So a few hours ago, I went out in a torrential downpour to cast a vote for Barack Obama. The weather was so fucked the fuck up that I got completely soaked just walking from my car to the door of my old middle school.
It was so fucked the fuck up, in fact, that I might not even have gone, except it wasn't that bad when I left, and I had some shit to drop off in the neighborhood. You can read about my thought process with regard to whether or not I was gonna vote and for whom I would vote in my post today at XXL.
As I mentioned, it's not like I have a dog in this race. But between the two of them, I'd definitely go with Barack Obama, if only to see whether or not he'd get assassinated. I even considered taking a Republican ballot, which you can do here in Missouri, but I just wouldn't feel right contributing anything at all to the Ron Paul movement. Shit, it was hard enough just voting for Barack Obama, and I can't say for certain that I'm gonna feel compelled to pull a lever for him come November, especially if there's an independent candidate more to my liking. Nullus.
As I was walking out of the door to rock the vote, I came across a story on this new site called The Root - funded by the Washington Post, and featuring a gang of intellectual negroes, including Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and my boy jimbrah izrael - that lays out the black case against Barack Obama about as effectively as anything else I've seen so far this election cycle. In fact, I don't know if I've seen any prominent black folks come out against Barack Obama, unless they were supporting Hillary Clinton. Which is, you know, more or less the same thing. It was written by Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, pictured above.
The black case against Barack Obama, in a nutshell, is that there's hardly any aspect of his agenda that's worthwhile. Name an issue, and Barack Obama has likebly staked out some center-right stance, despite his rhetoric.
Here's the operative bit from the piece, but you're probably gonna want to check out the whole thing:
Despite its convoluted racial logic, the election of Obama would still be acceptable if his policies were properly aligned with a leftist agenda. Unfortunately, Obama has clung to a rigid centrism that is incompatible with full-scale social change. Despite his claims of being a peace candidate, Obama has repeatedly expressed a commitment to ramping up military and continuing the presidential legacy of using war as an instrument of foreign policy. Although he opposes the war in Iraq, Obama refuses to vote against its funding.
While Obama supports health care for all Americans, he does not embrace a universal single-payer system that would effectively undermine private corporate interests. At the same time that he bemoans the loss of jobs and expansion of global poverty, Obama fails to denounce free trade agreements and extols the virtues economic globalization. In addition, Obama has been conspicuously silent on topics such as the prison industrial complex, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the economic underdevelopment of Africa.
In other words, the guy's on the wrong side (or not sufficiently on the "right" side) of pretty much every issue there ever was. And yet, this is the guy who's supposed to lead us to the promised land?
The thing that I like about the piece is it doesn't fall into the trap of discussing Obama's virtues, or lack there of, relative to Hillary Clinton - as has been the case with a lot of the blog endorsements (seriously, wtf?) I've read today. However, you can't help but wish that he would have addressed the fact that, after all, Obama is one of the only two Democrats left at this point. Who's he gonna vote for? Hillary Clinton? A third party? He doesn't say.
Checkit: Not My Brand of Hope [The Root]