| Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website | Make us your homepage

Thursday 31 January 2008

This black American backs Hillary Clinton

By Bonnie Greer

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 31/01/2008

Have your say Read comments

As the saying goes: you wait a long time for one bus and then two show up at once. A woman and an African American are running for President of the United States.


	'The rancour between the Clinton and Obama camps is tragic'

Only one of them will be the choice of the Democrat Party for the final run-off. The election of either would be historic, a landmark, ground-breaking and revolutionary.

They both fit nicely, like some adman's dream, into that romantic, bedrock notion that America has of itself: that it is possible for anyone to occupy the Oval Office.

If only Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would flip a coin to decide who will be President and who will be Vice-President, at once there would be a formidable Dream Team, an unstoppable duo.

It is because of this wish for coalition and cohesion that I find myself having to face the fact that I have lived away from America for a long time.

Ever since I arrived in London, more than two decades ago, I have avidly followed every presidential election - each a link to my native land.

Even after becoming a British citizen a decade ago and doing what for an American is the unforgivable - swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch - the election of the president still belonged to me.

But this race looks different. I find myself watching it all through a kind of prism, switching back and forth between CNN and Fox News, slightly in awe of the noise and the glitz and the money and the passion, wondering why it is all so "about America", wondering if they know that the rest of the world is out here watching and holding its breath.

As an African-American woman who considers herself a feminist, the wrangling, the rancour, the increasing bitterness and hostility between the Clinton and Obama camps is tragic to behold.

My family, for the most part, votes Democrat, as do the majority of African American families. My late father, having been born into profound racial segregation in rural Mississippi in the 1920s, was a stickler for showing up on polling day. Back then, potential voters were sometimes expected to take a test for literacy and, if you were black, that test could, at the discretion of local officials, include the ability to read a small tract in Mandarin Chinese. If you couldn't do that, you couldn't vote.

It's no wonder my family are all so passionate about exercising our democratic right. But we have never before been so torn asunder.

At present, we can be divided into two camps. There are the "Hill and Bill" folks: not terribly enthusiastic, but pragmatic, sceptical and willing to accept a two-headed presidency provided it will rid the body politic of the Bush Tendency.

And then there are the exponents of what my brother calls "Obamarama": those who have almost deified the senator from Illinois (my home state) and who brook no disagreement, no hesitation in acknowledgment of him.

But you can't really blame them. After more than 500 years of being in the back of the bus in terms of power, finally there comes along a candidate who can put African Americans in the driver's seat.

But Senator Obama's campaign to create a "post-racial" America seems to have fallen by the wayside - partly following the faux pas Hillary Clinton made in which she seemed to imply that Martin Luther King was nothing without the help of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The racial flame was lit and everyone rushed to embrace the "brother" without question; those who did not were - and are - considered to be, at best, mincing, mewling "Uncle Toms"; and at worst deluded, self-hating traitors. As one family member, a fully-paid up drum major for "Obamarama", yells in increasingly strident emails written in capital letters: "BELIEVE!"

I can remember Dr Martin Luther King standing at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial on that hot August day in 1963, when I was still a schoolgirl. I was watching the masses of people on our television screen marching to honour the past, to make a better present and, most of all, to fight for my future and the future of those who would come after me.

Dr King said that day that what he wanted was an America that judged his children on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. On that day, he gave me - and all the victims of colour-oppression and their descendants - permission to move away from race if we chose to, to look beyond it to something bigger; our own way of looking at the world. Senator Obama has asked people to do that, too, but he has been given the Mantle of History. It is a heavy load to carry.

I suppose what I resent the most from the Obamaramas, and what I think would appal the senator if he knew this was being said about him, is the suggestion that he is the last hope, in our lifetime, of a black person becoming president. But there is a generation of African Americans born after 1960 who are talented, capable, brilliant and ready. Barack Obama is not the end.

I am proud of Obama, proud of what he has made of his life, what he has done and wants to do. But I lean towards Hillary - as strange, traitorous and misguided as this may seem to the followers of "Obamarama".

Forget the dynastic fears and the worries that Bill may be in the driving seat. The Kennedys are a dynasty. No one batted an eye when Bobby ran all those decades ago. Or that Bush père et fils stood for election: twice. This shouldn't worry us.

Just think about what Hillary has to offer: not dreams, but what President Theodore Roosevelt promised and what Churchill appropriated and re-stated to the British at the start of the Battle of Britain: "Blood, toil, tears and sweat."

From my vantage point in Britain, as I watch the world grow smaller and other countries grow in influence, I can't help but think that this is what America needs. A reality check. There will be no dreams under this President Clinton. We will stay awake, face the music and change.

• Boris Johnson is away

Have your say

Rudy Giuliani to quit and back John McCain

30 January 2008: Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards drop out of US election race

Comments

The most interesting line in this article was the last: "Boris Johnson is away." In the future, please wait for Boris' return before publishing this kind of mind numbing nonsense.
Posted by Eldridge on January 31, 2008 2:20 PM
Report this comment

If Mrs. Bill gets the nod it will be 4-8 years of a leftie government for the US, A La Blair-Brown disaster, and look what those 2 lovelies have left the UK with. Obama has zip experience yet prattles on about change. What change? I listen to him and nothing original comes out of his mouth, other than the whiff of an Opera moment. However, as Kennedy and Co. has now tossed their formidable weight behind him, I think he now has the edge over Mrs Bill. Neither of these 2 should have the opportunity to lead America as both of their rather weak philosophies are grim. I'm not crazy about the Republican nominees either, but another Democrat in the White House? Ohmygod!
Posted by Maura Collins. on January 31, 2008 2:00 PM
Report this comment

Obama is not an African-American. He is an American African.
Posted by P Edant on January 31, 2008 1:27 PM
Report this comment

I don't trust Hilary Clinton. If I were American I would definitely vote for Obama. He seems like a good guy and he is bright. He has a social conscience and has proved himself to be compassionate. Clinton is too cynical and uses her Rottwieler husband to touch on divisive issues, division being what she wants. My main concern over Obama is his knowledge of economics. But then again, the Clintons are not much better in this regard (also Lawyers). But concerning future presidential elections, after a turkey like Bush any Democrat (or Republican) candidate will do the job comparatively well.
Posted by Charles on January 31, 2008 1:08 PM
Report this comment

I'm not at all surprised to find the author of this article left America two decades ago and feels so at home here ... it would have been a worthwhile read if she had'nt!
Posted by Jeff on January 31, 2008 12:48 PM
Report this comment

You may well back Mrs Clinton, but we know that's only because you are a feminist.

Lots of people will consider her man-hating feminism to be a good reason for voting for someone else - anyone else!

Posted by Chris on January 31, 2008 12:06 PM
Report this comment

Posted by Adam Primus on January 31, 2008 11:
18 AM

A case of splitting hairs? And rather pointlessly.
Posted by Pinkie on January 31, 2008 12:05 PM
Report this comment

"Hanoi" Jane was a nasty inaccurate slur at the time; isn't Jane Fonda now married
to a rich republican?

It will be a novelty for the US presidential contest to be between two politicians the
UK need not fear unduly imho.

Posted by Quietzapple on January 31, 2008 11:56 AM
Report this comment

But would she make a good President? The answer is no. She may be a woman and you may be a feminist but the fact is Hillary hasn't got any of the answer to take America forward. it'll be more of the same. The Middle East, the Environment, Social Welfare? None would be progressed by Hillary.
Posted by swatantra on January 31, 2008 11:20 AM
Report this comment

P.S> can we stop all this rubbish about a "Dynastic" Presidency? The Clintons are husband & wife, it is not Chelsea C. running... go get a dictionary and find out what "Dynasty" means...
Posted by Adam Primus on January 31, 2008 11:18 AM
Report this comment

Right, so gender is stronger than race or colour.

And women wonder why they don't get on
without the help pf an Equal Opportunities panel.
Posted by Pinkie on January 31, 2008 11:14 AM
Report this comment

Does anyone actually believe that any politician, irrespective of gender or race will actually do anything to improve the lot of the masses ?
Politicians want power, and the riches that go with it. They have to do what business wants or they can't afford the election campaign.
Ordinary people discussing who the next president/prime minister will be and what they will do is like prostitutes discussing who their next pimp will be and how he will treat them. It doesn't matter who thye pimp is, the prostitutes will get screwed and someone else will take all their money.
Posted by The Realist on January 31, 2008 11:12 AM
Report this comment

Why do great nations produce (and what's worse, tolerate) such poor quality politicians? They produce great business-people, sports-people, entertainers and much more. But politicians worldwide are characterised by insincerity, self-interest and lack of experience of the real world. I suppose we've only got ourselves to blame.
Posted by Ethnic Briton on January 31, 2008 11:11 AM
Report this comment

"why do you say "WE" when your British. BLacks in America are racist that the majority vote for Obama are based on race and not issues" : quote from Esther on Jan 31, 5:23 AM.

I will assume that your meaningless first statement here is simply the result of your lack of proficiency in the use of English grammar.
Your brazen assertation that "Blacks in America are racist" is only indicative of your own obvious racism. How would you feel Esther if somebody made the sweeping assertation that, for example, "Jews in America are racist"? Most naively, you blithely put forward the proposition that votes will be based on "race not issues". I would recommend you educate yourself in the field of US history, then perhaps you would understand that in the US race IS an issue, like it or not; and it is often an issue because of uneducated & under-educated rednecks like yourself. Shalom.
Posted by Adam Primus on January 31, 2008 11:10 AM
Report this comment

Yes, bla, bla, but why is Ms Clinton the right person for the job?
In my humble opinion Ms Clinton, grasping, greasy pole climbing, over ambitious, strident and cuckolded, is just another average politico who, if she ends up in the WH, will make just as much of a mess of the world as most of the previous tenants.
Posted by No Change There Then on January 31, 2008 11:01 AM
Report this comment

Hillary could be considered to be without self
respect or self esteem otherwise she would never
have put up with Bill making such a fool of her.
Unless she cynically figured there'd be a payoff
one day - I'll put up with this because then it
will be my turn. Which I think is the case. So, she
was an enabler to having the office of the
presidency disgraced in orer to further her
ambition. Had she upped sticks & left Bill during
his presidency and shouted from the rooftops
"I'm not going to be treated this way - this is not
the way the prsident of America should behave"
then I think Bill would have had to step down and
Hillary would have been entitled to support in
any run for the presidency, because she would
have shown integrity. As it is a lot of her support
is from women of low self esteem who empathise
with her, not fully appreciating that she acted out
of ambition and not because she lacked self
esteem.

Anyway, all the discussion regarding Hillary
versus Obama is academic because while she will
win the nomination most people see through her
and she will lose to McCain, the authentic
American hero. All we need now is for Hanoi Jane
to endorse her bid for it to be a whitewash.
Posted by Guy Thornton on January 31, 2008 10:57 AM
Report this comment

"she will do nothing, just as her husband did. He promised the world and sat there and let it all happen without doing anything." quote from post by dick (right!) Jan 31 4:21am.

