Chicago 2008: Men, media, politics, and bread, with butter

Plans seem to be afoot, perhaps via Illinois' attorney general and state supreme court, to push defiant governor Rod Blagojevich from that state's administrative and political bus. Two other observations come to mind. I compare them to an elephant - or a donkey - in the room. These are the way in which, and despite any misgivings, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (elder politico cum clergyman) chose to back Barack Obama, and secondly, how Jesse III, his son and Illinois member of Congress, for some unspecified time period has been politicking for the now-vacant Senate seat. Coincidence? Mr. Jackson the elder backed Mr. Obama very visibly and seemingly inside the Black American community, without a balanced or critical view. When it came to news coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, Jackson the elder was everywhere. In some circles he seemed to have a virtual monopoly on voicing opinions (none really critical of Mr. Obama) "on behalf of Black America" on the campaign. Then, on election night, the omnipresent Jackson was filmed shedding tears. Earlier there were his frequent U.S. media appearances as well as his repeat visits (which very few Americans saw) on Britain's BBC TV and France's France24 TV. It's not quite a year since Rev. Jackson appeared on BBC International where he quickly wrote-off as "a cheap shot" the reporter's earnest question about Mr. Obama's ethnic and historical dis-similarity from Black Americans (the descendants of people enslaved in the US and before the US existed). In shocking contrast, Barack Obama comes from a White slaveowning family, with the addition of his Kenyan father. Rev. Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson III, is hyperactively seeking the Senate seat vacated by Barry/Barack. Might these father-son activities be related? Do journalists care? Do we even still have the right to ask? What happens with interests who understand "on which side their bread is buttered," and by whom, and act in accordance? We may spend the next four to eight years answering this question.

Comments

[Marian]

A note to John, accessible to all my readers. I found your comment particularly unhelpful as well as rather offensive. What I was stating was not innuendo, but fact. You seem to have a problem making the leap from general observation to processing complexity. In this case now pretty much before the entire world - the actual conduct of "who gets to be president" and, by contrast, who does not - Barry Obama Soetoro's background is far, far less complex or "controversial" than the true family backgrounds of Black Americans, and the genetic & historical reasons why Black Americans have such a consistently high percentage of white/European MALE DNA. DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid. Consequently, the world and the USA will now never learn from contact with president Barry what they FINALLY would have, and could have, begun to learn about, CARE about - and to ACCEPT - about U.S. families and our society had MICHELE ROBINSON (who married B. Obama) or CYNTHIA MCKINNEY been elected the first Black American president of the USA. These two women and the entire Black American People descend from our own Black ancestors enslaved in the USA, as well as from the slaveowners who significantly were rapists. These are the ancestors of the men & women today lecturing Black Americans and other U.S. people of colour about "FAMILY VALUES." Barry/Barack Obama descends from the slaveowners. Period. If you need me or anyone else to actually spell out ALL the differences between these two backgrounds, this really isn't the blog where you need to leave insulting, half-conceived comments. Happy new year, and don't let the door hit you in the back.

[John]

"In shocking contrast, Barack Obama comes from a White slaveowning family", some of us are getting tired of this innuendo. If that is a factor, there are many of us who also are descendants of slave owning families, and some of our predecessors benefited from being in those families.
I am sure that the Jackson family where involved in making sure they benefited from the "representative of black people" role. It is the "but he has white, and African" in him innuendo that gets me. It is the silly divisiveness that stops groups from really addressing the economic system that benefits and is supported by racism. For example the economic well being of the African continent, the black diaspora is linked. Tangible example? The moment the African continent rises, job and economic opportunities in mainstream American companies will open up for African Americans.