What Dream Team?

Anyone who knows me will tell you I’ll say I’m wrong when the shoe fits. Apologies come easy for me. It comes with growing up. We live, we learn, we make mistakes and we grow as a consequence of it all.
On yesterday I got into a heated debate with my good friend Delbert “DJ Kraze” Jarmon regarding Hillary Clinton. Kraze was vehemently opposed to the notion of having a democratic dream team consisting of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I shared the pure logic of it all. I addressed those close to 18 million voters that Clinton reminds us of each opportunity she gets. It all made since. We have two popular politicians that represent different constituencies.
I left thinking I was right and the narrow minded Kraze need to find Jesus, forgive Clinton for her poor judgment and to find it in his heart to hold hands with all of those Clinton supporters as we begin the journey to victory in November. It all made perfect sense to me. That was until Clinton opened her mouth on last night and robbed America of the privilege of celebrating one of the great moments in our national history.
Those in the Clinton camp would have you think that last night was about her need to do things her way. “This is her night,” one political expert said after another in defense of that speech. That speech, with the request for supporters to tell her what they want her to do next, felt like a dagger had pierced my heart.
You must be kidding me Hillary! They say you are an intelligent woman. Didn’t you know history was made last night? For the first time in our history a black person has been nominated as a major party’s Presidential candidate. Can’t you celebrate with the rest of us and find reason to put your agenda on the backburner long enough to allow us to reflect over how far we have come?
Could it be that she is too pissed at the fact that a black man did it before a woman? Maybe that rage prevents her from seeing the significance in that moment? How dare you fail to mention it in your speech? That’s not leadership; it’s a rejection of what America has accomplished. This is, Hillary Clinton, a moment many never thought would happen. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant when he talked about his dream. This is what thousand upon thousands marched for, and countless went to jail to fight for.
This is what many thought could never happen. Why couldn’t you acknowledge that and celebrate with the people who believed in you. I was one of them. I wanted to vote for you. I was in your corner up until you made comments that forced me to reconsider my position. My love for you has converted to scorn. Couldn’t you humble enough to speak to this moment? No, you didn’t have to concede. Give yourself the time you need to bow out in way that reflects your emotional need.
I get all of that, but this isn’t about you or those who supported you. It is about America and what it means for us to witness a black man winning the nomination. This is about America moving past race. It’s not about you having an election stolen from you, or you’re pushing for all of those people who voted for you. We needed leadership last night. The type that you used in placing this election within an historical context. Remember that? It was that statement about Bobby Kennedy being killed in June.
It was a night for all of us to be proud. Not just black people. Last nights victory belonged to all of us. Get this Hillary. I would have celebrated with you if you had won the nomination. I would have regarded it in the same way. Your victory would have provided the context for a national celebration, and I would hope that Obama would celebrate with you-for all of us.
What does your response prove Hillary? That you are so engrossed in your own need to win that you can’t see the bigger picture. So, I was wrong DK Kraze. She shouldn’t be placed on the democratic ticket. She’s much too selfish to speak on my behalf.
All of that happened in less than 24 hours. Imagine what damage she could do in four years?

Hillary Plays the Race Card

Hillary Clinton is far too intelligent to make a comment like that without understanding how it would be perceived. Up until she made that flap that came from the backside, I was willing to concede the possibility that she was the best person to win the democratic nomination. As much as I love Obama, and I do like the dude, I was keeping an open mind. I didn’t get lost in the “he’s a brother” mode that has motivated so many people.

As much as I wanted to see the good ole U.S. of A being led by a brother, I refused to buy into the notion that any person of color would be better than what we’ve had over the past eight years. You must admit, it's hard to figure out what that means other than the privilege of paying close to four bucks a gallon for petro, and fighting a war intended to rid the world of terrorism. Has anyone seen Ben Laden?

