Vote Today...and Repay the Debt

Be sure to vote today. It should go without saying, but I’m still saying it anyway.

Vote today.

Each and every fireman’s hose, attack dog, lynch mob, Baptist church bombing, civil rights assassination and segregationist Jim Crow ploy to thwart Black voters are each symbolically standing in the doorway of history. They are looking upon this day as the sum of all their fears.

Prove them right.
Prove that their fear is well-founded. Let not the sacrifices of those who came before us be in vain.

My vote today is in remembrance of Fannie Lou Hamer, Harriet Tubman, Medgar Evers, Emmett Till, Viola Liuzzo, Rosa Parks, Ida B. Wells, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, Shirley Chisholm, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Justice Thurgood Marshall, Charles Hamilton Houston, W.E.B. DuBois, Langston Hughes, Chaney, Goodman & Schwerner, Frederick Douglass and the thousands of others no longer here to participate in this moment.

My vote today will be in remembrance of them. All of them.

My vote today is in recognition of Rev. C.T. Vivian, Joseph Lowery, Clarence B. Jones, Jesse Jackson, L. Douglas Wilder, Andrew Young, and the thousands still with us who all have played equal, yet sometimes less celebrated roles…but still inextricably linked to this propitious moment.

My vote today will be in recognition of them. All of them.

But most importantly, my vote will be in rejoicement of the wonderful possibilities both present and future, this historic candidacy of Barack Obama represents…win or lose. “Yesterday” is inextricably linked to “today” and “tomorrow.”

There is no “Venus and Serena,” without “Althea and Arthur.” There is no Tiger Woods without Lee Elder and Calvin Peete. No Deval Patrick with L. Douglas Wilder. And there is no Barack without Shirley and Jesse.

My Lord. My Lord. Never before have our yesterdays, todays and tomorrows all together in one singular moment.

Don’t miss this moment.

Our history as a people in this nation has been a succession of steps leading inexorably to this moment in which hopefully…maybe…finally, we realize our privilege and standing in this world. Senator Obama’s candidacy doesn’t “change” the world for us, but inarguably changes how the world must view “us”…and I don’t mean “us” as Americans.

In closing, I’ll leave everyone with the words of former Louisiana Congressman Cleo Fields, who said it best…

"Rosa Parks sat down so the rest of us could stand up.

We stood up so Dr. King could march.

Dr. King marched so Jesse could run.

Jesse ran so Obama could WIN!"

Now go cast your vote and remember you’re not just voting for yourself, you’re also voting for everyone who died in the process of securing that right. If you won’t vote your conscience, vote theirs. Vote to laugh squarely in the face of every piece of Jim Crow garbage thrown our way the previous twelve months specifically and 400 years generally. And most importantly, vote knowing that for the first time in history that we as African-Americans have the opportunity to repay the debt of all those who came before us. It’s the very least we can do.

Don't miss this moment. Vote today. (And party tomorrow).

The Mo'Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse...as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex and Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.mokellyreport.blogspot.com.

Help Bring Mo'Kelly to National Radio HERE

Visit Mo'Kelly's GIFT SHOP HERE

Morris W. O'Kelly can be reached at mokellyreport@sbcglobal.net and he welcomes all commentary.

Your Ad Here


ZACK said...

The Election Judges in my precinct are verbally harassing people. So, I decided that was my queue to NOT VOTE.

My sister just called me crying because they were yelling and not helping her. [Remember, Oprah has warned Chicagoans that there were some glitches in the early voting process]

The worst part is that it's black people (old black women at that) who keep people from voting for Obama. I am so embarrassed to be a Chicagoan today.

ScamBuster said...

Wait a sec. On the one hand, you criticize people who say that justice was served on OJ for what he did years ago.

Then today's post, at its core, basically says "justice will finally be served".

What a hypocrite.

Walt Bennett said...

Now More Than Ever

Today I will physically cast a vote for Barack Obama.

I will, substantively, be casting a vote for change.

