There has never been anything false about hope
Posted: November 5th, 2008 | Filed under: Other Sports, Pop Culture | 104 Comments »
We do try to avoid politics on this blog for all the obvious reasons, and today I find that my collection of friends are inspired and depressed, hopeful and discouraged, all place in between. I suppose that’s how it goes in any election when 52 percent vote one way, 46 percent another. It is something to think about that more people voted for John McCain than voted for George Bush in 2000, many more than Bill Clinton in either his victories, millions more than voted for Ronald Reagan in his historic landslide of 1984. And it is also something to think about that millions more voted for Barack Obama than ever voted for any man in the history of America.* We are just a much bigger country now.
*With the possible exception of David Cook.
Anyway, I thought last night — for one night, anyway — transcended politics. There will be plenty of time to argue about Barack Obama’s politics and his effectiveness, and I know those arguments will rage. Last night, though: It was history. It was stirring. It was like watching an American walk on the moon. It was like watching Tiger Woods win the Masters the first time. It was like hearing Kate Smith sing “God Bless America.” It was like watching the U.S. Olympic hockey team beat the Soviets. It was like hearing Ray Charles sing, “America the Beautiful.” It was one of those great American moments.
In 1946 — one year before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier — he sat on a nearly empty bus with his wife and headed to their first spring training. Rachel Robinson was crying because it had been a long trip that overflowed with the degradation and racism of the time. They had been booted from an oversold plane. They had been refused a place to sleep. They had been treated has something less than human. It seems likely that Rachel Robinson then, for the first time, truly understood what her husband was trying to do, and fully understood how difficult and painful it would be. She buried her face in his her hands and cried, and then suddenly she noticed the bus was stopped. She looked up and saw the bus driver there with a stern look on his face. He did not say a single word — he simply pointed. He was ordering them to move to the back of the bus.
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected the President of the United States of America. And, in the glow, Rachel Robinson said this to Newsday’s Shawn Powell: “I am immensely proud.”
It all made me think of an old friend. I wrote this for Sports Illustrated and I wanted to link it here*. Now, I’m hoping, we should be able to move onto more important issues such as where Laverne and Shirley stands a pixishow, why the Kansas City Royals are showing interest in Jeff Francoeur and whether or not the Detroit Lions will win a game this season.
*And this is not just a cheap way to link to this. Though, as long as we’re here, why not?
Loading ...
It’s a great thing if he was elected for who he is and not what color he is.
webfilter on cnnsi, bah!
I bought the Soul of Baseball earlier this summer (and for full price, not any of that $5.99 crap… I hope you see the proper returns on that) and read through it pretty quickly. When I read books, I like to use things like baseball cards as bookmarks – it just seems more appropriate to me for some reason. Anyway, near the end of the book, I realized that the card I had chosen as my bookmark was the 2008 Topps Barack Obama (from their Presidential Campaign insert set).
I thought that was fitting, reading the story of Buck O’Neill with my baseball card of the first African-American president as the bookmark. It seemed like something someone like Buck would appreciate…
The hope Obama is selling is entirely false and when the current euphoria fades his supporters will be quite disillusioned that their Messiah has failed to deliver the goodies.
Last night WAS stirring. And today is a great day for unity in this country. Enough divisive politics. The “muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists” has won a mandate and its time to put those inane, desperate, evil, fallacious and hollow arguments to bed.
In my opinion, McCain’s eloquent and heartfelt concession speech was a mea culpa on his campaign. The man looked down right embarrassed and ashamed of his own constituents and campaign. He never even looked at Palin and gave her the briefest hand shake post speech. Thank goodness his campaign management refused to let her speak. Enough war, enough hate, enough blame.
PEACE!
Grow up Gary.
Truth is this country would probably be fine with either candidate running the country. McCain showed more class and charisma last night in his concession speech than he did during his entire campaign. If he had shown that side, he probably would have won. Instead he chose to campaign on fear of Obama, and many people have obviously succumbed to it. It’s too bad McCain didn’t beat GWB in the primaries in 2000, as he would have had a far different 8 years in office, with likely no Iraq and no lingering Afghanistan problem. I would have voted for him then, and if his campaign strategies didn’t disgust me this time, he likely would have had my vote as well this year.
If you are correct and Obama stinks, he’ll be out in 4 years. Give him a chance.
I have never been more proud to call my self an American than I did yesterday. McCain’s concession speech and Obama’s acceptance speech were both magnificent. They immediately looked beyond their differences and realized that in order to get out of this mess both sides need to come together, no matter who leads the way.
A historical day for America. As the Daily Express headline stated, “A New World Dawns”.
PS: Does having to google David Cook make me less American? I had no idea who that was.
As long as you’re straight. That’s what I learned for sure last night. You can be any color and be President.
But if you’d like to marry, adopt or foster, you better not be queer.
If the election of Obama was truly transcendant then his race wouldn’t have mattered. The fact that he was elected for his race and not his politics makes him a novelty.
With all respect to you, Joe, last night was nothing like Tiger Woods or Ray Charles or Lake Placid. It was so much more profound. It almost defies analogy. It spoke to the soul.
Honestly, I just feel grateful that this happened in my lifetime, and I have never been more proud to be a citizen of my country.
I was proud to cast a ballot for Obama’s platform and his vision of the country’s future and was proud, too, that in voting for the political platform of my choosing I was also allowed to cast a vote that helped redeem the stain of centuries of unforgivable racial policies. That he was the right man for the job was my foremost consideration — as was the foremost consideration of all my WASP friends and family. That he was a black man was just gravy.
Seeking to impute solely a racial motive for the voting patterns of millions we will never meet is just as fallacious, presumptuous and ungenerous as suggesting that McCain got all those votes solely because a woman was on his ticket. Had McCain/Palin won, I’d have been disappointed and discouraged, but I also would likewise be disgusted by any fellow democrat who lessened the sincerity of their followers’ beliefs and commitments to their values and programs by saying, “Pffffft. Women.”
Mike -
I truly believe that his race was not a major factor. I certainly did not vote for him for those reasons. His campaign never focused on the fact that he was an African-American, it was always a secondary issue.
That is what made last night so powerful. Both candidates are great in their own right and the election would have been historical either way.
The majority of Americans voted for who they thought was the best candidate to bring our country into a new era, and he just so happened to be black.
As cliche as that phrase has become in the last twenty-four hours, I think it sums it up perfectly.
Stirring SI column, Joe. Well written as always.
The country takes a step forward electing Obama.
The country takes a step backward when California (seemingly) bans gay marriage.
The American Two-Step.
I have never felt so estranged from my fellow citizens in my life.
Forget about race. A man no one knew anything about four years ago, who managed to campaign as something his scant voting records proves otherwise, a man who brings no qualification to the office except his campaign ability, a man who spent twenty years listening to his preacher attack his country (and don’t anyone tell me otherwise, or do you really believe that when the Obama’s came, Reverend Wright preached the Gospels, but only when they weren’t there did he scream “God DAMN America!”??)
I’ve voted for black politicians many times and would love to see a qualified black President. The fact that millions of Americans voted as if this guy is qualified to be President sickens and depresses me.
Obviously I forgot to finish the thought in my second graf:
…. was just elected to the highest office in the land.
I looked at my daughters last night and told them, this is an historic day. It was not many years ago when this couldn’t have happened, and we should be grateful and proud of the progress we’ve made, when a black man can be elected president.
But I had to tell them that we’re a country where a black man is elected president with the help of sexism–that this man, a good man by all accounts, didn’t hesitate to use sexism to get ahead. As a father of daughters, i look forward to the day that that isn’t true.
@Dan
“a man who spent twenty years listening to his preacher attack his country”
The taint-by-association tactic is reductive and unfair. Being exposed to opinions doesn’t compel you to adopt them, even if you happen to approve of some of them. I’ve never listened to a minister describe the mercy or beauty of Christ without agreeing, yet I’ve also never felt such pull — just by being in the same room with the man, however frequently — that I’ve said, “Oh, yes, now that you mention it, I *do* think all my homosexual friends are instruments of damnation.” That’s a wonderful thing about freedom of expression: that we can hear many opinions and yet remain unpersuaded by any of them we so choose.
Moreover, maligning character by association it’s unfair and unpersuasive just given *existing* presidential examples. Our current president and his family have decades-long bonds with members of the Saudi royal family — a member of which directed and commanded the 9/11 attacks. Our current president’s father was part of an administration that sold arms to both Iraq and Iran. (Unsurprisingly, our current president has known his father his entire life. What if some of this stuff rubbed off???) If we were to taint him by association, we would call him an instrument of the Axis of Evil. Yet we’d be foolish to do so, given how much he has demonstrated his willingness to *literally* fight for America and against these foes, regardless of whatever associations he has.
Deride Obama’s record as a legislator; hell, more power to you. Deride his rhetoric as lofty, ungrounded and unconvincing. Some of the time, I’ll be right there with you. But impugning the man because of others he’s listened to lessens our respect for our common discourse. We’ve truly arrived at a nadir of American thought when we’re convinced that no one among us can withstand the attitudes and opinions of others without wholly succumbing to them.
MSS, I would generally agree with you and disagree with Dan.
But, Wright’s rhetoric is SO incredibly hateful and incendiary (spelling). One has to take pause and wonder what type of person can withstand that for 20 years, week in and week out, and heed it as spiritual leadership.
There is almost no analogy to make to the other side of the spectrum. Some people attack Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et. al. but they are nothing like Wright. I can’t even think of a comparison. If McCain had spent 20 years going to a church where the preacher taught that “White are superior; blacks are equivalent to cattle; the government is in the hands of black militants; let’s retry the Civil War, etc.”, how would you respond? What would that make you think about John McCain?
I voted against Obama because I disagree with him on most everything; he doesn’t have the experience to sit in the Oval Office; and I wanted divided government. The Wright-related issues didn’t matter as much to me, but they are a concern.
Anyway, one reason I like this blog is because it is civil. So, let’s keep that up.
[...] the rest of the post here: There has never been anything false about hope barack-obama, baseball, books, campaign, country, election, joe-posnanski, media, nov-5th, [...]
Most people, I think, like to believe themselves good judges of character. I know I do. And while our perceptions can certainly be influenced by third-party innuendo, we tend to believe what we see and hear ourselves. The guilt-by-association tactics against Obama didn’t stick sufficiently because to listen to him is to hear a transparently self-secure and serious man. And I have yet to hear any eyewitness anecdotes about Obama’s words and deeds which reveal him to be anything other than what he appears to be — an earnest Democrat. That’s why he won.
Joe, I reject your premise. I engage in false hope all the time. I hope the Mets won’t break my heart again…I hope the Rangers will win the Stanley Cup…I hope Brett Favre won’t throw an interception…I hope my fellow Americans are smart enough to vote out incumbents in Congress who have a 10% approval rating but are reelected at a 90%+ rate…etc.
As for last night, I was never more disgusted to be an American. During Obama’s acceptance speech I almost expected to hear ’sieg heil’. The fact that a politician could be held in such reverence is frightening. The fact that so many people seem to think that the government is the answer to all their problems is also frightening. I hope it’s just a phase were going through.
Anybody else dissapointed that Obama didn’t start his speech by shouting: “ANYTHING IS POSSIBLLLEEEEE!!!!!”
THAT would have made my night…
I’ve had friends say “the guilt by association” thing back to me, in particular the white preacher who endorsed McCain, and then McCain rebuffed the endorsement because of the other things the clown had said.
But there’s one big problem. You can’t choose who endorses you, but you absolutely can choose who you get spiritual guidance from, and what that spiritual guidance consists of. Wright preaches a brand of hatred of this country that I find despicable. And we all know that Obama’s claim that he didn’t know until this past spring what Wright believed is so completely ludicrous, you’d have to be gullible enough to also believe, say, that the Iranians really do only desire a civilian nuclear reactor program.
Obama chose to listen to this man, year after year, spew racist and outrageous hatred at his own country. It disqualifies him for any higher elective office, IMHO. But because things have gone to hell in a hand basket, he’s been chosen President, simply because there was no other choice on the ballot to register the anger at the incumbent President.
And I feel sorry for anyone who thinks he will govern from the center. The most liberal voting record, and the most partisan, and big majorities in both Houses. It will be as if Speaker Pelosi was elected. Or do you really think he’ll “triangulate” like Clinton? Why should he? What part of his voting record makes you think he would?
My only consolation is the knowledge that this is his high-water mark. As he “changes” America, the moderates and disaffected Republicans who bought into the lies will see him for what he is.
And just to get back to the “guilt by association” thing: The members of the Saudi royal family that the Bush’s have known for so many years didn’t conspire to fly planes into buildings. There’s a huge degree of separation between them and the perpetrators, not a bit of separation between the man elected President and his America-hating preacher.
And just so you know exactly what I believe:
I believe that before Barack Obama decided to seek national office, he was on his feet with the rest of that congregation, clapping and cheering while Wright did his thing. You can’t be a long-term member of that congregation without agreeing with its fundamental precepts. He may say he rejects it now, but its ludicrous to believe he rejected it then.
OK. All you Jeremiah (W)righties out there… Has America been fair and Just to the black man? Did she literally count them as 3/5th’s of a man? Did she denigrate them for years, literally enslave them, break up their families and worse. Did she fill them with fear of the white man? Fear to vote? Last time I checked the civil rights movement came to fruition in the 1960’s – the first slave came to the America’s in 1619. That’s what? 350 years of what would you call it? Justice? Fairness? Equality? Hmmm… No reason to be angry there. How many of Mr. Wright’s parishoners have committed violence against whites or other institutions in his name… ZERO. Keep it real. (Oprah goes there too y’know – are you watching her show?)
As for experience… GEORGE W. BUSH. How was he qualified? Beyond you wanting a beer with him? Boy, was he ever good for this country. Handed the governorship of Texas – handed the presidency as a clear puppet. There’s an anecdote in one of Reagan’s books where he described his opinion of George W. His father, then vice-president made an appointment to bring his then 40 year old son into the oval office to ask reagan for a job. reagan guffawed, “you mean the smart one? The tall one? Or the lackabout shifty eyed do nothing who’s always walking around making me uncomfortable?’
Frankly this guilt by association on Wright wreaks of racism. How dare you assume that someone – because they’re black – can’t decide if something’s over the top, or a strong metaphor or imbued with the passions and poetic license of an animated man of God. And take from it what you will. remember, he didn’t preach every weekend, there are lots of pastors there.
Only black Americans can truly understand what it is to have suffered that history and to condemn them for talking about the injustice of that history is just ignorant. Especially if the rhetoric has never resulted in any form of violence.
And of course you fail to mention Ms. Palin’s witch doctor and McCain’s love for Hagee – it’s all BS and the argument so very, very weak. Just like Ayres and all the other distractions that have obviously worked in making you afraid.
I’ve been carrying around The Soul of Baseball this fall, thinking it would be a good read to accompany the playoffs, but I only just started on it. Ironic that I waited; I was just saying today what an apposite story it is at this moment. And then I see this. Thanks, Joe, for the SI column. Too bad all the haters can’t get past their own blindness to history. As Mr. O’Neil said, I wish they could see what he’s seen.
Justyo,
I think you crossed the line there with your charge of racism, you’re making a huge leap of logic to get there, and frankly that’s offensive.
Joe wrote: “Anyway, I thought last night — for one night, anyway — transcended politics.”
Apparently not, as a quick read of the comments on this website prove so far.
Here’s one view from the other side of the ocean, different hemisphere, 16 time zones away.
First a few points. I didn’t have a horse in the race; I dislike the presidential system of government; the interminable process of selecting a candidate seems to be an inordinate waste of time, money and effort.
I sat down yesterday afternoon to watch the action unfold, switching between CNN, the BBC and Fox News and finally settling on Fox as I figured there’d be more entertainment value in watching the Republican cheerleaders deliver the results.
Here’s what happened. As John McCain made his concession speech, I had a lump in my throat. By the end I had a tear in my eye. As Barrack Obama made his acceptance speech I was once more moved to tears.
Democracy is not in the voting; it’s in the counting. And, above that, it’s in the acceptance of the result.
I am 63 years old; by any count an old-timer. I’ve seen plenty.
I have never before been more proud to share a common language, a common heritage, a common belief in how people conduct their affairs than I was last night. My faith in America as has been restored — I salute you.
we keep hearing about how this will be the most important election of our generation. doesn’t the reactive sentiment of that alone indicate that 2000 was?
Nice try, Justyo, but it doesn’t quite wash.
Wright said specific things about America (Like, for instance, that its “AmeriKKKA” to his ilk). And furthermore, the church itself is dedicated to “Black Liberation Theology” which amounts to nothing less than a commitment to the belief that white America keeps the black man down. That America is the root of all evil in the world. That the rich get rich only on the backs of the poor. In short, a lot of claptrap. It wasn’t just Wright speaking. He’s only the one who stands out, just as Wright’s racist successor got in trouble during the primary campaign when he went after Hillary.
Barack was a member of an evil church, preaching hatred and falsehoods (anyone for “AIDS was created by the CIA to kill of the blacks”?) and he willingly sat and listened. Don’t tell me he didn’t hear this til the spring. Or are you not aware that when he announced his candidacy, his original plan was for Wright to give a Benediction? Then Obama changed his mind, and told Wright that he needed to stay away, because he couldn’t be trusted not to say something that would kill his candidacy before it started. See? Barack knew what the potential problem was with his “spiritual advisor” all along. Because until he was on the cusp of the nomination, he didn’t care what his presence in that church signified.
And it was reverse racism that kept the lid on it. No one on the Democratic side could risk annoying black voters by really going after him on this. And by that point, he was such a phenomenon because of his personal charisma and speaking talent, it was too late.
Dan, what did you think of Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race in America?
Take this for what it’s worth, but the exit poll data indicates that McCain did better among people who said race was an important issue than he did among people who said race was not an important issue.
Joe, great SI column. I never met the man, but I sure miss Buck O’Neill.
Joe
I would like to ask a favor from you. Please keep giving us the ocassional Buck story. The man preached such wonderful truth and we are blessed to have someone like you to continue on telling these great things. Thanks for the reminders they always put my life into perspective.
Dan, Gary and the other naysayers just appear petty and small – and miss entirely the point of Joe’s post.
Obama will be an improvement over the current guy (seriously, how could he not be? That is one damned low bar.), but not by as much as people hope. We seem to have reached a point in our history where we are offered no good choice, and no matter who wins the people lose. This is three elections in a row that fit that bill. I’m beginning to wonder what exactly it will take for the American people to wake up and demand real change in who we elect, rather than the carbon copy crooks and liars we see from the two parties now.
The racial component is one hell of a step forward for us, though. We have apparently replaced blacks with gays as those who we most wish to deny equal civil rights.
Graphite, I’m glad to hear such encouraging and thoughtful words from across the pond. Usually I hear… well… less than encouraging or level-headed thoughts.
Aaron M & Dan–
So you’re saying everyone who’s ever attended that church is what? Believes what? That they hate America and want to kill whitey as soon as they assume power? How many times do you have to go before you believe that? Do you sign something when you join? Is there a Kool Aid they hand out? It’s simply laughable. YOUR connotation is offensive to me – that Obama is what? A Manchurian Candidate for the “Black Liberation Theology”? I mean it is simply ridiculous.
Your assumption seems to be that the members of that church can’t think for themselves. To me that is an absurd generalization and borderline racist. Do you think all white parishoners believe everything their pastor says? Even if they choose to get “spiritual advice” from them? Do you believe everything your pastor says?
I say the mirror is unforgiving – isn’t it?
sansho1,
I think his speech was designed to preserve his viability – nothing more. And to do that, he threw his Grandmother under the bus while telling lies about what he knew about the Reverend and when he knew it. The media gobbled it up, because they were already committed to his candidacy.
McKingford,
The moment in time isn’t nearly as exhilarating if you’ve moved beyond race. I might be caught up in the moment if the President-Elect had a qualification for the office. If you’re not caught up in the cult of personality, its hard to get too excited.
Justyo-
Can you really say that isn’t true of many, on both sides of the mirror? It certainly seems to me as if the majority of the religious folks believe whatever their preacher tells them and do whatever he implies they should, even if common sense and just a bit of free thought would dictate otherwise.
Not that I’m agreeing that Obama is some secret virulent racist… I don’t believe he is. I believe that he, like most politicians, join a church not because they are true believers but because they need a religious identity in a nation in which 90+% of its citizens still believe in God, and because the churches they join are quite often great places to make contacts who may be potential future campaign donors.
But I still say your general premise, that the flocks think for themselves rather than be led by the nose, is in general an incorrect one.
And it’s not just a religion thing, it’s a cultural problem. We have millions of people who stop buying beef or buy a book because Oprah tells them to. Millions who get ripped off by late night infomercial scams promising to make you a millionaire for only $499.95 plus shipping and handling. Millions who say their primary source of news is the Daily Show. And so on, and so on.
Justyo,
I am saying that no legitimate candidate for any higher office could attend such a church and be regarded as a viable candidate, if people thought seriously about the tenets of the faith, Obama’s long membership, and his claim that he didn’t “know” what the Reverend said and preached. The beliefs espoused are beyond the pale.
And now it is time for you to put the shoe on the other foot and think seriously about the point per14 made above. It is revealed that John McCain has attended a church for 20 years with a pastor, who was McCain’s personal spiritual advisor who just happens to preach white supremacy; that blacks are all criminals and the cause of America’s problems. That black scientists invented crystal meth to turn poor whites into drug addicts.
These are beliefs analagous to those of Reverend Wright. Now be truthful: Would John McCain be a viable candidate for President in the wake of those revelations? Or would he not only have been forced out of the race, but likely would have resigned from the Senate, too?
This is the point about Obama’s connection to that church. There are certain things you can’t do in modern American politics. You can’t be a member of the KKK and be a legitimate candidate for President. You can’t molest Senate Pages and stay in office. And you shouldn’t get a free pass for being a member of a racist, hateful church.
Unless, that is, you are the messiah sent down to save America.
Excuse me while I puke.
Bush is qualified because he has been president for eight years. Duh.
Dan:
Thanks for your reply. I was prompted to ask you the question because your previous post was an effective distillation of the problems that many people have with Black Liberation Theology. I confess I was unaware of it before the Wright issue, but it’s been quite an education.
The “God damn America” clip was disturbing to me, and the invective being hurled at Obama for having witnessed it was such that I felt compelled as a Democrat who was considering voting for him (Biden was my first choice) to listen to his side of the story. It was 45 minutes out of my life, but what is that compared to the amount of time so many of us spend witnessing the bloviations of the punditocracy? If he was to be a viable candidate, it was the least I could do.
It turned out to be a thoughtful and expansive talk, steeped in historical perspective and for all I could see an honest effort towards understanding the frustrations of people on either side of the “racial divide”, and I appreciated that he wasn’t afraid to defend the good and positive things that Wright had done in his community. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but I felt it revealed a deep dedication to the concept of empathy. It’s my opinion that that empathy served as a bulwark against the more corrosive aspects of the theology that Wright occasionally espoused.
He won my vote that day. I understood going in that that was in large part the point of the speech, and it worked. If you watched it, I mean.
“Anyway, I thought last night — for one night, anyway — transcended politics. There will be plenty of time to argue about Barack Obama’s politics and his effectiveness, and I know those arguments will rage.”
Gary, Dan and one or two others seemingly skipped these sentences in Joe’s post and are arguing the wrong point, or using the wrong forum to make their arguments.
Anyone unable to grasp the significance of a nation of 300 million people — people of the most diverse backgrounds and circumstances — peacefully going to the polls and tossing up, and accepting, a result that would see the streets lined with tanks and dead bodies in half the countries of the world . . . that person has no sense of occasion, no sense of history, and, sadly, no soul.
“It was like hearing Kate Smith sing ‘God Bless America.’ ”
About a week ago, with nothing on TV, I switched on the radio and landed on some sort of nostalgia show — a gravel-voiced host playing requests, sent in by mail, for oldies. As I am one, or about to become one, I stuck around.
The third or fourth item in was a request for Kate Smith singing “God Bless America”, which the host was able to meet by putting on a recording of the first public airing of the song, which came on Remembrance Day (or similar), 1938. He also provided its history in some detail.
It was, as Joe says, a great American moment.
Thomas, thanks for your remarks . . . and just so we’re on the same page, you do realise that the pond is the Pacific?
- Since Obama is half white, why is it he’s the first black president? And besides, I thought Bill Clinton said he was the first black president.
- If my pastor said anything like what Wright was screaming from that pulpit, he or I would be gone by the next Sunday.
- I voted against Obama simply because I disagree w/every policy position I’ve heard him utter. I don’t care if someone is purple, if they believe in the kind of government that made this country the greatest country on the planet.
- Gotta say, Joe, I don’t think you stand much chance of taking the politics out of politics, disclaimers notwithstanding.
- One of my pet peeves is when people bring up the injustices inflicted upon the slaves 100+ years ago. Yes, they suffered horribly and I would in no way try to defend that practice. It was dispicable. But… had those slaves not been brought over here I would speculate that most black Americans would still be living in Africa, cutting each other up w/machetes. While their ancestors suffered horribly, black Americans today enjoy the fruit of their experiences.
Last night was an incredible night in American history, but there’s also danger in it as well, as reading between the lines of some posts here makes all too clear.
As transcendent as the election of Obama seems now, as much progress as it seems we’ve made in race relations since the days of slavery, I honestly fear for what might happen in this country if Barack Obama, as other presidents before him have been, is murdered.
Joe Pos,
Thank you for continuing to post about Buck O’ from time to time. Simply put, he was a great American, and we benefit greatly from your relating Buck’s stories to us.
@Dan
I can understand how you might react badly to someone writing off an entire race of people, especially if it’s your race being written off. In that respect I have some sympathy for your outrage. Something tells me, however, that you haven’t read “The Soul of Baseball”. Something tells me you haven’t heard too much about the Tuskeegee Experiment, haven’t carefully contemplated what it’s really like to have your mother, or your brother, or your daughter SOLD away from you, never to be heard from again. Something tells me you don’t know much more about Black Liberation Theology than what you learned from a few short clips of Rev. Wright on cable news.
Maybe you can tame your outrage that your team lost this particular competition and realize that even though I hate the Dodgers, I love Jackie Robinson (even though HE was a Republican, I might add). Even if one doesn’t think much of J. Robinson as a player or as a person, it’s easy to recognize his importance for our society.
Maybe you want to read “The Soul of Baseball”, and then maybe listen to Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race and try to listen to him as if he’s sincere. Just give it a try. Maybe at that point you’ll be able to at least appreciate the aspects of this moment in history that Joe Pos is pointing out. I won’t ask you to like Obama. That’s entirely your choice.
(and btw: I’m sure you were equally outraged about Palin’s inexperience and radical church membership and association with a secessionist organization, right?)
Calloway Kid = Epic fail.
@CALLAWAY KID
“Cutting each other up with machetes”?!?!?!?!
Please tell me you’re joking.
If all the bad stuff happened 100+ years ago, what was Martin Luther King working so hard for in the 1960’s?
I hope you just have a really dry, sarcastic sense of humor and I just didn’t get the joke.
Wow. Just wow.
There is really no difference between Dan’s hateful, bitter invective and the ignorant, frightening ramblings of Callway Kid. Thank goodness real sanity is being restored to government for the next four years.
Anyone else notice the first “Story Highlight” at the SI.com link?
“Baseball Hall of Famer Buck O’Neil fought long and hard for today’s America”
@Mike … I’ve read all the posts in this blog. Why are Dan’s opinions/questions “hateful bitter invective?” That labeling serves no positive purpose. BTW, he’s not alone in his thoughts – at least 46 million others had similar concerns. Are all of them hateful, too?
Fear and hatred are so damaging to the soul…and to our children. On Monday my first grade daughter came home and said to me ” Does Obama kill babies? A boy in my class said that today. I said “no” as calmly as possible and she said “I didn’t think that was true.” How despicable it is when hatred comes back around through the mouths of children. In this case the child was repeating something heard from a local pulpit and relayed by lots of professed Christians. I recognize that 46% of Americans didn’t vote as I did (way more than that where I live!), but it is time to be citizens not haters. Joe, I just finished “Soul of Baseball”…thanks for a timely story of the fruits of not allowing bitterness and hatred to take root. What a remarkable man.
I’m surprised to hear so much anti-Obama sentiment. I was under the impression that criticizing the President-elect was unpatriotic and unAmerican. Or is that just the case when there’s a Republican in office? I’m not American, so I’m not familiar with all the nuances.
Speaking as a non-American, I’d like to applaud my southern neighbours for opting out of the fear, hatred, xenophobia and isolationism that has ruled their country in recent years. While Obama has his work cut out for him in trying to pull the country out of its current mess(es), at the very least I’m sure they’ll have more support on the global stage. In recent years, watching the political scene and general atmosphere down there has – for many of us – been like watching a friend fall into a downward spiral of anger and self-destruction in which they alienated those who would most want to help them along.
Though I’m sure a lot of ardent McCain supporters don’t care what anyone outside their group wants to say, to those who are open-minded, I’d like to say welcome back, America. We missed you.
Again, why are questions about a candidate’s associations automatically equivalent to “hatred”? That labeling serves only one purpose – to silence critics – which is why conservatives (right or wrong) fear the loss of constitutional rights under a liberal administration.
So RICKMCKC, at least 46 million people voted as they did for pretty much ONE reason. Now that’s what I call unity. Awesome.
I believe you meant to say “The loss of MORE constitutional rights”, RICKMCKC.
@Noam … I would not say that 46 (actually 56M) voted that way for ONE reason, but for many conservatives, Sen. McCain was not a particularly attractive choice. However, there were too many questions about Sen. Obama that they still voted for McCain.
Personally, I like Obama and I wish him well. He’s our president. Hopefully, he’ll be treated a little better than Bush.
BTW … care to answer my original question?
Well, Noam Sane beat me to the “more constitutional rights” punch.
For the record, I don’t think Obama should be any more immune to criticism than anyone else in public office, but there’s been SO much fabrication that’s been disseminated as fact, it’s ridiculous. He’s been branded a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist, a terrorist, a racist…pretty much every negative “ist” in the books. The lies and manupulation (on either side of the political spectrum) THAT’S where people – or at least those who aren’t blind with devotion – bristle over the criticisms.
This is going back to the Democratic Party Primaries, but America would rather see a black man as President rather than a woman. People would dispute that Obama is black and Hilary is a woman (joke), but that’s how the media covered them.
Justin, good points – but I also think you are making my point.
Labeling a person as a “socalist” because they espouse political solutions that appear to endorse socialism is wrong, but labeling someone who asks questions or expresses concerns as “hateful” is OK?
Seems to me that both ought to make us bristle. Why don’t they?
Dan WAS hateful in his points. He used words like “embarassing”, “sickening”, and “pardon me while I puke”, among others. This, IMHO, is quite hateful, or at the very least completely disrespectful.
There is a way to express intelligent concerns about a political figure without resorting to name-calling like “clown”. And for the record, I didn’t like it when the left was doing to it to Bush. There is a basic lack of respect for others in this country, especially public figures, which the Internet sadly exacerbates.
@ RICKMCKC… if you mean the question about “Dan…bitter, hateful, etc., I guess I would stop short of calling Dan’s posts bitter and hateful. They definitely strike me as uninformed, un-empathetic, a bit knee-jerk, and yeah, actually probably a tad bitter because his team lost the vote.
I really think Dan could benefit from giving Obama’s race speech another listen. Obama very fairly decries the extremity of Wright’s assertions while at the same time acknowledging the undeniably massive history of injustice that led to African-American sensitivity/paranoia about said injustice (and as the saying goes: just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me). We all know that blacks were barred from MLB until just over 60 years ago (that’s within some of our or our parents lifetimes). Now that’s a pretty big thing especially for us baseball/sports junkies. That’s the tip of the iceberg. Do you know what the Tuskeegee Experiment was? Look it up. Then tell me African-Americans haven’t earned just a little right to some paranoia about persecution.
In his speech Obama says it better than I can here, and he’s speaking to ALL of us, but basically it’s this: before jumping to conclusions about someone different from you, try to go just a little further in imagining their side. Empathy is a strong human survival mechanism. One of the main reasons Obama is so attractive to so many is his ability to come across as strong and confident, while at the same time showing a prominent empathetic side. Qualities I found lacking in Dan’s posts.
@Mike, I agree with you on the lack of respect in our society.
I’m not sure I agree with you that someone expressing their negative feelings about a decision is equivalent to hate. I think I’ve heard many sports fans use those same phrases to describe their feelings after a tough loss. (FWIW, from reading Dan’s post, I don’t think “clown” was used in reference to Sen. Obama).
In any case I don’t want to take up any more of Joe’s bandwith with this. I really don’t have any agenda and I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m just curious about why people think what they think and do what they do.
Grace and peace to you (and NOAM and Justin).
Thanks, NOAM. Good thoughts.
Hey thanks to you too Rick, I appreciate when someone asking questions actually is interested in listening to an answer.
Peace to you.
And to everyone else, sorry if this has been straying too far off topic.
Oh, so much I could respond to, so much of it seeming nonsense from folks who only get their information from Fox News and Limbaugh.
But instead, I’m going to take a cue from our President-elect, and think about hope instead of fear.
Way back in April, while the primaries were still raging, a long-time friend who was a hardcore Hillary supporter called me and said her wife had come down with a cold, and would I like to go to that night’s Sox-Yanks game. Who would I be to say no? I had just recently gotten onto the Obama train at that point, and during the game we had a spirited discussion.
I told her that I thought at this time our country needs two things from our President: competence and inspiration. And that, while I acknowledged Sen. Clinton’s competence, I thought that it’s more likely that someone who’s inspirational will be competent than someone who’s competent will be inspirational.
At that time, back in April (this campaign has been so long it seems like ages ago), Obama had amply demonstrated his ability to inspire, but his competence had not yet become fully evident.
He led an outstanding campaign; even those who doubt him can not argue this.
I don’t expect President-elect Obama (jeez, that’s just delicious to type) to walk on water*, but from what I’ve seen of him over the last many months of the primary and general campaigns, I expect him to lead. And God knows we need a competent leader these days.
* I’ll allow myself one dig – those who made some sort of reference to something like a Messiah complex regarding Obama (including that guy who made the disgusting remark about “sieg hiels” in Grant Park) are more than likely life-members of the Cult of Reagan. Glass houses; he who is without sin; mote in thy neighbor’s eye; etc etc etc
Yes we can!
Brian … why stain such a great post with a dig?
As passionate as you feel about P.E. Obama being the right man for our times, you do understand that’s exactly how many of us felt about Reagan (which is why he won in a similar landslide), right? After 4 years of international disgrace and economic disaster under the weak leadership of Jimmy Carter we, too, wanted change. And we got it. And, contrary to what revisionist history might say, it was good.
So, here’s hoping that P.E. Obama has as much success as Reagan did. If he does, all of us will be most fortunate.
BTW, here is a fascinating article on the changing of the guard that happened yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/opinion/04brooks.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Obviously, having voted for Reagan, I am one of those boomers and I have learned a hard lesson: much sooner than you will believe, many of the things you felt passionate about will be maligned by the generation after yours (which, BTW, is a good reason to be gentle with the “old people.” One day, you will be them.
)
I know that Dan has been a member of Trinity Church in the past and is a foremost expert on Black Liberation Theology, but I only wish I could have heard his views before today so as not to select the wrong Messiah.
I did enjoy reading the more reasoned posts from those on both sides of the argument; this site attracts some very intelligent and articulate people and is always interesting.
A lot of what happens in life is all about timing, and Mr. McCain had bad timing. I respect him as a man and a politician and kind of wish his time had come eight years ago, because if it had this election might have gone deeper into the issues and been less of a referendum on Republican failures during the Bush administration.
Let’s go Mets!
[...] It will be as if Speaker Pelosi was elected. Or do you really think he’ll “triangulate†like Clinton? Why should he? What part of his voting record makes you think he would? My only consolation is the knowledge that this is his …[Continue Reading] [...]
Mr. Posnanski,
By taking such an obvious partisan tone, you have just lost a potential sale for your book. It’s sad that you had to sink to this level.
Let’s face it, Joe is implicitly saying that if you voted for McCain you are a racist. We might as well get used to that because Obama will use that mantra to blunt each and every criticism. You don’t like his tax plan, you’re Bull Connor. You don’t like his trade policy, you’re George Wallace. The race card will get played like it’s never been played before.
Gary
Try it this way. If, last night, Hillary Clinton had been elected Prez or the USA, that would have been historic. Even if you hated every single H. Clinton policy, it would still mean that you could tell your daughter/little sister/niece/etc. that she could be whatever she wants when she grows up, even President. That’s huge! Even if you hate Hillary, that’s an illumination of American greatness.
I think if you re-read Joe’s post you’ll see that he’s celebrating this moment in a similar manner to the way baseball celebrates Jackie Robinson. It’s about more than a particular individual, at least for this singular moment. It’s about overcoming injustice as a society (symbolically at least). Why don’t you wait until President Obama makes actual presidential decisions before you get sensitive to the imagined criticism of your assumed dislike of these future actions.
The biggest effect obama had was that he got so many people who had never voted before to vote…democrat. I think if obama was republican, republicans would have picked up a bunch of seats in the senate/house. AND THAT is the biggest story of the election, now democrats can pass bills AND get them signed into law pretty much at will…the lack of checks/balances on that one is scary. (remember all you bush haters, the congress has been dem during his last four years, so don’t try and blame old busy for everything. And especially remember that bush’s low aproval ratings still tower over congress’s 30ish to 18ish.
)
Too many people don’t know what they are voting for when they vote, and vote based on party lines with whoever they support for president. If they supported obama they marked the guy with a d next to the name.
As for the ongoing race stories…shouldn’t it just be that a guy who was the BEST CANDIDATE got voted president who happened to be black. Didn’t MLK say not to be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I’m afraid many people wanted to see a black president (blacks to see one of their own, and whites to feel non-racist), and voted for that reason. Racism/sexism will never end with the never ending overcoming race stories, affirmative action, and hell title IX. which obama wants to enforce more strictly…how I have no idea. Anyways, hope everyone watched south park tonight…the country won’t cease to exist tomorrow but it will def. be changed, we’ll find out if it was a good or bad one over time.
Gary,
You willfully misread things to validate your own resentment.
You are a dicklord and an ass.
Gary,
Because Joe’s post was politically “partisan,” you won’t read his book about BASEBALL? Yeah, that makes sense.
Whoa, hang on! Obama is black?
I thought he was O’Bama. You know, Irish — like those other great Americans O’Nassis and O’Henry.
This changes everything.
I gotta get new glasses . . . and a colour TV.
Allow me to contribute another perspective from outside the U.S. box. From where I sit, north of your border, Obama’s election is as much or more of a repudiation of the Bush/Cheney Republican style as it is about his race. It has as much to do with his youth, his grace under fire and his calm demeanour as it does with U.S. racial politics. He out-Clintoned the Clintons. He outworked McCain. He never looked tired or out of sorts, despite the huge pressure. He never said something really stupid. He was able to inspire millions of people to work for him and send him money. I’ve never seen anything like it and I’ve been around for a while. Give him a chance. In four years, if he doesn’t deliver on his promise, you can vote for Sarah Palin.
Bite your tongue, Paul O.!
First off before saying anything I would just like to mention that I am English and so obviously did not vote, I also do not have a preference for either McCain or Obama.
The first thing I want to say regards race. Do I think more people voted because Barack Obama is black? Yes. I think this will have made people who don’t normally vote go out and do so specifically because of this whether voting for or against Obama (I’d also like to point out that Obama potentially could have benefited from this). This is also probably a factor in the high turnout of voters (although I cannot say how large a factor). The last thing I want to say regarding race is does a black man being elected President represent change? No. Does it represent progress? Absolutely yes.
The other thing I’d like to mention is that people need to take a step back and approach this whole Obama and his preacher situation the way Bill James would a hall of fame case. So far we have had the if he hates America then he must also hate America logic. Obviously this is flawed in much the same way people arguee for their HoF nominees to be in the hall because someone else with the same numbers is in.
Well I’ve learned something important. If you don’t get on the bus and celebrate with the rest of us, if you honestly express fear over what the new President will do, you are bitter and hateful and quite possibly racist. Its also unquestionably true that you must be a “ditto-head”, you must have willfully ignored Sarah Palin’s shortcomings, and you must have been stupid enough to admire and appreciate Ronald Reagan.
Guess I’m just the first to get re-educated.
When a large group of voters under the age of 25 were asked why they voted for Obama, a very large percentage of them said it was because he was young…..
Joe, talking about politics on your blog evidently brings some very negative responses. The country is divided, unfortunately. Some of us see hope and promise with the election of Barak Obama others see gloom and doom. Many people bought into the vitriolic messages from the McCain campaign and no argument will persuade them otherwise.
This blog is about sports so let’s leave the politics to the Huffington Post.
Headline seen on cable news last night (I honestly forget which channel):
“Change to take time. Lots of damage done over 8 years.”
One day after the election, and excuses are already being made. Dan, you’re right about one thing – there’s no doubt that if you dare criticize the Obama administration in any way, which hasn’t even started yet, you’re the enemy.
I can root for him without being blind, despite what a lot of people will say.
Just read all the comments. Wow. High point was the comment that said of Joe: “It’s sad that you had to sink to this level.”
That one made me laugh out loud. And then it made me go read the post again to make sure I didn’t miss some part.
I think everyone comes into a topic like this with biases so strong, they’re very hard to see past. And I don’t mean racial biases. I mean that over the course of the last 2 years most everyone formed a pretty strong opinion on this election, and believe that their opinions are rational and well thought out and therefore ascribe a whole host of less than rational/pure motives to those who might disagree.
Putting aside the particulars of this election, and whether the majority of the American voters were duped, prescient or just picked the best of a bad lot, it’s hard to deny that something about Barack Obama resonated with a lot of people. I think the thing that resonated is this idea of positive change and hope. Who knows if these feelings will prove well founded, but I find them refreshing. And while it might be considered something of a hollow victory considering it took 232 years for it to happen, I also think it’s reassuring that one of the cynical tenets of American politics (America is not ready for a Black President) was toppled.
For me, with all my biases in tow, I think these 2 positives can be separated from the relative merits of the candidates. They also are totally separate from the totally rational reasons why millions of Americans voted for McCain.
Gate,
I don’t know who you are or what you’re thinking, but calm introspective insight has no business in an election! Please, don’t let it happen again.
Dan: There was a tone of disdain and distaste to your posts that made it easy for people who disagree with you to paint you in that fashion, though I felt you were probably just a Republican who doesn’t like losing. It will be difficult for Obama to deliver, just as it would have been for McCain. But I believe over time that you, and many on your side of the political spectrum, will come to believe that the better candidate won.
Vitriol is a funny thing. For 8 years Democrats have called the current president a war criminal who stole elections and who has the intellectual capacity of a rock. Now those in the tank for Obama, like Posnanski, want those of us on the other side just to forget about all that and hold hands and sing Kum Bah Yah with the Messiah. Well, it’s not that simple. I don’t wish to lower myself to the gutter level of the other side, but I’m not gonna act as though this is the greatest moment in the history of the world. He won but he is not the MESSIAH, and quite frankly, there is a Third World quality to the cult of personality that infects his followers.
Since we’re being political in this post (two of my biggest passions are baseball and politics) I’ll point out that Jackie Robinson was a Republican.
I am just shocked that someone can play the “cult of personality” card with Obama. I mean, what can you say then about the nomination of Palin for V.P.? That pushed the election closer to “American Idol” territory than “American President” in my opinion.
As with any election, I don’t know who the “best” candidate was. I admire the things I’ve seen from Obama. I admire McCain’s lifetime of service to his country, although there are reasons I could not vote for him personally. But I am skeptical of anyone who actually wants the position of President, just as I am skeptical of people who will vote down “party lines” because they allow a label to define what they believe, just as I am skeptical about anyone who claims to know which religion is to be trusted and believed over any other religion.
Joe Pos – After reading all these comments, maybe you should write about something less controversial, like doing away with the Cleveland Indians mascot….
Cult of personality
Obama himself has said that he will change the world. That just screams cult of personality.
I don’t understand how Fox News is being portrayed as biased. When I have watched, they always have someone on each side arguing whatever the issue is. TMZ says the same thing
http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/05/oreillys-the-big-winner/
Unlike Olbermann who just has on people who agree with him.
Jason, its apparent you don’t know what a cult of personality is.
From Wikipedia:
“A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.”
Will Obama set up a dictatorship? No, I have no fear of that. But when you think about the creation of a heroic public image, unquestioning praise, his use of mass media and his speech-making ability, and then look at the faces of the people in his audiences, what better describes his rise?
It can’t be his qualifications – rationally he doesn’t have any as a first-term Senator of scant legislative accomplishment.
It can’t be his claim to be post-partisan or “new politics” when he spent his first term amassing the most liberal and most partisan voting record in the Senate.
So really, he has created a cult of personality based on his ability to speak and inspire, and the inability of enough of his followers to see beyond that to the other things that make a presidential candidate. And let’s not forget the number of people so fed up with the current administration that they’d vote for a yellow dog.
Now what part of that definition applies to Sarah Palin, and what part doesn’t apply to Obama (other than the fact that the term is used for leaders after they take power, and typically for dictatorships)?
When speaking of cults, it’s important to remember that it’s not the adoration itself that’s the problem. It’s that the irrational mindset created by the cult can cause it’s members to do dangerous things.
From Newsweek:
“The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. “Why would they try to make people hate us?” Michelle asked a top campaign aide.”
Ah so once again we are enemies of the people.
Off to the re-education camp (again) for me!
Dan, thank you for offering a civil post with the true definition of “cult of personality”. You are correct, I did not know the literal definition. I am speaking more to my opinion that Palin’s nomination was hardly done on merit, but was a clear attempt to counter-act Obama’s pop culture popularity by offering up a pretty white cheerleader as the Republican parties own representative of change. The fact that her supporters seemed to be so fervent with so little reason was jaw-dropping to me.
As far as Obama’s lack of “qualifications”….it’s my opinion that the less time someone has spent in our broken governmental system, the more qualified they may be to lead us out of this mess.
I got yer false hope right here:
Obama campaign workers angry over unpaid wages.
http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280
Better a delay in pay for “angry” campaign workers than the alternative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
From Fox News, no less.
Joe wrote : “It was like watching the U.S. Olympic hockey team beat the Soviets.”
So, I guess that makes McCain like the Soviet Union? Very nice to see Joe equating a man who suffered so much for his country to one of the most murderous regimes in the history of the world.
And thus, in accordance with Godwin’s Law, I’m out.