That's what amazes me about partisan politics : the ability it gives people to squarely look reality in the eye and see only the reflection of their own prejudices, even to the extent of totally erasing the actual facts to make way for their own preferred version of reality. So it is with the above statement. Now I have no love for "Slick Willie" as Clinton's many detractors called him; yet I cannot help noticing that for all the promises of all the other Presidents of every stripe, he was the only one who delivered to the extent that the US had a balanced budget & a trade deficit replaced by a trade surplus. This was something that no other president in the 20thc had managed, and none have since.
This was not a insignificant achievement - just look at the current financial crisis in the US.
Posted by Adam Primus on January 31, 2008 10:53 AM
Report this comment

"...you're saying that people would vote for an African-American President, because he would make African-Americans his primary concern." - so says Chee Jan 31 9:54am.
Oh, please grow up. This disingenuous show of horror is pitiful. So people tend to vote for those they who think will advance their own interest, and/or the interest of their own particular social class/group - this is what people have ALWAYS done in elections, just as wealthy people vote for the candidate who will cut their taxes. Voting for secessionist parties such as the SNP is also voting on ethnic lines.
You go on to state "..choosing of who to vote for based on sex or ethnicity in the most powerful country in the world is sickening.." but I note you don't condemn the past couple of hundred years of NOT voting for people "based on sex or ethnicity". If you had actually paid any real attention to the Candidate's Race, you would know that neither of these two (Obama & Clinton) are making those issues any part of their platform - it is the people like yourself who are doing that.
You should examine your motivations for these vitriol-laden statements of yours & confront your obvious racist attitudes.
Posted by Adam Primus on January 31, 2008 10:38 AM
Report this comment

Let us hope Billary have learned something and that this time they bring
in a better healthcare system for the american people, tens of millions of
whom have no health insurance at all.
Posted by Quietzapple on January 31, 2008 10:01 AM
Report this comment

"After more than 500 years of being in the back of the bus in terms of power, finally there comes along a candidate who can put African Americans in the driver's seat"

What an absolutely ridiculous statement, in a ridiculous article. So, basically you're saying that people would vote for an African-American President, because he would make African-Americans his primary concern. Isnt the President supposed to be fair and consider the welfare of Americans, regardless of ethnicity? The choosing of who to vote for based on sex or ethnicity in the most powerful country in the world is sickening.

Cant wait for India and China to take over as the next superpower(s). Good riddance to bad rubbish as far as the USA is concerned.
Posted by Chee on January 31, 2008 9:54 AM
Report this comment

I am an African woman, and I am very sceptical about Mr. Obama. To judge a potential president it is necessary to look at what a person has achieved in life. From what I have read, that is remarkably little for Barack Obama. I keep thinking, if he is punctured will he leak steam? As a woman, a mother and a breadwinner, I prize actions which to me speak much louder than words. That is why Hillary - a woman who has been through the wars in terms of bile and acrimony, has fought battles in the White House and Congress, yes she lost them, but the fact is that she did fight them and learn lessons in her defeat. She strikes me as a woman who means what she says and does what she says she will do.
ON the other hand, Barack Obama knows that second chances are given to very few in terms of running for the highest office. His time is now, and he feels he must give it his best shot.
I feel pity for him, because he will never become what he dearly wants to become. America has a greater chance of electing a Latino than a black person. For Latinos, there is constant immigration, and will be for quite a while. They will soon have the numbers to force a candidate who has a reasonable chance of victory.
Call me cynical, but black American voters would do better thinking with their heads than their hearts. If Hillary wins the White House, why should she feel particularly loyal to voters who rejected her on-masse? Her energies will go to keeping her supporters happy - and that won't be the black population by and large.
Posted by Bethany on January 31, 2008 9:53 AM
Report this comment

"There will be no dreams under this President Clinton"

How right you are, Bonnie. Plenty of opportunity for nightmares, though. Hill and Bill? It doesn't bear thinking about.
Posted by Jon Anderson on January 31, 2008 9:48 AM
Report this comment

I could not disagree more when it comes to the downside of dynastic politics. One has only to look at the mess the two Bush presidencies have conclude that one generation does not confer wisdom on the following. In addition the weakness of the Clinton candidacy is the blatant playing to the gallery to garner votes rather than standing firm on policies. If Obama is policy light, I suspect much of that is down the need to keep the good bits for the real fight which is against the Republicans. If the Democrats don't win this election, they may as well consign themselves to the also ran category. In addition does one need to descend into colour politics at this stage. That only became an issue after the Clinton campaign started to whisper sour nothings about the Obama bandwaggon. Hilary Clinton needs to keep her over-zealous campaign crew on a tighter leash or her wish for power will never be realised. People smell nastiness and cynicism in her message and that is not going to win her the election in November.
Posted by Ketish Pothalingam on January 31, 2008 9:47 AM
Report this comment

So,Bonnie Greer is a British citizen and an African American.
Why is someon`s skin colour more important than their policies or character?
Posted by Sue on January 31, 2008 9:45 AM
Report this comment

Certainly one should not vote simply along racial lines (nor according to the sex of the candidate). I don't like either of the candidates, but I find Hillary slightly less offensive in her views.

Posted by Clothilde Simon on January 31, 2008 9:40 AM
Report this comment

Go, Bonnie! At the moment the American
president, for good or ill, is the closest we have
to a world president, and dealing successfully
with Asia and Arabic countries must be very high
on any future world agenda. It would make sense
to elect someone like Hillary who is pragmatic
and has already fought her way back from great
disillusion to make a contribution to society.
Quite aside from any North American political
correctness, due to historical realities, dealing
with Asia and Arabia at the present time could
easily be even more difficult for a black man
than for a white woman.
Posted by Lissa on January 31, 2008 9:38 AM
Report this comment

A rare thoughtful article among the plethora of nonsense that's been written about these candidates. Bonnie Greer is especially spot on with her assessment that “the increasing bitterness and hostility between the Clinton and Obama camps is tragic to behold”. I’m pretty certain that if either of these two candidates were not running against each other, they would be supporting each other.

Obama is undoubtedly very appealing, but what really do we know about him besides his superficial call for "change, which lets face it, is hardly the most original of rallying calls, having been previously uttered by numerous politicians in the past, one Bill Clinton among them?

For years Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have taken and continue to take unrelenting and non-stop flack. In some cases, the hatred (no other word to describe it) towards them almost borders on the pathological, as if they are the Devil incranate. And yet Hillary is still standing, still fighting her corner.

Obama thankfully has not yet had to face this kind of deep-seated and relentless hostility. So his toughness and resilience has yet to be tested, certainly in the way Hillary’s has been. Just as importantly, in my observations it is Hillary who seems to have a better grasp of policy details and issues.

As for Obama, he is still young for a politicians. If he doesn’t make it this time, he still, has time to launch another campaign; and by that time, with unquestionably more experience he will make a stronger candidate. But for now, Hillary despite some flaws, makes the better candidate.

Posted by Rick on January 31, 2008 9:29 AM
Report this comment

Dear American electorate. The racial origin of your candidate, or of the voter, matters not one jot, but for your own sake and for the sake of the rest of humanity please, please, do not forget your basic ABCs. Anybody But Clinton.

Posted by O Zangado on January 31, 2008 9:27 AM
Report this comment

thank you for this commentary. i support hillary clinton because she is brilliant as well as showing a visible willingness to put her nose to the grindstone and over and over again, learn from her mistakes and keep slogging, for this country (sure, also for ambition---like obama and all of them). i get the the distinct impression that the also-super-intelligent sen. obama thought he was going to be carried into the white house on the shoulders of an adoring crowd enthralled with his charisma and (admittedly inspiring) rhetoric. and as a female who has watched this dichotomy play out in the arena of professional achievement again and again with males of all races & ethnicities, that is all she wrote.
Posted by elizabeth bennett on January 31, 2008 9:26 AM
Report this comment

Obama is seen as the black man's candidate. Hillary is seen as the woman's candidate.
The world has changed since Bandra Anaika and many Americans have seen the likes of Margaret Thatcher and the Queen, Angela Merkel and Mrs.Ghandi. The majority can now feel that a woman can lead and can be trusted with the cake. Conversely the likes of Mugabe and other black leaders in Africa right down to the current trouble in Kenya, the home of Obama's father, regularly show black leaders running off with the cake and stashing it in a Swiss Bank Account.
The truth is that Obama must do four and maybe eight years as Hillary's number two in order to convince voters that he can be trusted with the cake.
Hillary herself will only be elected because in the subconcious of the American voters, Bill will be in charge. The most undemocratic rule in any democracy the world, that prevents the electorate having the president they want, would be exposed. They would elect Hillary with the experienced hand of Bill at the tiller. Obama as the running mate would then be acceptable to a majority of voters.
There is, of course, a problem on the horizon. If anything happened to Hillary, and Obama became president, then the choice of the new VP could split America. If it was anything but a white male he would probably lose a large number of votes from the white community and this in turn could cause a serious split in American society along racial grounds. Remember, in Kenya the seem to be busily killing each other on simply tribal lines.
Posted by Adrian H on January 31, 2008 9:23 AM
Report this comment

Rubbish article, completely missing the point.

The fact that you could give a toss about whether the candidate is female, black or an old white male shows how much you are defined by such irrelevancies.

The important choice is between a machine politician with the morals of a cockroach or an inspiring orator with a vision of how to escape from this squalid situation in which we find oursleves.

Mr and Mrs Clinton may yet win the democratic nomination, but if they do then they will lose the election.

If you want a "democrat" in the white house you have to go for Mr Obama, because the chances are he will be up against Mr McCain a man whose presidential credentials absolutely unimpeachable (unlike Mr Clinton)
Posted by cuffleyburgers on January 31, 2008 9:22 AM
Report this comment

I agree a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket would be a winner, if they can be decisive to America instead derisive with each other. How I wish that we here in Britain had the same democracy as the USA in being able to vote individually in public at primaries and every four years at a very specific time for our head of state and prime minister, instead of at the whim of the latter. Perhaps when we do get such democracy instead of autocracy we can once again be as proud to be British as Americans are to be American, instead of so ashamed to be British and so undemocratic in comparison.
Posted by Keith A. Forbes on January 31, 2008 9:17 AM
Report this comment

Classic counter discrimination by Jo Anne Green .. "it needs a woman to sort it out" ... priceless .... then again the best premier anywhere I've ever seen (in terms of delivering) was Margaret Thatcher so perhaps thers something in it?
Hillary or Obama are fundamentally flawed because they believe government knows best.
Obama might be a nice person and is certainly a gentleman but rational and pragmatic .. neither of them.
Bye.
Posted by Richard Goodley on January 31, 2008 9:16 AM
Report this comment

Well said Bonnie. Of course Obama is not the end, nor even entirely the beginning. It's worth remembering that Colin Powell was courted by both parties as a possible candidate. He didn't run because he chose not to, not because he was black. Similarly, when people raised Condoleezza Rice's name, the fact that she is black and female was not seen as a problem. She's not in the running because she didn't want the job. Whatever the final result in November, America has clearly moved past the point where being black or female, or both, was seen as any bar to the highest offices.
Posted by Richard Briscoe on January 31, 2008 9:11 AM
Report this comment

Thank you for your well-written views. I am not black, female or an American so my views are marginal at best. However as a detached viewer, it is easy to see how the rancour was started and how the Obarmaramas have reacted so strongly to it. Unfortunately the Clintons and the Bushs (remember how they destroyed McCain last in 2000) are experts at negative and under-hand politics. Clinton chose to start the war as she was thrown into a panic by Obarama's success. What does this tell us? That the Clinton character flaw is a very much a joint account holder. My preference would be for Obarma as he seems cool under fire and his instincts are to play the statesman. The US Presidency is a massive institution which enables anyobe to sit atop of it and guide it through the practical issues of the day but I would prefer someone who has a clear sense of a philosophy and vision for the future than a Clinton who seems dragged down by their basic love of power and how best to use it to their advantage.
Posted by Anthony on January 31, 2008 8:53 AM
Report this comment

I'm glad Bonnie Greer has lost the vote in the U.S.A. She would vote for the wrong Democratic candidate, the old guard, the same old same old Clintons.
Posted by M. Thomas on January 31, 2008 8:39 AM
Report this comment

Bonnie Greer doesn't approve of Condi and Colin Powell (she once wrote The Guardian). And now, without any valid reason, she doesn't believe in Obama's dream.

Reality check; Hilary has two many negatives and with John McCain likely to win the GOP nomination, Democrats will be stupid to nominate somewhere who will turn off independents and left wing Republicans.

What Iowa and South Carolina has shown is that in Obama, traditional non-Democrats have someone they can identify with.

Mark my word, with HRC as their nominee, the Democrats are toast in November.

Shola Adenekan.
Posted by Shola Adenekan on January 31, 2008 8:08 AM
Report this comment

I find it baffling that any self-feminist can vote for a woman whose campaign slogan is pretty much "You remember by husband, don't you?".

All this presidential race is doing is showing how LITTLE the US has moved on. To be a truly accepting society the talk should not be of gender or race but of who has the better policies and I have heard disturbingly little talk of that nature thus far.
Posted by Adam Brown on January 31, 2008 8:03 AM
Report this comment

As a self-described 'feminist' (what ever that means in your world) you are presumably 'voting' for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman...that is just about as stupid as being a racist and disliking someone because they are not of your tribe or skin colour.

She brings blood , sweat and tears ?

Yes , she and her lothario husband hatched a plan at University that they would work ceaselessly to both be President of the US. Nothing wrong with that , but don't kid us or yourself that she is any different from all the other power-crazy , dynastic and ruthlessly ambitious politicians who will serve their own interests before yours.

As for your roots and the tough time you had . I'm white and I had a pretty tough childhood too. If you want to know what tough is , read Charles Dickens and learn how tough it was for the white poor in London in the 19th century . White women in the UK didn't get the vote either until 1918 and then they had to be property owners and over 30 yrs old.

I prefer to inhabit a world where men and women are equal and their colour is irrelevant.

Stop patronising black people and women !

Posted by Arthur J Smedley on January 31, 2008 7:51 AM
Report this comment

I usually agree with much of what Bonnie Greer says, particularly on cultural matters, but here she is mistaken. Neither Obama, who is all style and no substance and experience, of clinton, would make an even passable president of the US.

Obama has no experience of foriegn affairs at a time when it is crucial that the President has a very good grasp of world affairs. He would be seen by America's enemies as a potential soft touch. Like Clinton, Obama would spend billions of tax dollars on state funded projects that don't in the end, add anything to the sum of human happiness, but upset millions of tax payers.

Clinton is as near as you can get to what we used to call a Socialist, and she would behave like one. Her values, and her policies, are alien to the modern USA, and also the modern world.

The tragedy for America is not just that she has a couple of missfits as Democratic presidential hopefulsl, but that the likely Republican candidate is John McCain, a 71 year old with his best years behind him and with dubious health. With the USA thus handicapped, and Britain brought to its knees by ten years of Blairism, it is difficult to see who will lead, or even save, the western world.
Posted by David GArdiner on January 31, 2008 7:41 AM
Report this comment

The danger for the States seems to me to be the temptation for the voters to support Obama BECAUSE he is black or Hilary BECAUSE she is female.
I wonder if the hype and glitz of the campaigne trail is designed to prevent a reasoned and rational approach to voting?
Posted by Phaedrus on January 31, 2008 7:31 AM
Report this comment

One educated black professional from South Carolina (I read it on the Web) said thus: "I would naturally vote for Obama.He's got ideas and he's got the drive.However,I fear that even if he's got the ticket,he will be hindered at all sides.Everything surrounding him will be old white America: the House,the judges,even the police and army: every each way he turns,he shall not be able to make a move. he has no natural support,he'll fail.And now he's got in with the Kennedy's clan...I would prefer him to stay alive.I'll vote for Clinton,just for Obama's family's sake".
So - no need to be so happy-clappy about Ms.Clinton, she is getting there against the suffering of the people.Her husband is from the South States, there are still a rumours about his family tree and his young' life connections there.
Ms.Clinton,however,has nothing to do at all with the feelings of the American people.Even given the time she spent in training in public speach,proferred by the best NLP specialists in the world,she is still as wooden as a chunk of wood whilst attending a meeting, she is not even half sincere as the Revival' Priest.She is a fake. Unfortunately, she'll win as the rest of them are even more sinister. God bless America indeed, she'll need it.
Posted by hum on January 31, 2008 7:14 AM
Report this comment

As an American,an African American women, and a devot Democrat the primary election was a very difficult decision. For the first time, I wanted to vote for both. In a since, they both have the same out look on the major issue that I am concerned with. I agree, if only they could just be running mates and both be in office. Wow, that would be an amazing thing. I wonder if this is something they have thought about, or are they each so determined to win and be the first make history. Perhapes if they slowed down, they would realize that they could both make history and be a presidential duo like nothing this country has ever seen.
Posted by Elysia Bowles-Charles on January 31, 2008 7:03 AM
Report this comment

Bonnie Greer has an impressive and
objective perception of what is going
on in the Hillary-Obama electoral race. This is not practically a racial issue: Because of Obama's white parentage from his mother's side. But, when black celebrities aligned themselves with Obama; and started touting the possibility of the first black president, and when the primaries moved South--the region that fiercely resisted segregation--race unavoidably entered the competition.

The South Ms. Green described, which
still displays racial sensibilities,
was changed through the policies
formulated during the Kennedy
administration, setback by the
assassination of John Kennedy, but
advanced by his brothers late Robert
Kennedy, Edward Kennedy; President
Johnson and his administration; along
with Martin Luther King, whose 1963 centennial speech in Washington, D.C., moved America.

I have to bring in the context of
this speech. Martin Luther King spoke
in front of the famous, overlooking Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln's image
is symbolic and significant here.
It was the 16th president who signed
the Emancipation Proclamation that
granted blacks in America their
freedom, which was reversed mostly
in the South, during the post-Civil
War Reconstruction of the late
19th century and well into the 20th
century when Mr. King was giving
his speech; leading to segregation,
denial of right to vote, lynching;
and more. So, Reverend King invoked the image of President Lincoln, asking Americans to deliver on the promissory note (Emancipation) the
late president proclaimed on behalf of all Americans.

Few speeches in history had the kind
of impact this speech had on America
then. It didn't end with the speech.
Action followed, along with bloody,
riots, fierce resistance by forces of
segregation and institutionalized
racism: More marches, lynchings,
violent demonstrations, acts of
vandalism, use of attack dogs, tear
gases, water canons; etc., which
culminated in assassination of
Martin Luther King in 1968.

I paid homage to the real heroes of
the civil-rights gains in my Jan. 29 commentary: "Barack Obama knows his
wife is formidable," 8:49 A.M.
I re-emphasized these past issues
so that these historical trends and sacrifices shouldn't be lost in the
deification of Barack Obama and his
wife, who are just new comers to the
civil-rights scene when America has
changed a whole lot in terms of
desegregation. I'm pleased to find out
another, objective analysis of this
reality. Obama is the face of
multiethnic, multicultural heritage--
coming from a biracial heritage,
overcoming adversity and accomplishing a lot at a young age.
But, he's not the embodiment of the
civil-rights legacy. He's, rather, a
beneficiary of the legacy.

He has a bright future in politics.
He best and surest route to the
presidency is the offer and acceptance of the post of the
vice president. Never mind he and
Hillary behave like boxers getting
ready for a championship tournament
with undisguised, deep resentment. But, it's all politics. If Obama does
very well on Super Tuesdauy as
expected, that would boost the chances of a Hillary-Obama ticket.

This will create the voting coalition
of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton,
which always favor Democrats every
time it happens: Blacks, Organized
Labor, the Middle Class, minorities,
the underprivileged, independents,
youths, moderates; and more. Hillary
and Obama have either or more of
these constituencies and voting
blocks. So, a merger will bring all
of them together. And, the withdrawal of John Edwards, which
I predicted in a recent commentary (to possibly come after Super Tuesday), will make this merger ticket easier.

But, that is if Republicans allows them. The party's divisive,
wedge-issues tactics have proven highly effective against Democrats by peeling away conservative Democrats. The Clintons are good in blocking them.
Igonikon Jack, USA
Posted by Igonikon Jack on January 31, 2008 6:54 AM
Report this comment

Thank you for your comments, I am a black American female who intends to vote for Hill, and I agree there are a growing number of Black men AND women who will soon be poised to run the gamut for President, my background is much like yours with southern parents who came through the civil rights revolution, and I met Martin Luther King,Jr. but I strongly
believe that after the Mess the MAN has made it will take a woman to clean it up.And finally let us not forget the song by John Lennon "Woman Is the Nigger of the World'.
Posted by Jo Anne Greene-Fields on January 31, 2008 6:47 AM
Report this comment

Carefully and rationally thought through and beautifully written. Thank you for sharing those words and thoughts with us all. These past few weeks have been some of the more difficult of my 66 years as I hear and see two people who should be sharing the same mantle allowing the media to tear it to sheds and toss it to the wind.
Posted by architecture on January 31, 2008 6:30 AM
Report this comment

Of course one shouldn't vote for a candidate because he is black and I wouldn't have noticed Obama's colour if Hillary hadn't drawn my attention to it.

Posted by loo on January 31, 2008 6:28 AM
Report this comment

I can't quite understand from your article
precisely what it is that you don't like about
Obama, other than the fact that his fans are
wildly enthusiastic about him and that he is not
the last great hope for another black candidate
and hopefully president in the future.

I am the reverse of you: a Brit who became a US
citizen, and I find Obama's quiet dignity,
inclusiveness and intelligence far more exciting
than all that Hillary brings to the table - and I
was, until recently, a huge Bill Clinton fan,
although both he and his wife's behavior during
this campaign have tarnished the memory of
what I believe was a high point, perhaps the high
point, of American influence in the world, in the
1990s.

Obama offers the clearest break with the past
that America can have - and boy do we need it
after eight years of Bush, a criminal war in Iraq
(although, perversely, while I totally opposed it, I
am not in favor of a precipitous troop withdrawal
now) and an unraveling economy.

He may not have the experience of Hillary,
certainly in terms of the time she has spent in
the White House - but neither did JFK when he
was elected. And I think the comparison is valid,
because Obama offers hope to a nation and a
world that really needs it right now.

