoking tragic irony. It is simply solid political strategy that attempts to be in tune with the current racial climate. >>>

          The irony is the complete truth of the second sentence there, and it’s strangely inverted relation to the first. What you’re saying is what Coates is saying, and what the Obama pollster is saying: It’s possible for racial minorities to succeed in national politics if they can make people forget about race. But that generally means actively striving to stay away from issues that can be and will be cast as racial. Again if you think racial issues aren’t important– that they are on par as a problem for America with “Mormon issues”– and you’d prefer they were forgotten, then there is no problem for you here. Since I strongly disagree with that, I find Coates’ lament much more potent than you do. But I’m impressed you read it and found it worth reacting to at least.

          • Bryan

            Interesting stuff. Our disagreement seems to be a disagreement about how to move forward with the grotesque nature of our racial history. There are many black thinkers/scholars who believe we should be pragmatic and move forward with “post-racial” rhetoric that does not attempts to take on the pain of our history directly, or place responsibility for it on any group of citizens living today. The goal is to frame racial issues beyond that which is in the past and rely on the open-mindedness of younger generations to defeat ignorance.

            There is also the position of Coates, which argues that the only way to heal the racial issues in the country is to take our history head on and challenge America as a whole to take on that pain. Our history is an AMERICAN issue, not a black issue, and the country as a whole needs to recognize it as such.

            While I see the idealism of the Coates position, Obama, throughout his political career, has chosen to not pursue that position. Obama is the ultimate post-racialist. If you listen to his Wright speech, he delicately acknowledges that pursuing the pain of the past is a tough road to follow because most of America does not feel it is THEIR responsibility. The average middle class white guy (in his own mind) has a ton of his own problems. Even if we think he has a moral duty, as part of the white race, to take responsibility for his race’s past failings, realistically it ain’t going to happen.

            Obama knows this, and moves forward with the issue of race pragmatically. Whether you agree with that strategy or not, it is clearly HIS strategy. That is my point. Coates’ point is that Obama actually wishes to be pursuing a different strategy, but can’t because his hands are tied. I disagree. Obama is a very smart man who has thought deeply about race and understands the opportunity he has as President to affect change. He simply does not agree with Coates’ position.

            Re: Gingrich. Look, the Republican party are a bunch of idiots who will take any issue and attempt to politicize for their own gain. That is the reality of the situation. The fact that they regularly say ridiculous things does not mean that the country’s racial issues are being exacerbated. They are simply playing to the extreme minority that remains ignorant. That strategy cost them the White House last election (see Pailinism). The more ridiculous things they say, the more they will lose in the long-run. The media trumpets all of this stuff, but, again, the truth is that the Republican extremists are a small section of the country (just like anarchists and socialists, etc.). The more important reality is that Obama won going away last time and will likely do it again this time.

            And, Frowns, way to play the race card against me and call a white boy. Solid move.

          • ClevelandFrowns

            % of people who use the term “race card” who are white: 100

            You continue to read things into Coates’ piece that just aren’t there, including what you call his “position.”

            And this:

            “The fact that [Republican leadership] regularly say ridiculous [and hateful and otherwise terrible and regressive things] does not mean that the country’s racial issues are being exacerbated. “

            Is just postmodern nonsense that completely disregards any concept of leadership, party affiliation and basic human communication.

            At this point, I have no idea what your point is other than to express the completely unsupported, absurd, and loathsome conclusion that the history that Coates presents (as well as the way it impacts us in the present day) is somehow trivial, and has no significant impact on Obama’s presidency that’s worth discussing.

          • ClevelandFrowns

            The fact that you can’t acknowledge the basic truth that white boys lack an inherent element of credibility in discussing this issue (at least without letting off a pissy whine about it) says plenty as well.

            Keep trying. You’ll get it.

          • bupalos

            Yeah, I think you set up that dichotomy just fine, and I think you’re right that it’s the main source of what we disagree about. I would characterize the “postracial” method as “ignore it and it will go away,” and the other as “you can’t solve problems you deny,” but maybe that just shows my bias on the issue.

            In my earlier days (I grew up in Cleveland Heights) I believed in the practicality of the “post-racial” way. Having lived since in many places and most lately out in the sticks for a long time, I see the way that can actually move in two directions. Is it “letting it heal” or “skinning the cancer?” Maybe both.

            As we pile on the years, I’m not sure we are so much actually addressing the legacy of racial oppression, as just changing it’s nature–and also moving that original sin a little further in the rear view mirror so it’s easier to lose sight of. Which makes it easier to forget that there are historical roots that run in complex and crooked paths from slave ships right to Travan Martin’s back yard. And when you forget that, you simply pave the way for new iterations and variations on the old themes. Racism, after all, is as natural as gravity.

