Big Boi talks to rapper Bun B at the Democratic national Convention about Barack Obama

It doesn’t follow, however, that we should never call out “bullshit” when we hear it. Here are three examples, I’ve witnessed in Denver over the past three days of speechifying.

First, Senator Joe Biden. Biden will be talking a lot about the plight of working and middle class Americans in the coming weeks and has been praised at this convention for his hard-scrabble roots and his ability to relate to the struggles of the common folks. Last night, in his litany of Republican failures, President Clinton referred to soaring credit card debt that was crippling American families. Now, it happens that Delaware is ground zero of the US credit card industry.

Partly for that reason, Joe Biden co-piloted legislation to over-haul US bankruptcy laws through Congress a couple of years ago . Not to put too fine a point on it, but the bankruptcy act of 2005, which the credit card industry lobbied intensively in favor of, was one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation passed by Congress in a generation. It significantly limited Americans’ ability to get relief from debt burdens, while leaving credit card companies free to pursue what can only be described as usurious and predatory lending practices. And, lest you think that people should just learn to manage their budgets better, the number one cause of personal bankruptcy filings in America is a catastrophic medical condition for which an individual or family cannot pay.

Example number two has to do with foreign policy. Last night, Bill Clinton promised that a President Obama would only resort to force as a last resort. Don’t get me wrong, if I have to choose between whatever foreign policy course a President Obama charts, and a neo-conservative inspired John McCain foreign policy, it’s a no-brainer.

But, as the conservative analyst Andrew Bacevich, an expert on foreign policy and American military history points out, the United States, a military superpower since the end of World War II, has taken an evermore disturbing turn toward global military dominance since the end of the cold war. Furthermore, Bacevich argues, there is an unchallenged bi-partisan consensus that America should continue to be an imperial global military power.

In his pandering insistence on Georgia’s entry into NATO and in his plans for maintaining the US military at a level that has led us to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military affairs, Senator Obama has already made clear that he will not deviate from that larger consensus about the American imperium.

Finally, the third example is drawn from Senator Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has, since the primaries, repeatedly trumpeted her thirty-five years of work in the trenches for ordinary Americans. So, I just have to ask: does that include the years that she was a partner at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm, a firm whose most famous client is Wal-Mart? Or the six years that she served as a paid director on Wal-Mart’s board? Is that the kind of in-the-trenches work for ordinary Americans that she’s talking about?

I am not naïve. To repeat, I understand that there is always a gap between political rhetoric and reality. And, I believe that Senator Clinton, like her husband and like Senator Biden, believe their own narratives about the good fight they’ve fought for ordinary Americans. But, they are narratives – stories – about what these folks represent and fight for.

All three individuals, it happens, have real, concrete achievements in support of ordinary Americans of which they can be justly proud. And I am certain that a President Obama would, too. But, the Democratic Party is far more compromised in its ability and willingness to fight for the American dream at home and a responsible, restrained foreign policy abroad than its rhetoric suggests. No surprise there. Just worth remembering.

Hillary spoke in part to some voters who fit that mold in parts of her speech last night. A significant number of her supports were excited about the feminist possibilities of her campaign, but are not party centric enough to follow through her call to support to Obama. Some self-identify as feminists. Others are swayed primarily by race. Together they are significant enough to swing an election.

The McCain campaign has already tapped into this sentiment. The McCain campaign hope may be too much a leap of faith. Some of Hillary’s supporters turned the corner instantly—last night. Others need a little more time to heal. Still others, which the McCain advertisements this week are trying to tap into, may not heal at all. Democrats should hope they are in the minority.

News media outlets keep reiterating the idea, “We still don’t know Barack.” Pay attention to who is speaking and whom they are hoping to reach. The underlying message is that America is white country and white voters, white feminist too, need to be convinced that Senator Obama accepts this “reality” and all that comes with it before they give him their vote.

It’s a troubling undercurrent of the 2008 presidential election. No matter how eloquent Obama’s speeches, it doesn’t go away.

Here’s where the Clintons come in. Hillary did her part speaking to supporters who saw the feminist historic possibilities in her campaign. Where she missed the mark was on the question of race—unless her plan was to set Bill up for the homerun of his career.

