People to Barack: Bling It On, Bro!
Published May 05, 2007
That aside, he has the potential to become an adept politician for one solid reason: his campaign contribution collection from the grassroots' level at light speed. So at the April Democratic debate Obama had every reason to smile and shine in his blue suit. He had made a killing on the Internet. He had attracted ballas and “the people” alike. While no one stood out as a crowd pleaser, John Edwards came off as a balla with his $400 haircut. When asked about it he could have scored with a reply like, “That was dumb.” Obama’s comment on the terror attack question was a bit off-key I thought. He said the war was “dumb.” And based on his response to a terrorist attack, some journalist joked, “Would he send in school buses?” That’s funny.
The post-Imus off-color comment gave Barack’s backers pause. Thus David Geffen's support (he is not a brotha, but Jewish, gay, and a Forbes 400 who makes that rapper profile as rolling-in-hay-balla and pimp possible) was recently questioned. Just as the ballas, brothas, and sistahs were getting solidly behind Barack Obama — there was a sudden somewhat stymied outcry of “give it back" after Imus opened his big mouth. He would have been more correct, and caused less controversy, had he called the women's team nappy-headed ‘ballas,’ which also means great at basketball.
Despite that criticism, Barack bounced back with the people of America. TIME has also had to take note of his smile and stellar speeches — all bling? Who knows. But we know that he has to bring bling to the table, every time, all the time. And according to crowd size, smile size, contribution cash, polling numbers, and the TIME 100 list, we think he is doing just that. Since I started writing this article a Secret Service detail has been assigned to him and his family due to specific and nonspecific threats from white supremacists. They care. And they worry about his success. Why? Because he meets and exceeds the qualifications for president.
The requirements are (drum roll):
- Natural born citizen;
- 35 years of age;
- Resided within the US A for 14 years;
- Cannot be elected to the presidency more than twice.
There are not too many ways to parse presidential qualifications folks, except to say that they are few. The early presidential elections were special. Recall those days when women could not vote and blacks were not people? They were marred by an explicit agreement that the person presenting himself for said office should be 1) white and, 2) male, but we have outgrown that sentiment. Now, at least two of these candidates would love for all the women and all the blacks to vote for them alone.
- People to Barack: Bling It On, Bro!
- Published: May 05, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Culture: Celebrity, Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Heloise
- Heloise's BC Writer page
- Heloise's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Love it .... Bling it on, eh? Good stuff Heloise. It'd certainly liven the place up ... but would we see Barack, a giant solid gold clock with all the world's times on it hung around his neck (Baghdad smack bang in the middle), sporting a tasteful set of platinum grilles with "The Prez" spelled out in diamonds?
One thing's for sure: the decor aboard Airforce One would be a hell of a lot more interesting, and so would the haircuts around Washington.
You might actually get to see one move in the wind every so often.
I'm not sure what #4 in your list of requirements is supposed to mean. A president can be re-elected, so that's being elected to the presidency twice.
They can't serve more than two terms (or ten years, if serving out two years of a previous president's term before being elected themselves).
Arch Conservative posting several paragraphs of vitriol about Obama here in 5... 4... 3... 2...
"The GOP doesn't have the basic racism inherent in the Demcoratic party"
So why is the GOP field for 2008 made up completely of white males?
Why did virtually every black Republican lose in 2006, while black Democrats won?
Barack Obama will win, not because of his race, but because of his character.
Barack Obama will win, not because of his race, but because of his character.
In terms of character he appears to be head and shoulders above Hillary.
I, however, think his race will defeat him, not help him win.
Many Dems in the South are redneck crackers; I doubt they will vote for a Black man.
First, the bit about Geffen in there reminds me of the scene in Bullworth when he says:
"My guys are not stupid. They always put the big Jews on my schedule. You're mostly Jews, right? Three out of four of you?"
Seems relevant to Obama's situation.
Heloise: Yeah, I saw Bullworth. But it is not JUST relevant to Obama, it is also most relevant to the CLINTON'S. That is that he is somewhat following not only in Clinton's footsteps but also in JFKs.
Second, I take it from the article that you don't agree with the theory that Obama is not 'black' enough.
Heloise: Did you read my "The Obama Drama Meter?" I believe he is not black enough, actually. Hence my tongue-in-cheek article.
I'm afraid that may turn out to be a real problem as the election goes along. The history of the democratic party has not been to encourage black candidates to run for the black vote. The party is built on paternalism and conditioning the black population to vote for a benevolent liberal who sort of (forgive me) fills the role of a modern-day plantation owner. And I don't think the party has evolved beyond that - I think white democrats will abandon Obama in droves when it comes to the actual election, unless the GOP nominates someone horrible. He's violating one of their basic rules, that blacks are the base and thus should stay at the bottom with the unionists and other riff raff.
