DISQUS

Gotta say that I'm really liking Biden lately. He's the perfect "pitbull" attack dog. I don't see the Dems getting swift-boated with him on the ticket. In fact, I think Biden gives the Dems their best chance to play a very strong offense in the general election.


I really like the idea of Gov. Napolitano as well. Besides Clinton (NOOOOOOOO!) Napolitano is probably the safest choice for a female v.p. She's a governor with executive experience. She also seems like a no nonsense type of person. McCain leads in his home state, but it's closer than a lot of people expected. Napolitano might be enough to deliver that state for the ticket. Does anyone know how popular she is in Arizona?



I'd be happy with Sebelius, but I don't know if she can deliver Kansas. I haven't looked at the state polls, but I'd think that would be a pretty steep hill to climb. But I like the aesthetics of an Obama/Sebelius ticket (it best portrays "change" in my book). As for "boring," I think she'd do just fine . . .although I must say, her Democratic response to the President's SOTU Address was brutal.



I know people have issues with Edwards. But, besides Biden, he'd make the second best attack dog in the field. Plus, it can't be ignored that he'd make the most aesthetically pleasing ticket . . .he and Obama look like a "dream ticket." And the experience of having already been through the process couldn't hurt much. His populist message could give this ticket the kick it needs and help Obama focus his message and appeal as we head into the final stretch. The only question I (and I think many here) have is . . . can I believe the new Edwards? Or is he more of an opportunist than a team player. One final point on Edwards . . .his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, is very popular among women and could help Obama sweep that category in November. Edwards is a safe and practical choice.



So, my power rankings for this week:



1. Biden

2. Edwards

3. Napolitano

4. Sebelius

5. Richardson (I too have dreams of how those two could re-draw the political map, but are we ready for two historic racial candidates?)

6. McCaskill (I really like her, but two historic candidates who are also Freshman Senators might be asking for too much at the moment).

7. Webb (Haven't looked into the "confederate" issue yet)

8. Hagel (He'd take an initial hit, but I think Obama could pull this off; and I could most definitely see this ticket running away with the Independent vote - that means "game over" for McCain) . . . but I need more info on his voting record.

9. Wesley Clark (Still the best olive branch to the Clinton camp)

10. Nunn (boring pick, but brings experience and national security credentials to the ticket; could help swing Georgia for Obama - I think Obama has a really good shot at swing either or both of Virginia and Georgia).

"Strategy" is my hope. For the time being, Obama can thank Feingold for saving him a major headache with his base. But he's not gonna be able to duck this issue forever.


Personally, I didn't want to write a post about this issue until Obama actually cast his vote in the Senate. Obama isn't sending good vibes, but I think he's at least earned the right to cast his vote before I respond.



It's been an odd week for Obama. He ticks off his base, opts out of public financing . . . .BUT still gets a substantial boost in the polls at the same time. He must be doing something right. The state polls (including just about every swing state except for MO) are all going in his direction, some by double digits. It's still way early, but, at the moment, this has all the makings of a November landslide. And the good part is Obama's numbers should continue to rise as more and more Hillary supporters come on board.



Again, I HOPE this shows signs of a greater strategy on the part of Obama and the Democrats. Either way Feingold deserves his props for sticking his neck out in a way that Obama did not (and quite possibly could not).

d.,


Thanks. And good luck with your bachelor's.

d.,


just an fyi. . . I have my JD, but I'm not a certified "lawyer" until I pass the bar (which will be later in the year).

d.,


"Most people" probably owned a lot of things. That doesn't mean they had an individual, constitutional "right" to do so. They are two separate issues.



Why even mention the word "Militia" unless the intent of the 2nd amendment was meant to specifically apply to the formation of said militia?



The word, "militia" is a very specific reference. Pursuant to the language of the 2nd Amendment, the "right" to bear arms is directly tied to the purpose and maintenance of a militia. They would not have mentioned the word, "militia" if they did not intend for the 2nd Amendment to apply to "militias." Just the same, one can argue that the writing would have made specific reference to the individual "person" (as it did with the 14th amendment) if the true intent of the 2nd amendment was to grant individual rights.



Again, my beef is with the hypocrisy of someone like a Scalia (a self-proclaimed originalist) who rants about strict construction in every case, but ignores the judicial activism inherent in this decision today.



Is the U.S. constution a rigid set of rules? Or is it a breathing document wherein the Judiciary is vested with the power to interpret its meaning as it should apply to present-day life?



The former (a position normally taken by conservative justices) does NOT allow for the ruling that the 2nd Amendment grants individual rights. The latter (a LIBERAL disposition), conversely, does allow room for such a finding . . .but such method flies in the face of every conservative principle of jurisprudence (originalism, strict constructionism) that the right has been beating the left over the head with for decades.



Scalia can't defend judicial activism when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, yet deny its usefulness when it comes to issues like gay marriage, affirmative action and abortion. His decision today was made within the perceived spirit with which the 2nd Amendment was made. A sin no greater than when liberal justices do the same for their causes.



Originalism is the same type of conservative judicial philosophy that doesn't even accept a guaranteed right to privacy because it is not expressly written in the constitution.



Yet, today, that same conservative philosophy is willing to imagine an individual right to carry arms when the language of the 2nd amendment makes absolutely no reference to individuals (as contrasted to Amendments like the 14th that clearly mention the individual "person").



I'm just holding people like Scalia and Thomas to the same standards they've used to challenge liberal decisions over the past couple of decades.

craig said, "And make no mistake, this decision is based upon an extremely liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment."


I have to agree with craig. I disagree with the legal, policy and social rationales for an individual "right" to bear arms.



Ironically, this is a form of "judicial activism?" It's that thing that conservatives absolutely despise . . . judges assuming the role of the legislature. And Scalia and the gang probably jumped on this opportunity due to a DC ban that might have been overbroad to be constitutional. My guess is that they could have struck down the ban on that basis alone. But, instead, they snatched the opportunity to slip this historic, "individual right" in the process.



Make no mistake. . . .this is conservative judicial activism. . . it's making law to find an interpretation that is not expressly written in the U.S. Constitution.



2nd Amendment states:

"A well regulated MILITIA, being NECESSARY to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE [collective] to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



That is NOT an individual right. It is a reference to the collective right of the PEOPLE to form an armed defense against the government. It has nothing to do with individual rights (which is the key holding of this decision).



Here's an example of an INDIVIDUAL right. . .



14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Sates; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



The U.S. constitution makes clear distinction between the words "people" and "person." The Second Amendment references "militia" because it was made during our nation's infancy when a militia was still seen as a potentially necessary and practical issue.



And don't expect an even application of this ruling. Apparently, the court left open the possibility to make reasonable restrictions on this right. "Reasonableness" is a very low judicial standard. To me, such judicial language lays the ground work for a uneven application of this newfound individual right to bear arms (thus, your cousin "pookie" ain't gonna get the same freedoms as some salt of the earth Reagan Democrat in rural America).



I wouldn't be surprised to see that right restricted in a manner that seriously discriminates against people who just so happen to be: poor, urban and black.



Make no mistake, this decision was made with surburban (non-black/urban/threatening) families in mind.



Craig is right, this is an interpretation (and quite poor if you ask me) of the 2nd Amendment.



And the legal reasoning flies in the face of every conservative legal principle, strict-constructionist, originalist philosophy of right-wing justices like Scalia and Thomas. How convenient that they voted in favor of this individual right.



It's conservative judicial activism . . . the same type of thinking that gives conservative voters nightmares everytime they hear a court rule on gay marriage, affirmative action and abortion.



My complaint isn't against judicial activism as a method. I see the constitution as a living, breathing document. I realize that our founding fathers could not foresee automatic handguns (remember, this amendment was written during the age of muskets) anymore than they could have foreseen gay rights when we ratified the 14th Amendment. But for years we've listened as conservative activists played dumb to prevent the practical application of the constitution to current advances in technology and social relationships.



So my beef isn't with the method that they used so much as it's against the shameless hypocrisy of Republican officials who will attack "elite liberal judges" for "making laws," yet ignore a decision like this one today. Be consistent!

Nader strikes me as a narcissist. IF he truly cares about his issues, then why does he wait untill the 11th hour to run for President? He is a third party candidate. He needs all the time and attention he can get.


Given the lack of resources and attention, Nader should have begun his 2008 campaign in November of 2004. He doesn't have the luxury to run an 8 month campaign like the two major parties. A serious Nader would plan ahead for success, not wait to play the spoiler. But he doesn't do that. If he's serious about the issues then he should take his candidacy just as seriously. This is his third time around and I've yet to see anything from him that makes me beleive he honestly thinks he can or even wants to win. If he wants to make an impact, why not have a backup plan? Why not run for Senate or the House? Why not run for mayor? Don't speak about it, be about it.



He's not stupid. He's been through the process before. He's doing the same thing he did in 2000 and 2004 and expecting a different result. Why would he expect a different outcome? What's his deal?



He doesn't like the Democrats? Fine by me. Why not organize a true threat to defeat the Dems at the local, state and national levels. That's what a third party SHOULD do, not rest on moral victories that do little more than help sustain the greater of two evils.



If he cares about an issue then he should have a bottom line . . . he should be results-oriented. Where are his results? What's more important . . . Nader's issues or Nader's vanity campaigns?



And people are right to note that his statement is nearly identical to that of Geraldine Ferraro's. He said that the only thing that separates him is his skin color and implied that he's gotten thus far through white guilt. Ain't that something? Arguably the two most bigoted comments and they both came from "progressive" leaders (Nader and Ferraro).



He wanted attention. He's foul.



I remember having conversations with a college buddy back in 2000. He was sure that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. HE WAS DEAD WRONG!

Message to Nader: WTF??? Obama does NOT need you to lecture him on how to be a black man.

I'm not sure if anyone else caught this, but . . .


I'm watching Morning Joe and they show a McCain ad attacking Obama for his decision to opt out of public financing. It was a pretty standard ad, not much surprise there.



But the music in the background had kind of a hip hop beat to it. Now, I'm not going to say that it's intentional (it's the first ad that I've noticed). But pay attention to the music the next time you see the ad. Music can say just as much as the words that are spoken over it.



Ever notice how a Burger King commercial always sounds different on BET as opposed to NBC? McCain's ad was a little like that. Again, not saying it's intentional, but it's just something that caught my attention.

@evita,


I'm feelin' your comments, evita. Well said. We seem to be on the same wavelength.

Hey CPL. Great post. Racism as an addiction is a very interesting concept.


I've always gone with those who say that racism is a virus. It adapts to its surrounding environment. . . and has the potential to only get stronger in the process. Thus, the more things change, the more they stay the same. As that virus evolves, there's a need for new methods to fight it. . . kind of like an antibiotic.



"The question is how do we cut America off from her drug of bigotry and racism? How do we get her into recovery? What do we do to keep her from a relapse? How do we force her past denial of her addiction, or allow her to keep making excuses for it?



Good questions. I think the focus should remain on black empowerment and self-determination. I can't force someone to like and/or respect me. But I can fight for the basics. Just look at the Black Panthers' 10-point platform from the 1960s. Those are very specific and focused requests that we've shirked in exchange for more ambiguous fights like "diversity" etc. For example, what counts for "diversity?" What is the critical mass . . . one black person? Two? 25?



@HeartsandFlowers, you said, "Also I think hindsight is 20/20 and Civil Rights fought for integration but not for equality. Or at least all of the assassinations discouraged a continued dialog, those that we left began looking out for themselves, got used to having a little bit of power for becoming overseers, people were left behind and here we are.