For the sake of the country faced with an incredible opportunity to address once and for all its unreconciled racial dilemma, tonight could be Bill’s moment to not simply defy the expectation to play party politics, but, more important, to make a bold statement to white Americans explaining why it’s in their best interest to abandon America’s old racial politics.

Three compelling reasons why Bill Clinton should do this?

1. Clinton has a great history as an American president. He has always known there was a greater calling for a former president who was always ahead of his time. A powerful statement on race could make him arguably more than one of America’s greatest presidents.

2. Eight years after the Bill Clinton Administration, despite the love he gained from the Black community (especially Black elected officials), the more critical voices still hold him accountable as the centrist Democrat who ended welfare as we know it and who signed the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Both contribute to the ever-growing divide between America’s rich and poor that George W. Bush policies only continue. He needs to make amends.

3. His loose cannon commentary on race during the primary has done what seems now irreparable damage. A strong statement on race that challenges white Americans to move past the old racial ideas about America would more than redeem him.

Two larger than life moments that ushered in sweeping social change in this country are worth referencing here. Ironically, each case began wedded to race, even as the social change left in its wake benefited all Americans.

The first was the Civil War, which accompanied the end of slavery. The second was the civil rights movement, which started the move to end legalized segregation and a host of inequalities that flew in the face of the very premise upon which the country was built.

A third such giant step in social change is upon us. We are witnessing, as Frank Rich suggests in the New York Times last Sunday, the end to the illusion of a monolithic Anglo-Saxon America. Our parties and our politics, whether we like it or not, have begun to reflect it.

There are very few moments where individuals armed with the right words can change the tide of history. Tonight Bill Clinton should stand and deliver.

But was she convincing? I ran into a young Arab-American man who was wearing a “Hillary for President” t-shirt and multiple “Hillary” Stickers. The young man, who was a delegate from New Hampshire, was expressing that he was unconvinced to rally behind Obama. The young man was frustrated that Hillary had not been selected to as Obama’s running mate and angered that she did not explain herself during the speech.

NewsOne was there as this unnamed delegate’s declarations drew attention. Mitch Mallett of Florida, also a Hillary delegate, came out of the Convention Hall shouting, “YOU NEED TO JUST STOP IT AND GET OVER IT! WORK WITH BARACK.” The exchange quickly escalated to pushing, drawing an audience.

Mitch Mallett said he was disappointed to see other delegates continuing “anti-Obama” rants. He went on to say, “… I am a Democrat! I am proud of that. [Hillary’s] speech tonight was to secure [Democratic] unity. Work with her to get [Obama] into the White House.”

A Florida delegate, donned in his red, white and blue hat, expressed his concern about the vote tomorrow. “I hope tomorrow, after these folks get some sleep, they will come back…put their political feelings aside and vote for the party structure.”

Hillary’s speech seems to have left some of her delegates feeling slighted. We will have to see how she can direct the Hillary bandwagon behind Obama.

On the one hand, and I mentioned this in a piece I wrote for Giant Magazine during the Iowa caucuses, Obama uses race to describe the obstacles he’s over come, to define a personal narrative, rather than to “communicate an indelible experience informing a sense of injustice about what it still means…to be Black in America.” On the other hand, he’s largely shied away from the issues that seem more pressing to Blacks, like affirmative action, poverty, the break up of two-parent families, the devastation of many urban Black communities.

Now, some might argue that advocating for affordable health insurance, regardless of whether it’s framed in racial terms, is clearly important to African Americans, who lack access to affordable health care at higher rates than other Americans. But still there is a distinction to be drawn, as national statistics on health always indicate.

But, I’ve been thinking about Kitwana’s admonition in light of Obama’s own celebrated words from the 2004 convention speech that put him on the map as a national candidate. You see it all the time—Obama intoning that there’s no red America, or blue America, no liberal America, or conservative America, no Black America or White America, there’s just the United States of America. It’s a compelling line, and a big part of his appeal. The vision that that sentiment underscores is not just of a post-racial America, but also of a post-conflict, harmonious country.

And, in a compelling recent review in The Nation of Shelby Steele’s latest book, Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that the reason the debate about whether Obama was “black enough” was always silly was because it was based on a misunderstanding of Black America itself. Coates rejects as outdated and absurd Steele’s claim that Obama can’t win because Blacks will not vote for a man who doesn’t “yell ‘white supremacy’ whenever he’s presented with an open mike.” (Steele’s book was written just prior to the start of the primary season). By contrast, Coates argues, African Americans are not primarily concerned with issues like affirmative action and welfare reform. Instead, Iraq and universal health care predominate. In this context, Obama’s support among African Americans makes all the sense in the world.

But, is it really true that race is, in a sense, beside the point, as a recent New York Times Sunday Magazine article suggests?

From where I sit, there are a few problems with this line of thinking. Senator Obama is a smart man, and a cleared-eyed one, and surely he knows that he’s being more visionary than descriptive when he says there’s no Black America or White America. There are two ways in which I have been thinking about that sentiment lately—one more arguably superficial, the other more serious.

On the first score, when I tell people I am covering the convention for Radio One/News One, I am getting a now very predictable reaction: white people have never heard of Radio One. African Americans have. To take this a step further—as I’ve been getting more familiar with Tom Joyner and his eight-million strong audience—I’ve been asking people whether they’ve heard of him. Now there’s probably scarcely a person in America who hasn’t heard of Howard Stern or Don Imus. The former has as an audience about Joyner’s size and the latter doesn’t come close.

When I ask about Tom Joyner, however, whether people have heard of him breaks down almost completely by race. Blacks know him. Whites, for the most part, don’t. Tom Joyner is neither a celebrity, nor a firebrand. And also, he is not a conservative—so he fits none of the categories of African Americans seemingly worthy of attention in white media. But, it’s hard to come away from asking people about their radio preferences and conclude that there’s only one United States of America.

The second dimension is more serious. Earlier this year, the AMA issued an unprecedented apology for over a hundred years of discrimination against Black doctors. That admission has accompanied a steadily gathering drumbeat about the massive differences in health between Black America and White America.

In a recent article in Salon, Rahul Parikh noted that “the medical community has known for a long time” that African Americans are “not as healthy as whites. They suffer from higher rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, HIV, cancer, asthma and other chronic illnesses.” They have less access to health care, are more likely to “show up in an emergency room because they don’t have anywhere else to go” and are more likely to see low quality or non-board certified doctors.

All of this remains true, to varying degrees, when one controls for income, age, insurance status and disease severity. In other words, race alone accounts for a significant portion of the health disparity.

One especially disturbing example comes from a recent report by the Black AIDS Institute, widely publicized when it was released in late July. If Blacks were considered as constituting a country in their own right, according to the report, their population of 39 million would make them the 35th largest country in the world. And, the prevalence of HIV among adult African Americans would rank this country 16th highest in the world in infection rates, with only four countries outside of Africa ranking higher.

And, though the gap in life expectancy between African Americans and other Americans has been closing in recent years, it is still substantial, at five-plus years, and if the trends in HIV infection continue, especially in conjunction with inadequate treatment, it could widen again.

I looked around Barack Obama’s website earlier today. The site lists about two dozen issues categories, including on health. The health page makes no mention of race, or Blacks or African Americans. And, I don’t expect the issue to receive any meaningful attention this week. But, it’s disturbing to consider that, for example, The New York Times Magazine article is correct in its proposition that Obama’s candidacy could spell the “end of Black politics.” Many Americans will find succor in a vision of a post-racial America, an end to our enduring “dilemma.” But, concrete realities will persist and run the risk of continuing to be ignored.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that “of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” And, Obama is surely making health care an issue, at least to some degree. He’s also, naturally, going to pursue a politically pragmatic course until election day and, in that vein, will almost assuredly steer clear of issues like health disparities, especially since so much of his appeal is premised on the promise of racial transcendence. But, when it comes to health and race, at least, it’s hard to argue that we are, or are likely soon to become, one America.

It has come to my attention that you do not intend to vote for Barack Obama this November and you are even considering voting for John McCain. I am deeply disturbed by your decision. I know I may have rubbed it in your face a little when Obama won and treated it like the Red Sox vs The Yankees rather than two legitimate political candidates battling over who would represent their party. I apologize for my behavior.

I know you related to Hillary Clinton. I know at your job you were passed up on being promoted by unqualified males. I know how much having a woman president would have meant to you.

Hillary Clinton ran one hell of a campaign. By being the favorite in the race and holding her own against a very smart inspirational candidate, a once-in-a-lifetime guy, she will forever have her place in history.

However, Barack Obama won fair and square. He didn’t win by using negative attack ads and being disrespectful or sexist: he won by using his wits, speeches and organization. There was a lot of bad blood in the campaign on both sides but it’s time we put our differences aside.

I’m perplexed that you would even consider voting for John McCain. This is not a time to hold grudges. The fate of the world is in our hands this year. Do you really think McCain is a better candidate than Obama?

McCain is a proven misogynist. He famously called his wife a ‘cunt’ for making a joke about him balding and he volunteered her to be in a wet t-shirt contest. When a supporter of his called Hillary a ‘bitch’, he laughed it off and said it was a good question. He called Chelsea Clinton ugly and said her father was Janet Reno.

I know you thought it was time to have an independent, intelligent woman as President but, unfortunately, a man came along who was able to overcome considerable odds and inspire a nation. If it is any consolation, we will still have a strong independent, intelligent woman in the white house: Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama has the possibility of playing an extremely important role in the Presidency much like Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton and unlike Cindy McCain, who has played the role of a silent trophy wife.

If you really believed in Hillary, you would take her advice and support Obama. If you look at their policies, Obama and Clinton have very few differences. They both want to repeal the Bush tax cuts; they both want to bring the troops home; they both are for universal healthcare. Do you really want to vote for McCain just to spite the Obama supporters and keep us in this messed up economy and in this unjust war? Were you voting for Hillary because of her policies or just because she is a woman?

You’ve worked very hard to get your house and savings. Do want to lose them because of McCain’s economic plan just because your girl didn’t get her shot? Your two sons would be eligible for the draft. Do you want them to risk their lives for a war you don’t believe in just because you thought Obama stole Hillary’s thunder?

This isn’t a popularity contest and it’s not time to let your feelings get in the way of our future. Why don’t you find out more about Barack Obama? Read his book, watch his speeches; I think you’ll like him. Not voting or voting for McCain will only set women, this country and the world back. If Obama lost to Hillary, I would be rallying for her with the hope that she could provide an alternative to these past 8 years of war, debt and poverty – something which McCain would definitely keep us in.

Please, for our family, for your children, for our future, for women, for men, for the world, vote for Barack Obama.

The future of the world is at stake.

Love Always

Casey

Among the interesting tidbits he threw out:

1) he is convinced that the Democrats in North Carolina have a better ground game than the Republicans. That’s the retail politics I referred to in my previous post. Therefore, Meek says, the current polls showing a close race in North Carolina understate Obama’s chances, if anything, because turnout in November “is going to be like nothing we’ve ever seen in this state.”

2) in a sign of the shifting winds in North Carolina, Meek pointed that “we are the only state in the entire country that been targetted for the presidential race, a senatorial race and a gubernatorial race.” Incumbent Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole, the wife of former Senator Bob Dole, is in a surprisingly close race with challenger Kay Hagan. And, the Democratic Senatorial Congressional Campaign Committee has just decided to put a whopping six million dollars of its own money into her campaign. Finally, Democrat Bev Perdue is receiving significant backing from the national Democratic Governor’s association in trying to succeed two term Democratic governor Mike Easley.

3) that the party’s internal polling shows a continuing and fascinating shift in the state: the majority of those people who moved to North Carolina as adults are strongly inclined toward Obama, whereas those who were born and bred North Carolinians are strongly pro-McCain. Meek is optimistic about November partly because the demographic trends favor the Democrats – in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill “triangle,” in Greensboro and in NC’s biggest city, Charlotte, newcomers are changing the face of the state and with it, the state’s politics.

Bottom line, for Meek, not only is North Carolina in play for Obama in November, but it’s increasingly fertile ground for Democrats going forward. Meek’s an optimist, and his position requires him to be a cheerleader for the party, not an objective observer. Still, Meek’s hopeful tune is music to the ears of long-suffering North Carolina Democrats.