Heloise: I predicted that Hillary C. would not be inevitable. Why? I predicted that something would knock her off the platform. I think it is Obama.
Thanks for your wonderful insight.
Heloise
STM, your comment made me laugh out loud.
Watch and see there may be spoofs on this with Barack as "Bling Brother!" That's so funny. That he is not.
I saw something when he was working with the group in Chicago. And the humility I saw on his face in that crowd was truly moving. Never seen a look like that from any white candidates. In that SENSE, he is black.
Thanks so much
Heloise
Hmm, note to editor: that change you made in #4 is wrong. It should read "cannot be elected to presidency twice." It means that Bill Clinton cannot run again and be elected. Not that one cannot hold office twice in succession. Something lost in the translation there. But the URL is there. Thanks for pointing that out Lee Richards.
Heloise
Clavos: Many Dems in the South are redneck crackers; I doubt they will vote for a Black man.
Heloise: Amen to that.
Sorry Heloise, but you're wrong. From the link you provided:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...
A person CAN be elected to the Presidency twice. Most presidents do this by being re-elected for a second term -- they are independent events, and constitute being elected twice. The reason Bill Clinton can't run again is because he's already been elected twice. Read your link again.
Lisa, I was thinking that it meant that one cannot come back and be relected. Okay thanks. In other words it means two terms period? Why did it not say that term-wise?
Heloise
Probably because it means the same thing? A person can be elected to two terms in office, hence elected twice. The terms can be consecutive or not.
Really, not consecutive? That's where the confusion comes in my little mind.
Heloise
Heloise
I am not following your article at all.
What does urban YOUTH language have to do with a presidential election or candidate.
What defines Blackness???? I'll answer the question. NOTHING quantifiable.
Your article seems disjounted. Please help me understand what your point was.
Dave
There you go again with your cartoonish view of the world. Blacks are not told individually what to do by anyone.
There is no genetic chip which causes us to respond to any one thing. We respond to who speaks to our concerns. While no one candidate addresses or wants to address all of our concerns, there are certain people who have lent us an ear.
The same is true with EVERY interest group.
When you state things as you do, you insinuate that we are ignorant and just file in the direction of whomever decides to rustle us on, like cattle.
It would stand that it is we who actually require the towing of the line of democratic candidates, as all LARGE interest groups do.
Zedd, here is my fabulous Point: Think Barack as Brother shaking up white America.
The subtitle: How Barack Obama is Rocking the People
1) 100,000 (possibly) contributions from "the little people" in small quantities
2) blacks are starting to get behind him, hence higher polling numbers
3) he taking "the Jews" and "the blacks" from Hillary
4) He has become engaging to the Right, i.e. Heloise who has left the right for now.
5) white supremists Web sites are citing their hatred for a black person as president. I did not link to any of those sites because I don't want to give them any more grist.
6) his crowds are so large (whites mostly) and the threats so real that he is the earliest candidate to get secret service.
7) he is attracting "bling" from brothers who are rappers and in association with David Geffen (read deep pockets both black and Jewish).
8) That the bling-bling crowd is behind Barack as well as middle class blacks like my two grown children and their spouses.
9) He won the dem debate
10) he made the TIME 100 list---helloooo.
I could go on, but all these points have been made in the article, right or wrong?
Heloise
Zedd, I sense that you are a wise person, so not sure why you did not get my point.
PS: I just thought I would use black youth lingo to make my points, and gave a little Chicago history to connect the dots between what we say and what we do. That is we do it long before we coin it into being.
Heloise
Zedd I disagree with your reading of Dave's comment. I think he is saying "here we go again" and that life imitates art. Politicians follow each other to be sure. They imitate other winners. Look at the photos with Barack and others pointing. JFK did that in many photos.
Heloise
There you go again with your cartoonish view of the world. Blacks are not told individually what to do by anyone.
You show that you almost get it, but still you come up short. I agree that individual blacks aren't programmed to behave in a particular way more than anyone else. But as a community they are certainly guided into certain courses of action and loyalties which are not always in their best interests.
This isn't something unique to blacks, but it does stand out because their loyalties are so dramatically contrary to their welfare.
Dave
Dave,
An astute observation. And one with which I concur.
Heloise
Dave
Would you have the courage to say "Zedd, your loyalties are contrary to your welfare", as I am a Black person. I should hope not because you don't know me.
If anything is paternalistic it is the approach that you take in conversing about Blacks.
There is diversity among us. The reasons that each of us have for voting the way that we do differ based on our personal ideology. The fact that what you support doesn't fit into what most of us consider to be OUR best interest does not mean that it is us who are being lead like children. It means your ideas are not good enough.
Dave
It can certainly be said after the reign of the other party that those who support it are not working in their own interest. The Republicans have proven themselves to be all talk (spin), perversion, hypocrisy and no action (actually screw ups) as of late. While Blacks tend to be for more conservative than most Democrats (as I am, even though I don't consider myself to be a Dem), it is the yuck factor that permeates within the Republican party that keeps us away.
Republicans are yucky to put it simply. The most intelligent of Republicans remain loyal with reservation.
Considering the mess that this party has wrought, it would be laughable to insist that a people who have been lied to and about for hundreds of years would latch on to these impotent masters of distortion. Especially when a lot of the distortion is about THEM.
That would be counter productive, wouldn't you say.
Heloise
Come on now.... I don't follow your spiritual thing but I normally get your articles and enjoy them. What in the heck are you talking about?!!! What is your point?
Are you simply saying that Obama is doing well?
Are you saying that there is a correlation with his appeal and the rise of hip hop in American society?
Are you saying that the acceptance of urban culture is making it possible for him to be a viable candidate?
Perhaps I missed the dots that connect the thoughts this time but daaaang girl! Clue some of us in.
Dave is not that deep. He meant that we are duped into voting the way we vote. He has said it on a number of occasions. You know like children.
Yes, I guess I am saying we can sit back and now say he is doing not just well but better than anyone would have predicted.
Paternalism and the white man's burden can rear its head at times. But the deal is this: blacks can little afford to make the mistakes that whites, as republicans, can. That is the point. Both groups, all groups vote their hearts and make mistakes is true.
Heloise
Sorry you did not get this one Zedd
Heloise
I wanted to get it though :o)
On the voting, I think that we as a people are under a great deal of pressure already. Its perfectly fine for us to vote in any way that we choose. That is the point behind the right to vote. We cant predict what candidates will really do when they are elected no more than any other people.
The naive, yet paternalistic attitudes of individuals is just one of the multitudes of nuisances that we contend with that most other people cant conceive of.
What will fix our issues is more grass roots, unfortunately. Its hard work. We have to repair the results of the evil legacy ourselves. Politicians cant. Certainly things like affirmative action play a large role in at least giving us an opportunity to compete however in order to be prepared to compete, we have got to get people were they need to be.
"I, however, think his race will defeat him, not help him win.
Many Dems in the South are redneck crackers; I doubt they will vote for a Black man."
- Clavos
Obama's our next president, Clavvy...write it on the wall...
Obama's our next president, Clavvy...write it on the wall...
You're starting to sound like the liberal version of our friend Arch Conservative, MCH - only with slightly less cussing and likening of the candidates to female reproductive organs.
"You're starting to sound like the liberal version of our friend Arch Conservative, MCH - only with slightly less cussing and likening of the candidates to female reproductive organs."
- Dr. Dreadful
And another difference being I've actually served in the military.
"Many Dems in the South are redneck crackers; I doubt they will vote for a Black man."
actually, we call those people republicans. and then they don't vote.
Obama could beat the Republican frontrunners...
Just in... Latest: Obama Beats Rudy McRomney in Zogby polls from Newsmax
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/63461)
A couple of points.
First, the bit about Geffen in there reminds me of the scene in Bullworth when he says:
Seems relevant to Obama's situation.
Second, I take it from the article that you don't agree with the theory that Obama is not 'black' enough. I'm afraid that may turn out to be a real problem as the election goes along. The history of the democratic party has not been to encourage black candidates to run for the black vote. The party is built on paternalism and conditioning the black population to vote for a benevolent liberal who sort of (forgive me) fills the role of a modern-day plantation owner. And I don't think the party has evolved beyond that - I think white democrats will abandon Obama in droves when it comes to the actual election, unless the GOP nominates someone horrible. He's violating one of their basic rules, that blacks are the base and thus should stay at the bottom with the unionists and other riff raff.
Finally, the Obama campaign troubles me because I think it will ultimately set blacks back politically. When Obama runs and loses there's going to be a lot of blame directed at all sorts of people and it's going to hurt future black candidates. I'm still convinced that the best and most likely way for a black American to win the presidency is to run as a Republican. The GOP doesn't have the basic racism inherent in the Demcoratic party, and the combination of enthusiastic party backing and pulling votes from the democrats would be hard to beat.
Obama gets black democrats, half the white democrats and no one else and loses to any Republican. A nice moderate black Republican like Colin Powell (not that nut Keyes) would get most of the Republicans and independents and many black democrats and win overwhelmingly.
Plus a black Republican president sends a much more positive message to the black population as a whole. Rather than endorsing the exploitation of the Democrats, a black man (or woman) winning as a Republican sends the message that blacks have arrived and that they can compete on equal footing with whites and anyone else.
Dave