I believe firmly that he is up to the challenge,
that he is smart enough to respond to whatever
may face him in office. And as for his sense of
the rest of the world, aside from the fact that he
may bring more light to the neglected horrors of
Africa, I can hardly wait for the reaction of the
world to a youthful, transformative (to use the
word he used of Reagan) US President, whose
race is only a tiny part of the change of direction
that he can offer both America and the planet.
Posted by Alexander Chow-Stuart on January 31, 2008 6:23 AM
Report this comment

Bonnie Greer should run for the Presidency!
Posted by Norman Clark on January 31, 2008 6:16 AM
Report this comment

In my book, the biggest racists at present are the media, who continually refer to Obama as 'black' - totally ignoring the white parent.
Now why should that be? Is it because they consider the man's light brown skin colour to be more important than his political acumen?
One of the most competent, intelligent and seriously talented of senior American politicians for generations is Condolezza Rice, who has a better 'black' pedigree than Barack. Why do we not hear the same cheerleaders cries of approbation?
It is of course, because she is Republican and, with a left-wing media of East coast trendies, she doesn't count.
The insidiousness of liberalism/socialism is all around us. Just watching the news on BBC and Sky yesterday, was like seeing the actual presidential contest, with scant attempts to conceal the commentators preferences - the Republicans barely got a mention.
My congratulations to you Bonnie, you are clearly an honest person - very rare these days.
Posted by Graham King on January 31, 2008 6:07 AM
Report this comment

I have a great deal of respect for Bonnie Greer but it is curious, that with two so closely matched candidates, she goes for Hilary because she believes her to be the "safer bet". Choosing a black candidate, whether for a job or for the presidency, always carries an element of daring. The white candidate is always the "safer bet" But, if everyone thought like Bonnie, both she and I would be cleaning white womens houses for a living. Obama and Hilary are actually quite evenly matched in ability.( And I hope Bonnie isnt taken in by the bogus "35 years of experience" argument. On that basis the Republicans might as well make Laura Bush president.) What Obama offers, that Hilary cannot, is break with the past. Hopefully Americans will dare to dream.
Posted by Diane Abbott MP on January 31, 2008 6:00 AM
Report this comment

Brava! very glad to hear this reasoned account.
The bandwagon for Obama IS troubling --as is all
political affinity based on stirring up emotions. A
rational presidency with Hillary would be a
welcome relief from the last 8 years of awfulness.
Posted by Joan on January 31, 2008 5:52 AM
Report this comment

Much as I respect and enjoy Bonnie Greer's opinions on the Arts, like at the recent events themselves, in her article enthusiasm swamps substance or even at times sense. Rather than holding the breath a few deep breaths would seem in order. While the symbolism of America's first black or woman Presidential candidate cannot be underestimated, neither candidate can afford to be the representative of either black or female America. Britain's first woman Prime Minister felt the need to manifest more testosterone than her male counterparts. It is also not clear how closely Obama identifies with Black America - this ambiguity of course helps win white votes.

When Churchill promised Blood and Toil etc it may, I dont know, have been appropriated but it was without question appropriate. What does Bonnie Greer think it means in the context of Hilary?

Posted by Bob T on January 31, 2008 5:36 AM
Report this comment

OBama will be another disaster for America and why do you say "WE" when your British. BLacks in America are racist that the majority vote for Obama are based on race and not issues. Barack Hussien Obama and Oprah both have schools in Africa. Both of them ignored the victims of Katrina and opened no schools in New Orleans. Obama is a talker but no record to back it. I see this election like a school cafeteria where different ethnic groups sit seperate. I will vote for Obama when he goes back to the senate and gain experience. We do not need another George Bush in office.
Posted by Esther on January 31, 2008 5:23 AM
Report this comment

No one batted an eye when Bush pere and fils ran? Whoa, you have been away for a long time. The Bush's are exhibit A for not electing follow-up family.
As to Hillary having experience, excuse me, what experience? Corporate lawyer?
And finally, like many journalists impressed with Clinton's command of factoids, you overlook the clear desire for the office at all costs, the coterie of corporatist (and white) advisors, her quite Republican approach to many issues, the lack of activism on her part in Congress. Sorry, you want her?
And as a Democratic party activist, let me tell you that she will unify a now-splintered Republican party as would no other Democrat. And her presence would drive Democrat veterans, service people, gunowners and others to cross over if Mc Cain is the Republican nominee.
Clinton is another opportunity for Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by USagina on January 31, 2008 4:45 AM
Report this comment

If you like a skirt-chasing First Husband back in the White House, the Lincoln Bedroom being rented out to wealthy glitterati, esp. those from Hollywood, the citizenry always waiting for the other shoe to drop with recrudescent scandals and debacles from the previous two Clinton terms, a smarmy self-righteousness by nanny state Democrats, always-rising taxes, teachers unions in lockstep with the Democrats to prevent school choice and vouchers, "gay" marriage, the ostracism of mainstream Judeo-Christian religions (especially, non-Episcopal ones), a marked aversion to foreign intervention such that genocides (Rwanda, Congo, Khmer Rouge, Darfur, Taiwan perhaps to come) are willingly ignored, and an incessant prattling about global warming and green-everything, then you will LOVE Hillary Clinton as president.
She never learned to keep her dog on the porch, they said in Arkansas, and to no one's surprise, Buffalo Bill Clinton has shown in the past two weeks that he's just as much a loose cannon as he ever was. Of course, he wants to get back in the White House much more than his wife does, it's his one big chance for redemption for the previous scandals, and for turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda in the years following the 1993 truck bombing at the World Trade Center, the phony accord with North Korea in 1994, and Sammy bin Laden's declaration of war on America in 1996, paving the way for 9/11.
Posted by Charles, for McCain, in California on January 31, 2008 4:41 AM
Report this comment