            I’m not sure I see where Coates is saying it would be desirable or possible for Obama to do other than he does with racial realities as they are. I feel like you’re misreading that a bit. He’s taking a pulse. On the one hand, we have an identifiably black American president. That shows how far we’ve come. On the other, the number of people who openly deny his basic legitimacy still vastly outnumbers the entire black population of the country. Beyond that, the fact that any discussion or awareness of race works to Obama’s political disadvantage– even in the vast center that decides American elections– shows how far we have to go, and simultaneously shows how hard it may be to get there.

            >>>The more important reality is that Obama won going away last time and will likely do it again this time.>>>

            Maybe you’re right. Out here in the sticks it doesn’t feel that way, and I don’t see that the GOP pays any price for the racial stuff. I should get in to the city more.

          • Bryan

            Bup,

            That makes a lot of sense. And, to be clear, I am not saying the “post-racial” stuff is clearly the answer. I am saying that I think it is what Obama thinks is the answer. IMO, it is who he is and what his political career has been based on. Coates is interpreting Obama’s approach as something Obama has been forced to do rather than something he CHOOSES to do because he believes it is the best approach. That is my general critique of his thesis.

            I do agree, though, that the dynamics Coates describe are real and important. I think, practically speaking, they are the main reason a President can never be the leader of this movement. It must be more grassroots a la the 60′s. The President is simply not in a political position to take this fight on given the multitude of ways that different groups of people view race in our country. Of course, I understand that Coates would argue that that is precisely the problem. And I see that point. I just think its a bit too idealistic.

            Frowns, not sure I follow your argument anymore either. We will have to let this one die.

    • Beeej

      1. Well done.
      2. I may be misremembering, but I could have sworn when the story hit I was reading extreme comments from both sides before the President said anything. “Zimmerman was protecting himself…that kid was a thug…if a black neighborhood watch caption shot a white kid…”
      3. Anyone who uses Uncle Tom as an insult hasn’t read the book. H.B. Stowe’s father, brothers, and husband were all preachers. Uncle Tom is one of the most easily identifiable Christ-figures in literature. If you haven’t read the book I highly recommend it. It puts a face on slavery as opposed to the white-washed version (pun intended) you get in school.
      4. There is no way G.W. Bush gets elected if he were a black man speaking the way he does.
      5. A very similar story that didn’t get as much press: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/singleton/

      • bupalos

        Wowzers on #5. It’s hard to see how he could have been convicted, but it’s just mind-boggling that he would have gotten life.

        • Beeej

          This case seems like it would be the poster child for the “Stand Your Ground” law. Sad to say, but if the races were reversed there is no way that the guy goes to jail.

        • ClevelandFrowns

          Wowzers on #1.

  • http://twitter.com/mjh4259 Mary

    A great American (race unimportant) died this week, along with a couple more servicemen (race unimportant) in Afghanistan. Our president commemorated the passing of Neil Armstrong with a picture of himself gazing at the moon. Please.

    Like a majority of Americans, I have no fear of a black president, but I will not give a pass (as has been said) to this empty suit caricature created by a bunch of white academics. There is no substance to the man.

    Oh, and I despise Chief Wahoo. Keep up the good fight.

  • CleveLandThatILove

    Just want to say that I’ve never considered women to be a minority group, at least not in my lifetime. We are equipped to do things that no man will EVER be able to do. (Except maybe someday in a grotesque, Steven King Pet Sematary kind of way.)

    I think we are all kinds of powerful. I also think it will be fascinating to see a woman elected POTUS at some point, and what unique challenges she may face, and how she’ll handle them. I wonder if I’ll vote for her.

  • https://twitter.com/jimkanicki jimkanicki

    ladies and gentlemen,
    mesdames et messieurs,
    damen und herren:

    the week one cheddar lines are up. look alive.

    • CleveLandThatILove

      To think that a year ago I didn’t even know what those words words meant.

      Talk about sending a thrill.

  • JJA

    All T-N Coates can opine about is race. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And, why is dissent no longer allowed? Perhaps I disagree with the foolish idea that I didn’t build my business, but my friendly Federal benefactors.

  • nagelbush

    Liberals have more reason to complain about Obama’s first term than conservatives. For the most part, he’s been a go-along-to-get-along corporatist. Yet the Republicans regard him as a flame-throwing Bolshevik whose presidency threatens the future of our republic. Something has colored their perception. I choose my verbs advisedly

    • Cousin_of_Cohen

      Another nagelbush on this site? I’m your cousin Seth who lives in Chicago – which one of us is this?

Previous post:

Next post: