I suppose every presidency has its bubble, and it is probably very easy for the culture within that bubble to turn into a cult of personality.
Not being African-American, I’m probably not the best judge of whether or not President Obama has paid enough attention to African-American voters and their concerns (presuming, of course, that their concerns differ significantly from the concerns of other groups). But notice the reaction from “a person close to Obama” in this morning’s Politico:
“You can spend a lot of time trying to win over white independents, but if you don’t pay attention to your base, African Americans, if you have not locked up your base yet, you’ve got a serious problem,” said CNN contributor Roland Martin.
“African-Americans will vote for him again, 88, 92, 95 percent. The question is what’s the turnout? I’ll vote for you. But will I bring ten other people along, like I did in 2008? That’s the danger here for him. He doesn’t have the historical factor to lean on as much in 2012 as he did in 2008. . . . And the first step, is that he has to be willing to speak to this audience, black people.”
In a striking turnabout for a president who has rewritten American racial history, Obama finds himself the target of criticism from the black cultural and political elite that has, for the most part, been leery of airing its disappointment.
The president is reportedly angry that African-American leaders aren’t crediting him for his hard-bought achievements that will especially help communities of color, including health care reform, aid to cities, student aid and protecting Medicaid.“The whole thing is bull-[bleep] . . . We have met with [black leaders] more than any other group and we are increasing our outreach,” said a person close to Obama.
Raising the question itself elicits a barnyard epithet, even when African-American unemployment is 16 percent and has been around that level for the entirety of Obama’s presidency. To this unnamed person close to the president — hey, do we know anyone close to Obama who’s been known to be fiercely loyal and uses profanity a lot? Some former employee, perhaps? — there is no realistic or legitimate basis for these leaders to raise these concerns, or to criticize his performance.
I was reminded of a closing passage in Richard Ben Cramer’s What It Takes:
The White House is the thickest and shiniest bubble of all.
It’s not just that we can’t see him. From the White House, he can’t see anything outside. Why didn’t Bush get it?
Well, the White House was running like a top! Everyone who walked into his office had a wonderful job — and were excited by the swell things they were doing for the country and its people. Every microphone over which he peered had a thousand faces upturned to his, ready to cheer his every applause line. If he left Washington, every tarmac on which Air Force One touched down had a line of prosperous people in suits, to pump Bush’s hand and tell him things were, we were, he was . . . great!
Somebody punctured the bubble, if Obama is indeed “angry” that African-Americans aren’t giving him enough credit.
His problem is not in trying to please African-Americans, his problem is trying to please liberals, for whom no effort or accomplishment is ever enough. This is true for environmentalists, unions, abortionists, and all other manner of liberals, in addition to the racial anger industry. And it remains true whether the one trying to appease them is Republican, Democrat, Northern elite, or Southern white, and it is the same for presidents and parking attendants. I dislike this president, but there is much he could have done to change my mind (a bit too late now, perhaps). Maxine Waters loves him, but there is nothing he can do to ever make her happy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans and conservatives have their own "unappeasables" whose standards of purity no one who actually holds a political office in real life other than king could ever live up to.
I guess that's just the nature of the beat and always will be as long as the prefix "poli" remains in politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrue enough, but on the right they amount to a fringe element, Ron Paul supporters and whatnot. On the left, they are the essence of the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich person, close to Obama, would speak to anyone associated with Fox News? This sounds like a planted story and if sources are listed, it will be verified as being false.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuh? How are Glenn Thrush & Joseph Williams associated with Fox News?
Politico is often referred to, even on the left, as the White House Newsletter. If anybody on that side of the ideological divide & among Obama loyalists is going to unload their displeasure with POTUS,however minor, it's a good bet they're going to do it there. Indeed, it would be *smart* for them to do it there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFascinating little bit of analysis, Mr. Mean. Of course, when you start with a faulty premise, follow with incorrect facts, and throw in a suspicion of your own making, your conclusions are bound to be entertaining.
First, your assumption is that no one close to Obama would speak to Fox News. Granted, there is bad blood there, but we see it happening routinely, such as when Ed Henry reduces Jay Carney to incoherent mumbling. There's your faulty premise.
Second, Fox News is not a part of this story in any manner. There is no mention of Fox News in this article, or in the original article at Politico. There's where you get your facts wrong.
Third, you smell a rat and declare that this must be a planted story. There's the suspicion born of your own imagination.
All this leads to your conclusion that the story will be proven false. I suppose it could be, though certainly not by following your fanciful path. But thanks for the laughs, all the same. No hard feelings on my part, but I do think you owe an apology to Fox News for the implied smear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo point out the obvious, African American leaders don't give credit. The Chinese do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, this explains the Administration's use of the Federal grant and regulatory system for racial pandering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseapparently Obama is judging the Black leaders on the content of their character and not the color of their skin ... not sure they are doing the same ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLets see, technically, BHO is an actual (albeit mulatto) African-American who was raised by white socialists and affirmative action at their prestigious white colleges. Most self-described African-Americans are in actuality part of a 300 year old, Christian, non-socialist tribe that has been absorbed by the Democrat machine. He's now upset with these so-called African-Americans who are in fact real Americans who happen to be black. Of course, many of these Americans haven't quite come to terms with their identity yet, thus the conundrum with Obama. If Republicans were smart, we'd be shouting from the rooftops that, hey, this guy who's our president that we just can't stand- HE'S NOT BLACK, not in any real sense. Ergo, we don't hold this guy against you. Socialist America though, that's another story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo to the hardware store, grab a gallon of white paint, and then have the attendant put it below the pump that measures out a small amount of color (in this case, black) that they squirt into the can. Have them put the lid back on, and into the shake-up machine it goes. What have you got? Obama. Mostly white, with a squirt of black tint. As authentic as Pergo flooring; yet, most African-Americans see him as natural hardwood, through and through. Tis sad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice tone to this post, Jim. We have to take accusations of Perry's baggage, real and alleged, seriously, whatever the source. No need to circle the wagons until he's the nominee. This strikes me as not a big deal, but the MSM will amplify this and other suggestions of crony capitalism. It's a mark against Perry, but probably not a serious one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you reading the same post the rest of us are? I think you got a little lost, there; this is about the disappointment of the CBC with Obama, not anything to do with Perry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho would have expected a lack of enthusiasm among a demographic that's been experiencing unemployment in the 18-25% range for the last three years? How can that be?
Sadly, I don't doubt the 95%+ D voting percentage among blacks that do show up on election day. Still doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, but what will the turn out be. He got a surge when he ran the first time. 95% of Blacks voter may vote for the Democrat, but if most Black voters stay home he hurts. Black voters usually have a pretty low turnout.
They may prefer Democrats to Republicans, but neither party really gives them a reason to go to the polls at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse