Democrat Lies And Incompetence Make Conspiracy Theories Great Again
Kimberly Cheatle Bolts From Secret Service As GOP Senator Posts New Bodycam Footage...
President Oliver?
Meet Kamala's Press Agent...NBC News' Garrett Haake
Biden Gone, Democrats Rally Around Worst Possible Candidate
CBS Implies Kamala Harris Should Be Exempt From Criticism
George Washington Foresaw Today's Irresponsible, Immoral Leadership in Washington
How History Will Remember Biden
Kamala Harris Is a Race Hustler Who Will Send White Men to the...
Ending the FTC’s War on Consumers
A 'Warren Report' Isn’t Going to Fly In 2024
What the U.S. Secret Service Should Do Immediately
Biden FTC Distorts Cost-Saving Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Harris Was to the Left of Bernie Sanders in the Senate, and It's...
Religious Rhetoric and the RNC
Tipsheet

A Tough Road for African Americans

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that a Hillary Clinton delegate was called an "Uncle Tom" by Barack's erstwhile mentor, Emil Jones.

In the meantime, the LA Times ran a story about
Advertisement
TV One and BET denying they're "Obama cheerleaders."

It strikes me that it's entirely natural that the nomination of Barack Obama would be a matter of great pride among African Americans of all political persuasions and views -- it's a moving testimony to how far an historically oppressed people have been able to rise in an opportunity society like America's.  But that doesn't mean that all blacks necessarily will (or even should) vote for Obama based only on his race.

There's an unfortunate tendency in some quarters to try to impose a certain group-think on African Americans (the same phenomenon we've seen with over-the-top attacks on Justice Thomas).  Why, exactly, does Emil Jones think it's appropriate to characterize someone as, essentially, a traitor to her race just because she might not initially have supported Barack Obama? 

Why does BET and TV One think that they should be taken seriously as other mainstream journalistic sources when they're not even willing to cover the Republican National Convention and give the other side of the story?  TV One chairman Johnathan Rodgers said such coverage ""[j]ust by definition"  "doesn't fit into our mission" because "[t]here's no need for us to bring a presence to an event if there's no African Americans involved."  Tellingly, TV One wouldn't even cover the convention if Condi Rice were named veep -- although, Rodgers conceded, they would probably cover her acceptance speech.
Advertisement


Most Republicans -- and I daresay, most Americans -- believe this election should be color-blind, and that the candidates should be voted up or down based on their policies and their characters, not their skin colors.  Given that African Americans are still a minority, it would make sense especially for black liberals to share this view.  Why?  Because if there is still significant racism in this country (which most liberals must believe; otherwise, what's the justification for affirmative action?),  they would have a greater stake than anyone in making sure that the alleged racism doesn't unfairly penalize their candidate.

Covering only the Democrats (or demeaning any African American who didn't originally support Barack) sends the message that there's only one platform, one party and one candidate that blacks have an interest in and can legitimately support.  Not only is that limiting and insulting to African Americans, it suggests that color is the only revelant factor in one's political thinking.  What a shame.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement