If I were black, I'd be offended by the following remark:
"The African American populations that spill over from Chicago are expected to favor Obama."*
For the past week I've been favoring posts about Barack Obama and sadly turning this blog into a slightly different version of my so-called political one (The Update). Sorry about that, folks, but it's probably going to continue.
Once again I find myself riveted to an article featured on the Washington Post website debating the outcome of the Presidential backing in the state of Indiana. First of all, I thought Indiana was a "red state," being that most of it is farmland. Then again the big cities do take precedence in both the general election and the interest of the candidates (not surprising). It's the same in Illinois; lots of farms, but Springfield and Chicago determine the outcome.
But the obvious bias toward Democratic voters in the largest cities of Indiana is not what bothers me. The statement "black people are expected to vote for Obama" does. (And I'm paraphrasing, but not much outside the quote itself.) Maybe I should re-phrase my opener: I'm not black, but I'm still offended by this comment!
To think, all this time the media (liberal) has been making it out that Obama's campaign is geared toward resolving issues of racial politics. And indeed his most recent "a better tomorrow" speech explicitly addressed racial issues in America. However, this sweeping generalization by WP journalist Anne E. Kornblut really takes the cake for blatant race-oriented political moves.
Maybe I'm just overly sensitive. After all, I actually like black people. I think our economy and education has shorted them, outright failing to meet the needs of a group historically plagued by poverty and instead has generally dismissed their voice. This is, of course, due to the failure of Democratic "leaders" in our government, who urge black people to become dependent on government funding so that they can never, ever end the cycle. And I'm sure if you asked the populace of black Americans you'd find a tenor similar to mine, that they want the same standards as every other citizen: properly maintained schools and educated educators, opportunities for employment outside the government realm, preventative care for children so that they might escape a (Democrat-induced) destiny to a life of failure.
My best guess on what they don't want? For some amatuer staff writer to casually mention that they- the whole of black Americans in the state of Indiana- are planning to vote for the black candidate.
So, I guess all black voters in Indiana want to vote for Obama. But is that because the Washington Post thinks that, of the few black Indianans that will make it to the polls, they are more likely to vote for Obama because his campaign promises fit their needs? Or is it actually just because the WP is assuming, despite everything that's happened in the last week with the Wright scandal, that black voters in Indiana just want a black man in office no matter what affiliations he has made in the past? Isn't that setting the bar a little low for black voters, and completely dismissing the reaction of the black Christian church to Obama's link to Wright?
Call me crazy, but I'd like to give black people a little more credit than that.