Just a suggestion. Please stay over there and don't vote. I can think of no worse calamity for the USA than to have a non-ethical, lying, POS like Hillary as president. She has the ethics of a rattle snake. She will say and do anything to get elected. Then she will do nothing, just as her husband did. He promised the world and sat there and let it all happen without doing anything. The War on Terror now would have been stopped then if he had done something. Hillary will be just more of the same. She has no experience but claims it all. Just a terrible choice the democrats have this year. You lose with either one.
Posted by dick on January 31, 2008 4:28 AM
Report this comment

Thanks for paying attention... I wish you would send your thoughts to the various campaigns. I'm thankful there are other more 'realistic' voters.
Posted by Arleen on January 31, 2008 4:21 AM
Report this comment

You have said it all, Amen.
Posted by joeysky on January 31, 2008 4:08 AM
Report this comment

An excellent and thoughtful piece, Ms. Greer. Obama is doubtless an excellent candidate, but you can't run a country on abstract nouns.
Posted by Peter Connecticut USA on January 31, 2008 4:04 AM
Report this comment

Yes, Bonnie, I 'fear' you are correct. Better the
Clintons for all their faults; they're streetsmart in
so many areas. Alao, I feel the colour Obama's
skin is covering up what no white skin would as
he preaches, orates, exhorts ... a lack of real
down to earth substance, a naivete mixed with
cunning that he can't help given his journey -
but not the stuff needed of a 21stC president
who needs to deal with a world, not a country. A
black man will make the oval office eventually
but this one really troubles me - not to mention
those around him and who will be. Your doubts
seem justified here, Downunder.
Posted by tony Mora on January 31, 2008 4:04 AM
Report this comment

You want an example of tragedy? Here">link is an example of tragedy.

Let me spell it out for you so that no one will misunderstand. Only one candidate believes in property rights: His name is Ron Paul. All of the other candidates believe that you and I have no right to private property.

Only Ron Paul acknowledges your right and mine to control 100 percent of our own property, including our incomes, our savings, and our homes.

All of the other candidates believe your property and mine can be taken away from us by popular vote, and, until this minute, you didn't know that. THAT'S tragedy.
Posted by Mark Yannone on January 31, 2008 3:51 AM
Report this comment

If as Martin Luther King stated ,"Americans will be judged by content of character" then I cannot understand why anyone with half a brain would vote Democrat in the first place, let alone for either of the two main contenders. They need now, more then ever, a strong Reblican Government.
Posted by john cook on January 31, 2008 3:42 AM
Report this comment

Amen! From Utah.I hope Senator Clinton wins, the Country needs the "Clintons" back in the White House. I feel is time and the right choice.Go Hillary!!!!
Posted by CBH on January 31, 2008 3:35 AM
Report this comment

HILLARY CLINTON will produce the DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL WIN for AMERICA.

HILLARY is experience and she is ready to do the presidential duties on day one.

HILLARY is a very hard worker and she will work for change for America.

HILLARY is well educated and she will get the job done.

HILLARY will do great things for America - she is truly committed to America.

HILLARY is a doer for all people.

HILLARY respects the American flag, she salute the American flag and she respects the national anthem as well.

HILLARY is America's True Change Machine and she is ready to get the Wheels of Change rolling for America as president.

HILLARY gives hope to the hopeless and renews the American Spirit of all people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VOTE - HILLARY CLINTON - PRESIDENT!!
VOTE-"MY AMERICAN MAMA" - PRESIDENT!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TIME TO WAKE-UP:

******MUST READ ARTICLES*************
******MUSR READ ARTICLES*************

Time for Obama to come clean
To dismiss Rezko as 'somebody who I knew' just isn't going to cut it
-January 24, 2008, by Mark Brown, Sun-Times Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times.
-THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
link

8 things you need to know about Obama and Kezko
Tale in national spotlight, thanks to Clinton
-January 24, 2008, Chicago Sun-Times.
-THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
link

Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case
Source confirmed Obama in the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko
-January 20, 2008, by Dave McKinney, Natasha Korechi, Chris Fusco and Tim Novak Staff Reporters, Chicago Sun-Times.
-THIS ARTICLE IS LOCATED AT:
link

Posted by Blondshag on January 31, 2008 2:55 AM
Report this comment

You have written an article that is probably interesting for somebody but although your call for a 'reality check' is highly original you've made me quite certain that a President Noriega would be the best option.
Posted by Raoul Spengler-McGinty on January 31, 2008 2:47 AM
Report this comment

A Clinton-Obama ticket would surely be a winner. It would also give Obama the background needed to rest any doubts about is experience for the top job in four or eight years time.
Posted by oldasiahand on January 31, 2008 2:28 AM
Report this comment

From my vantage point in California the only bitterness and rancor is in the media -- they've really been hyping it. Bill's outbursts of aggression turn out to be relatively mild annoyance with the media because it feels it needs a knife fight between the candidates and just won't shut up about it.

My own preference is for Obama. He isn't the 'black' candidate, another media invention, he's just a candidate that happens to be black(ish) (So?). He's a fresh face after literally decades of Bushes and Clintons in the WH (you'd think we had an aristocracy!). He may not get the nomination this time round but I think he'll get a shot at the Presidency eventually. But whoever wins time around I'll support them -- I don't thing HRC is a bad choice, just that Obama might be better.
Posted by Martin on January 31, 2008 1:56 AM
Report this comment

Opinion