Watch Jerry Meek speak during a Democratic Party dinner in Richmond, NC:

As Michelle and her brother Craig Robinson stand behind the podium checking sound, her standing position and the teleprompter, there are two little busy bees buzzing around the stage too. Malia and Natasha Obama. The two girls were fascinated by the huge stage and all the technology focused on their mom.

Dressed very casually with their spiral curls hairstyle, they are asking all the questions the average 10 year-old (Malia) and 7 year-old (Natasha) would. “Mommy, what is this?” as Natasha points to the gavel that will be use to start the convention. “Mommy, what does this do?” both girls ask about the screens that will scroll their mother’s speech.

The message here is yes, our potential first lady is a distinguished attorney, about to give the biggest speech of her life, but she is still a mother. And in all the hype, it is good to see her kids just be kids! None of this excitement changed the normal behavior of elementary school age children; that means lots of questions.

With the theme of “one nation” Michelle reminded us of her husband roots. Following Senator Ted Kennedy’s electrifying speech, she pick up where he left off —stressing both the past and the future. But she also emphasized that we must preserve the best of our country for the sake of our children.

The presence of the Obama daughters remind us that part of our urgency this election year is to repair America now in order to embetter the world these children will inherit. It’s a future that for Michelle and Barack Obama also means continuing the task of raising their two daughters.

Senator Clinton and her supporters have strongly linked aspects of her campaign to feminist sensibilities. One wonders how those women, whose feminism is pitched to critical issues like poverty, childcare, domestic and sexual violence, inadequate healthcare and inequitable wages, will experience catharsis through a merely symbolic vote?

Senator’s Clinton’s campaign brought to the surface how cavalierly commentators and pundits employed sexist and even misogynist language to describe the candidate. In one instance, CNN host Glenn Beck called Clinton a “stereotypical bitch.” Even on MSNBC, the so-called “liberal alternative” to Fox News, host Tucker Carlson could comment “There’s just something about [Hillary Clinton] that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.”

Such language speaks volumes about the extent to which sexism and misogyny permeates media culture. This same media and its sexist culture helped frame discussions about Clinton’s candidacy.

When CBS anchor Katie Couric publicly addressed the sexism of media pundits, for example, MSNBC’s Keith Olberman prefaced his response by calling Couric the “worst person in the world.” In this environment, The Clinton campaign rightly highlighted how the senator’s gender was used to undermine the viability of her campaign.

But like the racist-language gaffes of radio host Don Imus and comedian Michael Richards, sexist language and sentiment is just that. To be sure, policing such language is not the same as engaging a feminist politics that aims to dramatically alter the quality of life for women in this country. On this count, healthcare reform notwithstanding, the Clinton campaign was lacking and understandably so.

Just as the Obama camp has been hamstrung either by force or choice, to offer concrete policy initiatives that address the specific realities of anti-black racism in this country, the Clinton campaign was never in a position to articulate a true feminist vision for this county—if in fact the Senator from New York is truly invested in such a vision.

Clinton’s campaign found middle ground by highlighting the symbolic value of her candidacy to feminist movement veterans, like Gloria Steinem, and to a professional class of women. But these symbolic connections often came at the expense of the concerns of a feminist working class. Also sacrificed were concerns of feminists of color. Clinton supporters’ silence in the face of racist and sexist commentary directed towards Michele Obama is perhaps the most pronounced example of the latter case.

So feminists of all colors and genders (I might add) are left with the symbolism of a roll-call vote at the Democratic Convention. Despite the so-called catharsis of the moment, the roll-call vote further diminishes the legitimacy of the Feminist and Women’s movements.

The issues that affect the lives of women (and the men and children in their lives) deserve more than lip service. Senator Obama must see past this so-called olive branch to Clinton’s supporters. And it is incumbent upon the presumed Democratic nominee to push forward a party platform that makes clear his commitments to the lives of women in this country—even if he is unwilling to call it the feminism that it is.

Mark Anthony Neal is Professor of African-American Studies at Duke University and a Visiting Scholar at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of four books, including the recent New Black Man.