To my mind, what it comes down to is this: will the wealthiest one percent give up that wealth peacefully, or will we have to take it from them via any means necessary?

For over a century the oligarchs have been collecting the wealth which was earned for them from the backs of the workers of this world. Now, in the early years of the next century, we see the bankruptcy of that philosophy. We see the physical devastation of the planet. We see the horrifying political conditions under which much of the world lives. We see the abject poverty that too many people, even in the richest nations, suffer. We see the way workers are treated like basic commodities, to be accumulated and discarded as needed.

For over a century they told us that this was the best economic system possible. If that’s true, what does it say about mankind, that this is the best we can do?

I don’t believe that, and I never have.

Now more than ever, the lie has been revealed. Now more than ever, the failure is apparent.

Don’t let them fool you. Don’t let them tell you that we can trim the hedges and all will be fine. Don’t let them tell you that any alternative to capitalism is “even worse.”

Don’t let them scare you into denying control over your own destiny.

We don’t, today, know what the correct answers will be to create an economic system which is truly fair to all. I know that some socialization is inevitable. Energy and Health care should not be for-profit enterprises. A person without access to energy is a primitive being. A person without access to healthcare is one illness away from devastation.

Not only can we do better, we must do better. In two months we will have a unified Democratic government, at a time when the old ideas of defending free enterprise and the rights of the few to control so much of the wealth, have all failed. Many millions in this nation and across the world are, at this moment, being snatched from the middle class and thrown into poverty, as industries and businesses contract as rapidly as possible amidst this enormous economic meltdown.

Who will represent them? Who will make sure that their future is assured? Who will see to it that those who have worked hard and, through no fault of their own, been cast aside, will not be left there to wilt?

Can we count on the unified government to propose and develop these new solutions? If you are under the age of 30, you might believe that "yes" is an acceptable answer.

It is not. By now we know that when we elect people who promise to change Washington, what happens instead is that it changes them. Candidate Obama has promised that it will not happen to President Obama. It will be up to us to hold him to that.

If we fail to insist on real, permanent change, we have only ourselves to blame when things get even worse. And in the end, the revolutionaries will then have been proved right: only all-out war could ever wrest control of the world economy from the hands of the oligarchs.

I don’t believe that, because my hopes and dreams work better when they aren’t so apocalyptic. My hopes and dreams work better when I choose to invest in a future where we vote our way there, where we create a mass movement that rolls over the current alignment and creates a new alignment.

We start tomorrow.
We start tomorrow.

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

Scambuster...please point out the part where I say or intimate that justice was served?

I CLEARLY said repay the debt. That means for those who worked so hard for us to be able to even vote today.

I never said anything about how voting for Obama rights the wrongs of yesterday or somehow makes up for past grievances.

I CLEARLY made my point, you simply refused to read it and assumed...wrongly at that.

If anything, voting today is about living on the level of our privilege. Finally attaining a level of respect.

We can't go back and undo anything. What in the hell were you reading?!

ScamBuster said...

The tone of your entire post, my friend. But the kicker is your arguably racist statement: " Senator Obama’s candidacy doesn’t “change” the world for us, but inarguably changes how the world must view “us”…and I don’t mean “us” as Americans."

This is tantamount to saying that world views "us", and let's just say it since you afraid to -- black people (of which I am 1/4, by the way) -- as somehow being second class citizens.

In other words, that the injustices of the past are now somehow made up for by the election of Obama.

What's so troubling about your attitude is that it is so self-degrading. You seem obsessed with how the world views "us". Poor "us". We are victims. "They" view "us" a certain way.

My black grandmother taught me not to give a crap about how others view or think of me. I never have and it never got in my way. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with how blacks are just victims of history, over and over again, and now things are finally going to change...Hallelujah!

Racist baloney.

You post article after article attacking others for their focus on race, yet here you are devoting an entire article to how voting for Obama somehow honors the sacrifices of other black folk; that your vote is in remembrance of black folk; talking about "our history as a people". It's all about being Black.

What about being an American, period? How about making your vote count to honor the sacrifices of ALL Americans, regardless of race, who died to defend your right to vote?

But oh no, "Mo'Kelly" can't do that. Mo'Kelly is black, so he's going to focus strictly on race while chiding others for doing the same.
(10/29; "Bomb Obama"; 10/20 LImbaugh/Mo'Kelly;
10/16 "This is the America...")

Meanwhile, as you rightly trash these racists for their behavior, you turn around and jump on the smear bandwagon of Joe the Plumber. It isn't relevant whether he's licensed, a registered voter, or like Bozo the Clown -- he asked a question of Obama. The focus should be on Obama's answer -- he's the candidate. Joe is just asking a question.

Even if Joe makes a quarter million bucks, what about the sacrifice you are asking him to make?

You make some good points here and there, Sir. But your level of hypocrisy totally undermines your credibility.

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

Scam, you're making this too easy.

First and foremost...I've endorsed Senator Obama. That is not unlike any other person, pundit, news organization who has.


My endorsement of Obama has NOTHING to do with race, but his CANDIDACY does.

Huge difference. I can make the distinction, you can't.

He is FAR AND AWAY the better candidate. That said, his win does not supersede the reality that his difficulty IN WINNING is related to racist forces against him.

I clowned Rush because he did not look at the merits of Colin Powell before dissing him. And you did not look at the merits of my argument before dissing me.

You clearly don't know what the word "racism" means. And I'm not really here to help you with that definition.

After 43 white male presidents, you call me "racist" for celebrating the symbolic and historic significance of ONE non-white candidate on the PRECIPICE of victory is HYPOCRISY of unimaginable levels.

But since you aren't African-American you don't get it and don't get that you don't get it. Your assumption of my support for him is based in color.

It is not.

I want him to win because he's the best candidate, and that's acknowledging I don't agree with all of his platforms and have been OPENLY CRITICAL OF MANY OF THEM.


I said VOTE. I said be sure to VOTE. Would I like folks to vote for Obama? Yes, I endorsed him.

But I didn't endorse him BECAUSE he was Black.

No more than you endorsed any of the past 5 presidents because they were white.

Don't contradict yourself. Because the Black man endorses the Black candidate, doesn't mean that race trumped common sense.

I would've never voted for Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice if they were in the general election.

But when it comes down to it. Obama more exhibits my political tendencies than John McCain, and YES I celebrate the political progressive possibilities and the symbolic meaning of the intersection of his candidacy and what it means for this country and this juncture in history.

There's no hypocrisy on my end. I judged Obama on the merits of his candidacy...why I never supported Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton. Get your facts straight.

You need to read more of my work, clearly.

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

As for Joe the Plumber...it's not the question he asked that was the "problem."

The "problem" with Joe had to do with conservatives uplifting him to be some sort of iconic symbol of middle America when Joe was NOT what even he purported himself to be.

In light of the fact that he was unlicensed, and likely unregistered voter, his question was specious at best...because HE DIDN'T MEET THE 250K THRESHOLD AS STATED IN THE OBAMA TAX PLAN.

So the question was specious, the controversy dubious and the political gamesmanship obvious.

The Right RAN with the whole Joe the Plumber thing and it blew up in their faces. He was a farce, which is a nice way of saying a lie.

And the whole "Bomb Obama" has to do with the outright VIOLENCE AND DEATH THREATS against Obama.

That's proof enough that this election is based in racial HATRED. It's one thing to say "don't vote for Obama" or "vote for Obama." It's another to say "kill him" or "Bomb Obama."

To say that isn't rooted in Jim Crow south (as you seem to disregard) is proof that you do not have any handle on the definition of racism.

Not even close.

You're welcome to your opinion, though flawed, inaccurate and ultimately incorrect it might be.

Walt Bennett said...

I consider the issue more nuanced than scambuster does.

Morris and I have talked at length about "the black experience." To say that a lot of whites are scared to death of a black president is certainly a safe statement. The rest of the world knows that white Americans generally fear black Americans, whether it be on a dark street corner or in the White House.

Is this fear a fear of reprisal? Most likely.

I take Morris's comments to mean that the rest of the world will be forced to take notice that America was able to overcome that fear and vote for a black President. That is indeed historical. It is indeed representative of progress.

I don't consider it hypocritical of Morris to point to the racial significance of this election while at the same time pointing out that there are still serious issues of access and fairness in this country.

One can only hope that Obama addresses these issues as part of an overall effort to reach out to the poorest and least influential among us.

Morris and I agree that a man need not be defined by his skin color nor by his experiences. However, there is nothing wrong with identifying oneself with the struggle which led to this moment.

It's a dicey balance, to be sure, but certainly it is every person's choice, be they white, black, latino or otherwise, to determine what that experience has meant to them, and how it has defined them.

I mean, the black experience in America has in part defined me; I too have an opinion about what Obama's election means as we move forward in this country. Are we at the point where we can say how we feel about a person "regardless of race"? Certainly Jesse Jackson, in 1984, tried to get us to see him not as white or black, but as "qualified." Certainly most people accept that Obama is indeed, "qualified".

We can be making progress even as we continue the discussion of what's right, what's wrong and what needs more change.

That sort of dialog should be even more possible now, and that is a prospect that excites me.

I also say this: we need to spend some time in another person's shoes before we label them a "hypocrite."

That's a mighty inflammatory and divisive term.


The Mo'Kelly Report said...

Walt...well said, and I say that acknowledging that we do in fact disagree on some fundamental items surrounding this election.

Well said...

ZACK said...

Scambuster, fall back!

You don't even know Mo'Kelly like that. If anybody is an expert on what this country needs, he is. He mentors kids, reads lots of books and lives a Christ-like life. He doesn't have to justify anything to you because it's HIS blog, his voice.

I started to NOT vote because of people like you, Scambuster. (Yeah, you a busta alright). But then I thought about the living people who can't vote: teens under 18, felons, folks in the hospital. And then I took my happy self down the block to my neighborhood church and cast my ballot. [It was rather lengthy at the end with a mandatory "yes or no" vote for 100 Chicago judges]

While I honor the memory of all civil rights heroes, I think more about those whom I can affect NOW with my vote. It's just a statement. Obama is never going to meet me- especially now that he's a sunset away from the Presidency.

But he'll hear about me and people like Morris who are dedicated to improving the lives of all children. Morris actually works with more kids of a different race than he does his own. Because race matters only in the theoretical sense of the word. When it comes to his practices, he doesn't discriminate.

Sorry for the long rebuttal, but let's not turn November 4 into Race Relations Day. We should have that day even before slavery began.

ScamBuster said...

yeah, Mo'Kelly, this is your tactic. You say this is a place to incite conversation. When I post something you don't agree with, you claim I didn't read your post, then claim that I can't make a distinction between endorsing him as a candidate and his candidacy.

What arrogance you show, along with your hypocrisy!

Then, you have the nerve to say I'm not African-American. I got news for you. My grandmother was. As far as I'm concerned, that makes me African-American. Unless your racism extends to the point that how I identify MYSELF doesn't meet with YOUR arrogant presumptions and proclamations about who is and isn't Black.

And then you say,"Oh, you don't understand because you aren't Black, and don't get that you don't get it".

ANOTHER racist statement! Don't you listen to yourself?

What matters is whether or not we are HUMAN. YOU are the one insisting on making everything about race.

I suggest you honor the sacrifices of all Americans. But no, you are ONLY going to single out African-Americans, and EXCLUDE the sacrifices of ALL Americans, regardless of race.

It makes me puke to think you are filling the heads of young children with this kind of racist rhetoric.

The way your post SHOULD have read was, to paraphrase, "EVERY American who has faced adversity should have their sacrifice honored today, so that they are not in vain. My vote today is in remembrance of ALL Americans. My vote today is in recognition of ALL Americans." And then delete the crap about how the world views "us".

But no, you only singled out African-Americans. Racism is about exclusion. Democracy and tolerance is about inclusion.

You chose the former. You are a arrogant, condescending, self-loathing racist who continues to play the "Black as historical Victim" card,

Your blog does a dis-service to all Americans.

Shame on you.

ScamBuster said...

Then we have the suppressed racism of Walt Bennett.

"The rest of the world knows that white Americans generally fear black Americans, whether it be on a dark street corner or in the White House.

Is this fear a fear of reprisal? Most likely."

Walt, you are projecting your fears and demons onto white Americans. White Americans don't "generaly fear" black Americans.

The truth is that Black Americans fear that White Americans fear them.

It's the self-loathing and victimology that African-Americans have been taught to embrace that creates this image in one's mind.

"I take Morris's comments to mean that the rest of the world will be forced to take notice that America was able to overcome that fear and vote for a black President. That is indeed historical. It is indeed representative of progress."

Again, a racist statement. It's all focused on race. On this alleged fear. The reason Obama is getting elected has nothing to do with any of this rubbish. He's being elected solely because Americans are rightfully pissed off at the state of our economy, and how the present Administration has botched everything they touched.

Yes, good ol' America, they finally got over their racist fears of Black folk and are putting one of "us" in the White House. Finally, all those sacrifices of Black people have paid off. Justice is served!

What TRUE progress would be is if you and Mo shut up about race and talk about Americans and America.

Walt Bennett said...

scambuster wrote: "The reason Obama is getting elected has nothing to do with any of this rubbish. He's being elected solely because Americans are rightfully pissed off at the state of our economy, and how the present Administration has botched everything they touched."

That was my point, and perhaps Morris' as well. That Obama can be elected president of the United States in an election where the color of his skin was a minor issue, is indeed progress, and whether you acknowledge that or not, the world will.

Read the European papers tomorrow, you'll see what I mean.

Scambuster wrote: "Walt, you are projecting your fears and demons onto white Americans. White Americans don't "generaly fear" black Americans...The truth is that Black Americans fear that White Americans fear them."

And why can't both be true?

I have written extensively about this, and I have my own experience to draw on as well as the views of others. The younger generation, who overwhelmingly support Obama, do seem to possess a certain color-blindness that is refreshing and which provides hope. Older white Americans, having spent most of their lives being inundated with media images of blacks as a threat to a peaceful existence, do indeed generally fear blacks. Is it an irrational fear? In some places yes, in some places no. In some places, it's not so smart to be white and out on the street at night. Harrisburg, PA is one such city. Lots of black on white crime in that city.

(It is equally true that there are places where it is not so safe to be black and out on the street at night. You might get hit over the head with a bat or you might just get hassled by the PD for being black in the "wrong" neighborhood.)

You seem to think that the problem is that we're talking about it. I hold a similar view. We do need to change the subject and make the discussion about opportunity for all people. The race card is nothing but a device for dividing us. I write about this on my blog quite a bit, and I invite your participation there.

But first you have to overcome your penchant for tossing around inflammatory terms.

I adhere to the Webster's definition of racism, which is a belief that one's race is superior to another race. I don't believe that and never have.

If you sounded more thoughtful than you do, I might be inclined to take such epithets more seriously.

ScamBuster said...

Walt -- far enough. Those are good points. Maybe instead of "racist", it's something else... as that term is used too much.

Perhaps "race obsessed" is better?

ZACK said...

ScamBuster knew to not address me! LMAO!!! He knows the business, Mo. He was gonna take a trip to the South Side of the CHI. Real talk!

I was gon' put him on blast fo sho!

ScamBuster said...

And then we have a thug like Zack, who wants to boil things down to a Chicago fistfight.


The Mo'Kelly Report said...

Zack is a "thug" now? Borderline code at best. This is the internet, so clearly everything here is metaphorical.

As for me being "race obsessed" um...I would call it be a race historian. I don't "look" for race in everything and clearly all that I editorialize on is not steeped in race. Race is an intersection point for many topics I tackle, but if you actually READ the overwhelming majority of my work, race is not an issue.

I talk politics, entertainment and the combination of both.

If you think that a blog which covers politics would not earnestly address the historic implications of potentially the first POTUS of African-American descent...you are deluded.

Where were you when I was commenting on El DeBarge or Wesley Snipes...was THAT race-obsessed.

And speaking of Wesley Snipes...I specifically took him to task for appropriating the civil rights movement for the process of making his IRS tax point.

So you are factually incorrect about me being "race-obsessed." If anything, I'm more fair than you're willing to concede, because you're not knowledgeable about my body of work.

You made an assumption and really can't back it up.

To Walt's point, pick up a Spanish-language newspaper, most of them have this headline.

Voto historico...(a historic vote)

It's historic not because Obama is a man or the Democratic nominee...on that we should agree.

This is a tremendous moment in history, whether you wish to concede it or not.

And as long as I write a blog covering politics and entertainment from the African-American perspective, the issues of race when discussing Senator/PRESIDENT Obama are reasonable in nature.

Now you can either participate respectfully in the discussion or hurl more insults and be discarded.

This here is NOT a democracy. It is a dictatorship. You are free to express your opinions, but just know your limitations.

It's not your opinions, it's the manner in which you're expressing them.

WAlt has been nothing less than polite and respectful, give him the same in return.

ScamBuster said...

I go back to my original statement. Why play the race card at all?

Why not state everything you stated, but say it's done in the name of every American, regardless of race?

The Mo'Kelly Report said...

I take issue with the presumption that I'm "playing the race card."

To look at this campaign and not acknowledge its historic nature (and it is ONLY historic in terms of his African-American ancestry) is a farce.

And to acknowledge its historic nature and not ALSO acknowledge the historical progression which led to this point is a double farce.

You can't possibly talk about the strides of Barack Obama and not also mention Jesse Jackson. You can't...period.

Now in baseball we've gotten to the point where we can mention Ryan Howard and not mention Jackie Robinson but politics is a good 50 years behind.

We don't mention Vanessa Williams every time we have a Black Miss America or Black Miss USA these days.

But "the first" is always relevant in terms of historical significance along racial lines. This election is historic and you can't put it into historical context without putting it into its proper historical context.

Should I not mention that Robert Kennedy predicted we'd have a "Black" president "in 40 years?"

Should I not mention that in the movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" they mused about the bi-racial children of Sidney Poitier may one day grow up to be president and have "colorful" cabinets....that movie was 1967...

Should I not mention that the Voting Rights Act was passed AFTER Obama was born?

It's not historical in a racial sense if and only if there's no acknowledgment of history at all.

It's a wonderful and wondrous moment upon us. Acknowledging it for what it is signals a triumph for this country that we ALL can partake in.

In the same way that the triumph of Jackie Robinson should be celebrated by ALL of baseball, the MLK holiday should be celebrated by ALL Americans.

This is a moment in American history. And likely the 2nd or 3rd presidents of African-American descent will be commonplace and the idea of race will not be mentioned or even a historical footnote.

Did anybody care as much that Deval Patrick became governor of Mass?

Yes, but not half as much as when Tom Bradley ran in California or L. Douglas Wilder won in Virginia.

It's called progress. This is a moment of great progress. But progress can only be measured in relation to starting points and points of positive movement along the way.

And if we are going to talk honestly and openly about racial progress, then we must talk honestly and openly and celebrate the moments of progress for what they are.

This number of 40 years ago is significant. It was the height of the civil rights movement. The assassination of Dr. King, the assassination of Robert Kennedy, etc. All of this matters in the discussion of racial progress and the influential figures along the way.