This stampede to the White House has proven that America is ready to consider a new form of leadership. Who would have ever thought that we would have a woman and a black man still in the hunt for the democratic nomination? Up until now, the black men I supported had as good a chance of getting the nomination as Charles Mason has getting out of prison and becoming the governor of California. It was all show and little substance. It helped us feel good having Jessie run and Reverend Al show off his perm, but we knew it would never happen.
Then enter, stage right, Obama-a black man with a real chance. At first people thought it was cute to have him run. Oh, look, another black man hoping to be President. He’s so articulate. Isn’t it wonderful how he celebrates being both black and white? Run Obama Run. Whoops, wrong dude. This one came with a little bit more under the hood.
So, when Hillary made that stupid comment, she exposed what may have been locked inside from the beginning. She said what she has been thinking and counted on other like minded white folks to chime in. “There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working-hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
No she didn’t! She launched that tricky little race card that has been lurking since Jeremiah Wright damned America and informed us the government created AIDS to destroy black folks. We all knew the media was casting a huge umbrella over the Obama camp in order to prove that all black people think alike, and that if he attended the church he must have been, at some point, brainwashed along with the others to silly not to walk out the door.
I expected redneck Billy and hillbilly Dave to say what others had been thinking. Hard working white folks ain’t ready for no colored boy to run the country. Nope, that boy needs to stay in his place. So, shame on Hillary for aligning herself with those not ready to move past our nation’s history of hatred. Instead of affirming what those hard working white folks are thinking, why not challenge them to think beyond their racist presuppositions.
That’s not to say that some of those hardworking white voters have jumped on the Billary wagon for reasons other than race. It could be her message is more soothing to those hurting after 8 years of Dub. There may be more to this anti-Obama sentiment among those hardworking, white voters. If you think that’s true, help a brother understand what that is all about.
In pulling out that race card to win a state where black voters don’t matter, Hillary has proven to me that she will do anything to win. She has lied about being under enemy fire. Some think she was behind exposing the demonic influence of the Trinity United Church of Christ. What else will she do to win? Excuse me for caring, but I expect more from those who lead me-a black man.
I was willing to support her, but now I’m ready to throw her under the bus and drive the rig until she screams I give.

Another Urban Legend: Obama and the KKK

Oh, how I wish it were true. Of all the urban legends circulating the Internet, this one takes the prize as the most ridiculous assertion of them all.

It came to me from four different senders. I had to fight the tears after reading the first few lines the first time. Then it hit me. No way that one is true. Experience has taught me to check the sources before moving on a lead. Over the years, I have been bitten by listening to the wrong people, and had to admit that I moved too soon in writing a column. The voice of my former journalism professor could be heard-“check your sources, check your sources, check your sources.”

“Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards, has stated that ‘anything is better than Hillary Clinton,'” the email read. “White Christian Supremacist group the Klu Klux Klan has endorsed Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States of America”

For a brief second I felt the presence of those who had fought for freedom. I felt Martin and Fannie Lou, Fredrick Douglas and Marcus Garvey with me to celebrate this monumental moment in American history. I felt the force of countless marches and the drive of the words uttered in times of frustration-“We shall overcome, someday.” Could this be the end of it all? Could this be the end of the ignorance of racial hatred in this country?

It is beginning to feel that way, with Barack Obama winning in states where few black people reside. It is significant that race seems to matter less now, and that America is willing to consider the possibility of being led by a person who isn’t a white man. The recent rise of Obama over Clinton raises another interesting issue-is America’s sexism more of a burden than its racism?

“This is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency,” the email continued. “KKK lodges all over America have been gathering and holding rallies supporting the black presidential candidate.”

I read the email intrigued by the implications of it all. If it were true, if in fact a member of the KKK could move past their indifference toward black people and endorse a black man for the highest office in the land, it would signal the realization of King’s dream. If that could happen it would mean so much. It would mean the end of it all. What stunned me most about the email wasn’t the assertion made. It was that, for a brief moment, I believed it to be true.

It shocked me that I was willing to trust the claim. Not only that, others, who are all black, thought the same thing. They sent me the email believing it was possible for a leader of the KKK to be converted. I then took a look at the beginning of the email. “White Christian Supremacist group” was used to describe the organization. That one word caught my attention-Christian. There is nothing about the KKK that compares to the Christianity I proclaim. Yes, the burning of the cross reminds me of the logo of the United Methodist Church (I wish they would change that image), but nothing they teach, nothing they do speaks to the message of the Jesus I follow.

Those who sent the email may have been thinking the same thing that crossed my mind when I first read the message-that God has touched them. That the nation is enduring a revival that has impacted even members of the KKK. How I wish it were true.

What a difference it would all make. We could celebrate the end of it all. But it’s not true. It never happened. We’re left with a few truths that still hinder the progress of our nation. For some, a woman isn’t worthy to lead us, and a black man isn’t smart enough to do the job.

The double standards still pop up from time to time. Obama lacks substance some have said. Is that true, or is it another way of saying a black man doesn’t have the brains to do the job? There may be problems with Clinton, but at least we have her husband to keep her in check. Shucks, everyone knows who the real President will be.

For a few moments I celebrated a new day. Oh, I wish it were true, but race and sex continue to drive the agendas of far too many people in this country. The good news is we can see the end of the tunnel. I believed it for a moment. Keep praying. Before long, it may become a reality.

The Democratic Candidate Debate: Gay Rights Takes Center Stage

Here we go again. The hot topic during the most recent Democratic Presidential debate was gay rights. It’s safe to say that the concerns that led to the election of George Dub during the last Presidential election were those that forced people to deal with their deep seeded religious convictions. Namely, John Kerry’s seemingly liberal views on abortion and gay rights were too much for many Americans to deal with.

The recent debate proves that these presidential wanna be’s are grappling to find a way to say what most intelligent people are willing to acknowledge-that the constitution protects a persons right to have a relationship with whomever they wish. Given the assumption that part of living in a nation that safeguards the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of every person residing in America; it’s effortless to conclude that part of what that means is related to ones relationship.

The gay rights issue becomes convoluted when thrust within the political arena. What makes it problematic isn’t so much about law, but more about what it takes to get elected to the highest office in the land. In other words, sad to say, most Americans aren’t ready to embrace a president willing to hang out at a gay rally. Despite the progress made, far too many Americans are homophobic and unwilling to consider the underlying issues that have gays and lesbians pressing for equal rights.

At the root of this political diatribe is the bearing evangelical Christianity plays in molding a divisive agenda. There are two issues related to the amalgamation of public policy and religion. The first begs us to regard the significance of the warning embedded within the Constitution-the marriage of Church and State will ultimately lead to the refutation of other faith claims. America is, and has always been, a union of varied theological voices. This is the strength of any democratic society, and to impose a theological construct above others at the expense of a segment of society forces a rethinking of our melting pot dreams.

The Democratic presidential candidates ranted on their justification for opposing same-sex marriage. Senator Barrack Obama, who supports only civil unions, cited the need to “disentangle” the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what “has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people.”

John Edwards cited his Christian faith as a reason for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He stressed that his campaign is “about equality across the board,” while admitting that his position on civil unions “stops short of real equality. It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was a mistake that she failed to do more to condemn the recent comments of a top military officer who said that homosexuality is immoral. Clinton angered gay supporters when she appeared to dodge questions about the remark.

The three front runners are functioning in a way reminiscent of the good ole boys in ole Dixie during the heat of the Civil Rights era The maligned of society must be sacrificed for political gain. Given the detestation toward gays felt by evangelical Christians and an overwhelming majority of African Americans, it’s best to do what they did in the old South, discount the agenda of the minority in favor of being elected.

By affirming their individual faith above the rights of the discarded, these candidates have proven their inability to stand above the political fray to protect the rights of those with a position that defers from that in the mainstream. What America needs is leadership enamored with doing the right thing, even when it may lead to being abandoned by the masses.

Now for issue number two. Not only does this issue beg for a deep conversation on what it means to promote a clear separation of Church and State, it also is screaming for the Church to engage in a critical rethinking of its long held position related to homosexuality.

In 2002, I wrote a column for the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) challenging churches to deliberate on new ways to confront homosexuality. The solution I proposed was for faith communities to hold conversations with gays and lesbians who share the same faith claims. I informed my readers that gays and lesbians are attending their churches. Rather than deny their presence, why not have a chat around the issues they have, and, in the process, give those on the other side space to discuss how they feel about having gays and lesbians as part of their congregation.

This simple solution led to my termination from the church. Yes, there were other issues that caused the members to turn their back on the pastor who helped transform the church into one of the largest and most vital ministries in the city. With that being said, it’s safe to conclude that the prevalent concern was my desire to embrace gays and lesbians. More than my divorces (yes there were two). More than my dating before the divorce from my second wife was final. More than the ordaining of a single female who was pregnant. More than any of that, the congregation was incensed that I was willing to love, embrace and support gays and lesbians void of a demand that they change before entering those pearly gates.

What is the lesson? Leadership requires sacrifice. I’m looking for a president willing to lose it all for the sake of the higher good. The secret to change are leaders who stand above the common voice. I’m still looking.

This bunch has a lot to learn.