I agree this is a candidacy with history significance, a truly salutary result. But I would have preferred J.C. Watts.

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 10:26 AM

I would have preferred J.C. Watts.

He, or any other Republican, would never have made it. He left Congress when he realized he had gone as far in the Republican Party as he could; furthermore, he would have had practically no black support.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 11:06 AM

At what point does someone become "black" or "white" or any other race? Barack had a white mother and a black father. Why is he simply called "black"? Is it just because it's easier than saying "half black and half white" or "mixed race" all the time? Is race simply what someone looks like (obviously Barack looks more black than white)? Is it a heritage? Is it whatever one wants to describe themselves as? I'm not trying to be antagonistic with these questions. I'm really interested in knowing what people think.

Posted by: Eric | August 28, 2008 11:53 AM

At what point does someone become "black" or "white" or any other race? Barack had a white mother and a black father. Why is he simply called "black"?

That goes back to slavery -- in America, if you have even one drop of black "blood" you're considered black.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 12:00 PM

Former Black Republican congressional leader blasts party
J.C. Watts: "Don't count my vote for McCain"
Posted: June 16, 2008 © 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – J.C. Watts, who has been mentioned as a possible Republican vice presidential candidate, is not even certain he will vote for John McCain this year.
He's also very unhappy with the Republican Party.

The thought that the former member of the Republican congressional leadership might actually consider voting for Barack Obama came up over the weekend when the Associated Press reported just that in a story pointing out conservative pundit Armstrong Williams and former Secretary of State Colin Powell were thinking about it – and had good things to say about the Democratic nominee.

Watts, a former Southern Baptist associate pastor, blasted the Republican Party for taking both blacks for granted and evangelical Christians.

"Pastors need to be careful in this endorsement game," he said.

He also said he was disappointed at the way the Republican Party leadership and John McCain's campaign include not a single black American.

Shocking many in the Republican fold, the Associated Press reported over the weekend Watts was thinking of voting for Obama.

Watts was quoted as saying: "I think all of America can take some pride in this (Barack Obama's success in getting the Democratic nomination)."

The former Oklahoma congressman criticized the Republican Party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

"And Obama highlights that even more," Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy. "Republicans often seem indifferent to those things."

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 12:30 PM

My opinion of J.C. Watts took a big jump when I read this.
Maybe someday he'll consider running as a Democrat.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 12:38 PM

So why do people like Leroy Barber and other commenters want to continue to use racist standards for judging someone's race?

A white former basketball teammate of mine who later played in college said his favorite players were Jerry West and Rick Barry (he in fact wore the former's uniform number in junior high and the latter's in high school). Was that racist? I didn't think so.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 12:45 PM

Leroy Barber I recommend that you watch, and that you watch with a person of color. And if you are a person of color, I recommend that you watch with a white person. Let's live out what the world is looking for so deeply. Caution: If you watch it with me or any other black friends, there might be crying involved. I was near tears this morning just thinking about it.

Great idea!
I've already shed a few tears over this and I'm a white guy, really proud of America.

Posted by: justintime | August 28, 2008 1:17 PM

"At what point does someone become "black" or "white" or any other race? "

Eric, a very perceptive question. IMO, when it matters to them. I look white, I guess - I am mostly of western European ancestry. But I have never thought of myself as white. When I fill out some form or other, I check "white/Caucasian" because that's where I'm told I fit. But I don't really feel ethnically anything other than American, and skin color - mine or anyone else's - means about as much to me as eye color. I don't ordinarily think of myself as a hazel-eyed person.

A few years ago, all of us people working in the data management field thought we were going to have to radically alter our systems because of the new US Census way of classifying race and ethnicity, which would have made it possible for someone to classify all of the different ancestries that applied - so Obama could have been both black and white. This happened in part because there have been so many mixed-race marriages in the past few decades that a lot of people weren't comfortable describing themselves as either white or black or Hispanic or American Indian or Asian/Pacific Islander. This raised a bit of concern in the civil rights community because certain federal and state funding matters depend on the racial composition of populations, and it was not clear how to apportion funding based on partial racial categories. The dirty little secret was that although the Census implemented its more articulate methodology, most data collection systems continued to use the old terminology.

I concluded form this that "race" as we know it is an obsolete way of looking at things, but most of us seem trapped in that paradigm.

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 2:07 PM

Sorry, I meant to say "I suspect if either of them ran for U.S. Senate in a southern state that they would NOT have had much white conservative support."

Posted by: I and I | August 28, 2008 2:20 PM

The piece from the wire that I mentioned, published in early 2003:

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Special to the Los Angeles Times

The torrent of praise from President Bush, Republican congressional leaders and political pundits for retiring Rep. J.C. Watts, a GOP member from Oklahoma, sharply contrasted with the deafening silence from black Democrats and civil rights leaders. This should hardly surprise.

After his election from a predominantly white district in 1994, he threw down the gauntlet to black Democrats. He defiantly declared he would not join the Congressional Black Caucus.

In one of the keynote addresses at the Republican convention in 1996, Watts also challenged the old-line civil rights leadership. He punched all the conservative hot buttons, championing family values and self-help and hammering welfare and public housing.

Watts goaded black Democrats and civil rights leaders a year later when he branded them “race-hustling poverty pimps.” It was a low in mudslinging, and the reaction was swift and harsh.
A somewhat chagrined Watts and his Republican mentors rushed to claim that he was not talking about any one leader or point of view. However, anyone remotely familiar with the political battle between liberals and conservatives knew what and whom he meant and what they represented — liberalism and blacks.

But Watts was not skating entirely on thin political ice in his attacks on traditional black leaders. He knew that a growing number of blacks publicly called themselves conservative and that many blacks privately agreed with his political beliefs.

Watts also knew that the old-line civil rights leadership was in crisis. It was relentlessly battered and bruised during the 1980s and 1990s by conservative politicians and a lack of leadership. Much of the public had become hard-nosed against increased civil rights protections and social programs.

Watts and black conservatives believed that time and the deep financial pockets of GOP conservatives were on their side and that more blacks would eventually rally to their banner, leaving Watts and company the new black leaders. However, although many blacks brand traditional black leaders the purveyors of “plantation politics,” calling them sycophants of the Democrats, most blacks will continue to be Democrats.

And while Bush made much about inclusion before and during the presidential campaign, the Florida vote debacle still rankles many blacks. The president also has been silent on expanded hate-crime laws and mandatory sentencing laws. He has opposed any discussion of black reparations and has renewed his call for school vouchers, which most black Democrats and civil rights leaders condemn.

Then there’s Bush’s shabby treatment of the Congressional Black Caucus. Its members, all solid Democrats, have repeatedly asked for a meeting with the president to try to work out colossal differences. Bush has repeatedly put them off. This is a terrible mistake. For the last 30 years, black officials have fought tough battles in the courts and in Congress for voting rights, affirmative action, school integration and an end to housing and job discrimination and police abuse. Many blacks regard the caucus as their political voice, and they expect Bush too to recognize and respect it.

Though some blacks have reservations, if not outright doubts, about affirmative action, welfare and other social programs, they are not prepared to dump them. Watts and black conservatives are, but they offer nothing better. Their politics and leadership are just as “plantation” as the black Democrats they gleefully lambaste.

That was apparent in how the Republican leadership used Watts. He was a good mouthpiece for conservative causes and a visible symbol of their supposed commitment to racial inclusion. But, his position as No. 4 House GOP leader notwithstanding, how much real power did he have within his own party? That is the ultimate dilemma of Watts and black conservatives. Black voters will continue to reject their Republican pitch, and the GOP will continue to reject them as equal partners in power. Watts realized this, and he did the only thing he could do: He left.

Posted by: Rick | August 28, 2008 3:11 PM

I'm looking forward tonight to Obama's speech and I'm praying that he wins the election. It's a marvelous historic moment. And it really shouldn't matter what race he is or what religion he is. If he's competent, he (or SHE) could be black, white, Asian, middle-Eastern and Christian, Muslim, atheist, Druid, whatever. What matters is the value system under which the candidate operates. Is it humanitarian? Does her value system put people before politics? Before making the rich richer? Does the value system look to the welfare of the citizens of the world? Does the value system promote freedom and respect? Lots of key values here.

Posted by: Nevadder | August 28, 2008 5:04 PM

While I appreciate the historic nature of Senator Obama's acceptance speech this evening, I remain baffled by the support of his candidacy. He has established no credentials for the executive office. What has he accomplished? What has he run? Apparently, his rhetoric about "change" and "hope" is a powerful motivator.

Posted by: judithod | August 28, 2008 9:21 PM

It's more than rhetoric. It's actually policy changes. I don't believe the highest land in the office should be a meritocracy. It should be about people that are forward thinking. Honestly I don't diminish McCain's sacrifice and service but honestly his service has not done enough to actually provide the things I see as important. So I would rather vote for someone whose philosophy is closer to my own. I just wish a viable mainstream green party candidate could get elected.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 29, 2008 12:41 AM

Judithood: "While I appreciate the historic nature of Senator Obama's acceptance speech this evening, I remain baffled by the support of his candidacy. He has established no credentials for the executive office. What has he accomplished? What has he run? Apparently, his rhetoric about "change" and "hope" is a powerful motivator."

Look at the alternative. More of the same by a man who thinks Iraq shares a border with Pakistan! He out-Bushed Bush! But that's okay, the campaign reassures us that John McCain doesn't speak for "John McCain."

Posted by: I and I | August 29, 2008 9:53 AM

I think people forget that Lincoln was a senator. He, also, had about the same experience as Barack Obama.

I may be out of touch with other senior citizen of my age group since I will be 70 years old in 28 days. I am college grad, was a teacher, and I am white and originally from Michigan. I support Obama, and we need his mind for our future. We need his energy and ideals.

Obama is the most impressive politician to emerge since Kennedy. I have never been so enthusiatic about what Wahington could be like if Obama was in the White House.

Believe me I know what goes on there since I was there and in the Watergate the night it was broken into. I didn't like being part of Washington.

Joe Biden is wonderful, and I have always honored him being our senator. Even though he is from Delaware he still has an impact on all of our lives.

I am a believer, but I realized a long time ago that I can't legislate my moral beliefs on the general public, but we must be fair to all. What a great team.

I pray everyday that nothing will happen to Barack Obama. I lived through the grief of losing JFK, his brother Bobby, and Martin Luther King. My heart has been broken because Washington has forgotten us these last eight years.
One more thing I was a registered independent who is now a registered Democrat.

Posted by: Judith | August 29, 2008 3:55 PM