Excellent! I've always wondered why black history seems to STOP at 1968. The black community has a rich political history. But look at the History books and you're left with no conclusion but to think that this history died with king and got buried with the death of black nationalism. There's a distinct gap between that generation and mine. We've got to fill it in.

ochyming,


I'm referring to the tactic that seeks to shame racism as a means towards reform. The "interest" may vary. For some it's more diversity in the media, for others its influencing choice of topic or the policy/format in which the news is reported.



Are we doing enough to invest in proactive means of leadership . . . to create avenues for black empowerment? Or do we rely too heavily on the charity/altuism/guilt of others to fight our battles for us?

@kenya,


Nice to see a fellow Laker fan. We'll be celebrating a year from now. And don't sleep on the Bills, they might move to LA soon.



@ smoothie,



Talk about kicking a guy when he's down!



And he had the nerve to diss Kareem too? He ain't on Kareem's level. Shaq should stop trippin' and grow up already.



No love for that.







@ms. martin,



I'm wasn't happy with Obama's statement, but I'm gonna reserve judgment until I see what he does when it gets to the Senate.

thanks again everyone.

onein4,


I ain't mad at Kevin. He's always been one of my favorite players.



"Anything is POSSIBLLLLLLLE!" (w/queen's, "we are the champions" playing in the background). Instant marketing right there. But I better see purple and gold confetti next year! lol!

Thanks for the kind words everyone. I'll try my best.

I'd like to get more info on that Georgia race. It doesn't look good.


I don't think it has much to do with race (i.e., Obama dissing a black woman), but it definitely looks like political expediency. Looks like the other guy is just the safe pick for a presidential candidate who's trying to swing Georgia come November.



I was talking to my mother about this yesterday; Obama's biggest trap at the moment is over-confidence. He's gotta be careful. I like the fact that he's on the offensive rather than the defensive (remember our conversations from a month ago). But he shouldn't take unnecessary risks. I don't know local Georgia politics, but this might be an unnecessary political risk when it comes to the black vote in that state.

via TPM:


At Obama's Request, MoveOne Will Close its 527



The article says MoveOn will still spend and raise money, but not with the advantage traditionally given to 527s, which means less influence than they could have had if they remained a 527 (somewhat confusing, but interesting nonetheless).



TPM's Greg Sargent says:

"To put this in perspective, MoveOn's 527 raised $20 million for the general election in 2004 -- and at least half of that came from donations over $5,000."



Given today's news, that's something MoveOn can't do this year.



That makes two major third party sources that Obama has shut down in the past month. Add that to his influence over the Dem. Party to ban the DNC from taking lobbyist money and Obama's creating a favorable narrative . . . he's walking the walk.



I'm sure the Republicans will look for inconsistencies. Perhaps it's all window dressing on Obama's part. Or, perhaps it's still more than anything McCain has done to limit the influence of conservative 527s in 2008. We shall see.

McCain's comments do to the "patriotism" debate what Hagee's comments do to the Rev. Wright issue.


It shows just how DUMB and disingenuous these "issues" really are.



Yes, McCain most likely mispoke . . . a "crime" no more harmful than Michelle Obama's comment (which I feel was never harmful in the first place).



McCain had a bad choice of words. And while conservative talk radio will likely continue beating Michelle about the head for her choice of words:



"for the first time in my adult life. . . "



The Dems can do the exact same thing with McCain's choice of words:



"I didn't really love America until . . . "



Fact is we all probably have a good idea as to what both McCain and Michelle actually meant when they made those comments. But partisan politics invites us ignore context, empathy and clarification for cheap political points.



Most political "issues" are only as controversial as the opposition makes them out to be. They're in the drivers seat. It's their call.



For example, Hillary Clinton's Bosnia gaffe would have been twice as deadly if Obama chose to pile on and stoke the flames. Likewise, Obama's "bitter" controversy wouldn't have been half as troubling if Hillary didn't jump at the opportunity to tag-team with McCain and smear a fellow Democrat with a common Republican attack, "elitism."



Well, Sean Hannity and Co. had the opportunity to treat Michelle's comment for what it was, a non-issue. But they didn't do that . . . they chose hyperbole instead. It was their choice.



Well . . . now the Dems have that choice as well.



The Republicans can go there if they want, but McCain has already given the Dems enough firepower to use in retaliation. It's an insurance policy. Republicans bring up Rev. Wright's "God d*mn America," and Dems respond with Rev. Hagee's praise of Hitler as an instrument of God. Attack Michelle's patriotism, and the Dems have two comments to fire right back at the Republicans.



It's ALL a distraction. I'd prefer that neither side feed the fire. But so long as the Fox News crowd wants to play dirty, it's nice to know that Obama's got some fire power of his own.



Bottom line: There is no singular definition of "patriotism." Just as there is no singular definition of "American."



McCain's traditional definition is no more "patriotic" than Obama's progressive view of the same sentiment.



Most people understand this. My goodness, even Laura Bush and Mike Huckabee can see that a lot of these things are non issues.

truthseeker,


I heard speculation that Obama could reach 100 million (believe it or not) for the month of June. That's probably assuming that Obama got a substantial boost in campaign donations for his historic nomination as well as crossover donors from the Clinton camp ("to the victor goes the spoils" type of stuff)



I don't believe that number for a second. I think it's way too high, but I'm expecting a big number. . .perhaps 60 million might not be out of the ballpark. If Obama comes even close to 100 million . . . well, that would just be scary on so many levels.



Either way, this was a smart decision. And, although Republican surrogates will attack him for this ("no honor," hypocrite, etc.), I'm sure even they know that they'd do the exact same thing if they were in Obama's position.



Obama is raising huge amounts of money. That's something to celebrate, not something to be ashamed of. It's kind of like when Hillary tried to attack Obama for outspending her in every state. It sounds persuasive for a moment until you realize that he must outraise her before he can outspend her. That means more people are willing to invest in Obama's campaign than his opponent (at rates of 3 or 4:1). That's powerful stuff.



Obama just needs to keep an eye on those Clinton donors switching over to his camp. McCain will be looking for any corporate or special interest influence he can find. More money means a bigger tent, which means more opportunity for mischief.



This shouldn't be a big issue by this time next week. In fact I've heard a few moderate Republicans admit that this won't be a big campaign issue.

Smart politics by Obama.


The sooner Obama realizes that he can't please everyone (a typical liberal trait) the sooner he'll be on his way to a landslide victory in November.



Democrats have been clear to say that they don't want to get swift-boated this year. Well, this is the first step to ensuring that won't happen.



The Republicans know that they have absolutely NO control over two matters that will likely decide this election.



The first is the financial tsunami through record waves of new donors and campaign contributions.



The second is voter turnout. High registration amongst black and youth voters must be giving the Republicans nightmares. A 20% lead among women . . . 60%+ support from both Latino and Jewish voters. . . all bad signs for the Republican party this year. It means that hopes for a splintered Democratic party are slowly beginning to fall by the wayside.



After months of "Obama can't get xyz votes" the Democratic party is beginning to coalesce behind its noiminee (still shaky ground, but looking very positive at the moment). Add in a 20-25% gap in voter enthusiasm and Obama's got all the right ingredients for a big victory come November.



This is a trade-off. Obama gives McCain a campaign issue (public finance/trustworthiness/honor, etc.) in exchange for roughly 500 million dollars. . . money that will be well spent to defend himself against 527s whom McCain has already said he can't control (meaning, they're coming at Obama full-force).



McCain will work this issue for all that it's worth. And Obama had better watch out because McCain will be looking any and every type of corporate and/or special interest donation he can find to paint Obama as a hypocrite. Obama better be working on his surrogate game.



But, at the end of the day, people don't base their votes on public campaign financing. And McCain's best hope was to see if Obama might be gullible enough to throw away a security blanket of up to 500 million dollars just for the sake of "nobility."



Campaign finance is a great water-cooler topic, but it won't sway the election; especially not with larger issues like the War and economy to deal with.



And don't forget, people vote with their dollars. A campaign contribution is an investment. You don't need a poll to test the effectiveness of this gamble. . . just keep track of the ever-expanding donor list.



Obama will take a hit over the next news cycle. He might even take a slight dip in the polls (mostly among Independents). One round of the Sunday talk shows and we move on to the next issue by Tuesday morning.

nquest,


"the internalized racism "we" have where we not only think it's acceptable to have the EXTRA BURDEN of "structural inequality" et al but feel not only that it's a noble thing to succeed "IN SPITE OF" it but that "we" should do just that. . ."



Success "in spite of" is a necessity when a black man's got mouths to feed. Especially when having those kids was his CHOICE in the first place.



He has NO choice but to overcompensate for societal failures. He has no excuse to abandon his family. There's nothing noble in that. It's what he's supposed to do. I'ts what a single mother does all the time.



We can list the sacrifices single mothers make on a daily basis. But we often struggle to find similar sacrifices from the fathers in those same situations.



I'll fight for brothas who are kept away from their kids because of an unjust prison system or unfair family laws. I'll speak out against unemployment and wage gaps that make it hard for a black man to provide for his family.



But the black community needs to draw a line in the sand with some of these brothas. And my line is drawn at "choice." I will not waste time and effort on a brotha who willingly chooses to abandon his family. I'd rather spend that same time and effort helping the single mother and kids the father left behind.



The black community must ask itself whether the number of black men who willingly abandon their families is higher than we'd like to admit.



This doesn't let the government off the hook. But you can do both. You can fight for a fair shake and hold black men accountable at the same time.



So my main interest is the truth behind the numbers. If someone tells me that 70% of black children are born out of wed-lock and that the majority of our black babies have no fathers in their lives, then I first have to identify the problem before I get to the solution.



What accounts for these numbers?



Are the statistics true?



If so, what percentage of absent fathers are absent for reasons beyond their control?



If we can focus on those issues then we'll have something to work with. We can fight for the rights of those kept away from their children and throw the book at those who willingly abandon their families.

re: R. Kelly,


I never saw the tape. And I have no interest in defending the man.



But, on a similar note, I was shocked to learn that Marvin Gaye's Sexual Healing was written about a 16 year old girl.



I just think it's interesting how talent and nostalgia can hide a lot of sins.

Re: Patty Solis Doyle


I am SO sick of talking about the Clintons and their feelings.



EVERYTHING is a diss to the Clintons. EVERYONE is out to get the Clintons. NO ONE can make a decision without first consulting the Clintons. EVERYONE Betrayed the Clintons. It's the vast right-wing conspiracy. . . it's vast the left-wing blogger bias.



Enough already.



Obama WON...



Clinton LOST...



Obama can hire whomever the hell he wants. He doesn't have to answer to her.



Notice how no one ever asks. . . "did Obama diss the Edwards/Richardson/Biden/Dodd camps???"



That's because they're not as narcissistic, paranoid and entitled as the Clintons. Earth to the media: THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE CLINTONS!



The media is dead-set on driving this wedge between Clinton and Obama supporters. Obama's got a 20% lead among women voters, but the media is still looking for anything it can to start a fight.

I didn't like parts of the speech as well.


And, yes, it was opportunistic and Obama should be criticized for it. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "pander" because I think he honestly believes what he's saying. But the timing seemed politically motivated. And it appears as though the speech was designed to serve three objectives:



1. To reinforce his centrist, all-American/"he's one of us" bona fides;



2. To serve as a direct rebuttal to his critics' charges of elitism (a central theme being: "I didn't have it easy growing up and neither did Michelle"); and



3. To strengthen his status as a family man, particularly among female voters of all races (his speech can be seen as being just as pro-black single mother as it was anti-black absent father).



So I agree that the speech was politically opportunistic. Either he or someone from his staff must have thought this would be a good time for some tough love. Obama should have been aware of how the media would spin this. In that sense, his speech was a bit sloppy and reckless.



HOWEVER. . .



I respectfully disagree with those who feel that this somehow disqualifies Obama as a viable candidate. The punishment doesn't fit the crime as far as I'm concerned.



If it did, there'd be much worse transgressions to hold him accountable for than this; and much more cause to have never supported him in the first place (take, for example, Obama's centrist position on affirmative action).



But while I agree with some of the criticism I also agree that his speech is nothing new. Thus, I don't get the sense of shock that I see in this thread. He's said this stuff like this before. And I think many of us factored his Cosby-like leanings into our initial considerations of his campaign before before we decided to support him in the first place.

................................



On a separate note, I think it's important that we not automatically dismiss the black conservative view on this issue fatherhood.



Notwhitstanding Obama's speech, the issue of black fatherhood is very serious. And, while I abhor the demonization and scapegoating of the black boogey-man, I have little interest in defending deadbeat fathers (particularly those in my own community).



There are many principled black folk who don't see this as the demonization of black men. Rather, they see this as the protection of black children and the support of black women who've been overburdened with the responsibility of raising families all by themselves.



I agree with the person who said it's a matter of recognizing the millions of black fathers who DO take responsibility for their children. I'm all for tough love. But tough love means very little without positive examples and positive influence. Young black men should be held accountable, but they should also have goals with which to aspire.



Finally. . . we've got to have better arguments. Regardless of which side we fall on, I think our arguments have grown stale and hopelessly predictable on this subject.



Just last night, Marc Lamont Hill lost a debate (in my opinion) to Bill O'Reilly on the subject of absent fathers because he could not avoid two very simple arguments:



1. Regardless of structural inequality, fatherhood is a CHOICE -- no one forces you to be a father, that's a choice that you make on your own; and



2. Regardless of structural inequality, there are millions of black men who handle their responsibilities and don't abandon their children.



It may very well be true that black conservatives go too far in their criticism and black progressives don't go far enough. Many conservatives refuse to acknowledge the structural shortcomings of unemployment, lack of resources and assistance. But, if we are to get to discussing solutions, black progressives should do a better job at acknowledging that this problem does exist.



Politics aside. . . political scapegoating aside. . . we have to diagnose the illness before we can treat it. And that takes a certain amount of soul searching that we haven't fully come to grips with as of yet.



The Fox News/O'Reilly debate was too predictable. Marc Lamont Hill downplayed the illness while focusing on the solution. Not surprisingly, O'Reilly downplayed the solutions while emphasizing the illness.



I fall somewhere in the middle. I can't stand cultural stereotypes and the demonization of black men. But my empathy only goes as far as that father's willingness to take responsibility for his family. That black mother and black baby are jumping through similar hurdles of inequality and oppression. . . but they don't get the luxury to leave when times get rough.



Don't ge me wrong. . . we should do everything in our power to support the brothas that DO take responsibility. We should fight on their behalf and hold them up as an example for other men in our community.



But I have NO love or respect for a man who willingly abandons his family. I won't waste time and effort defending his, yes, excuses.



At that point, my efforts are better spent helping the family get back on it's feet than tending to an absent father's bruised ego.

...............................



So, while Obama is justifiably criticized for his approach, I've yet to see someone address the content and truthfullness of his statement.



Forget the politics at play for a second. . .just ask: IS IT TRUE?



Are the statistics true? Does anyone have any statistics or studies to disprove Obama or Cosby's assertions? Does anyone have any studies to disprove the conventional wisdom (a la Janks Morton's What Black Men Think)?



If so, I'd like to see them.



Because that will help us shape a solution and strategy for our community.