To deny the connection between King, and Obama is reprehensible. Obama's candidacy is not to be MEASURED or validated along the lines of race, but his success and its impact on the discussion of race can not be mitigated.

It's ok to celebrate the historical nature of the accomplishment.

Walt Bennett said...


I sit in awe of your last comment.

What I suggest you do is not waste it as a comment, but please bring it forward in some manner as a proper post.

By the way, if you would ever like to be a guest poster on my blog, just say the word.

As to the substance, I have only two quibbles, which amount to a small percent compared to my enormous admiration for the whole of what you say.

First quibble: it will be, in my view, impossible to mark the achievement without measuring it against its historical significance. I think that's just the way the world is. As I recall, Rosa Parks was chosen to sit in the front of the bus and get herself arrested after this happened in reality to a teenage girl who also happened to be pregnant. The movement, understandably, wanted the proper symbol, so the message would not be lost.

Such is the case here. I have read that this election does not mark the election of the first true African American president. He spent nine months in the womb of a white woman, as Donna Brazile pointed out. I thought that was a well made point. Obama does not incite the visceral reaction in whites that a pure black man might.

You want to know a little secret? The scary Obama for white people was Michele. She's loud and she's proud. There is a real reaction to a person of color who seems to be angry.

There are those who will always say that Obama was a stepping stone more than a clear cut historical figure. And this is my other quibble. The second and third black presidents just might be significant, on either of two counts: (1) he might have two black parents and be much more ethnically black than Obama is in appearance and manner; (2) he might be more successful than Obama.

That is my chief concern about an Obama presidency, that it will fail. I consider it likely that he will attempt to placate the right and big business, because it is his nature to be a consensus builder. I do not anticipate that he will take hard, principled stances in areas where we need major change, such as access to health care and to education, such as job training and a fair wage.

Do you know that you only qualify for Obama's college tuition credit if you pay at least $4000 a year in taxes? You probably know that $4000 puts one child through one semester of community college. That's OK, better than nothing, but it doesn't even touch poor people.

How do you lift yourself out of poverty without higher education?

So, as I said on TS, there is a very real concern in my mind that Obama will be a one term president, and that the right will spend this four years preparing to beat his brains in come 2012.

In order to combat that, he has to take them on from the beginning, not run from the word "socialist", not be a defender of the accumulation of wealth by a powerful few. He needs to make a complete break from the way things have been done for over a century.

He says that he knows we need to start from the bottom up. He's right about that. The only question is, will he follow through in a meaningful way?

Those are my small differences with you. Overall, I strongly agree with your comment, and please consider making a post and expanding on it.

ZACK said...

The voters had the last word tonight. And Scambuster, "taking you to the South Side of the CHI" only had a violent connotation because you gave it one. I just mean that I'd be thuggish in my words, not my actions.


Dwane T. said...

I see now what I have been caught up in for the past two months. Morris, Walt, Zack, you brothers are spending time and energy fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The destortors of this race were trying to make people with no relevance relevant, and destroying people who are relevant with irrelevance. Scambuster is what his name says, someone looking for trickery based on the idea that he can stop it. His existence is based on seeing scams, whether they exist or not. He is a figment of his own imagination, and to exist he has to enter your consciousness like Freddy Kruger. Ignore him and he'll go away, feed him and he'll grow.

Don't get me wrong, you gentlemen did not waste your comments. Those that have ears to hear, heard every word. Thank you. As far as connecting King and Obama, When King gave his I have a dream speech I was two years old. Obama was elected three weeks before my daughters 2nd birthday. The dream of of a man being elected by "black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics... not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character", happenen in one generation... my lifetime. Not my grandfather's, and not my grandchild's... mine My wife's White father is just as happy as her Black mother. It is special for different people for different reasons, but it is special. Don't let anyone take away the special nature of this time (ie, steal your joy) with "William Ayers" type arguments, or telling you that you said what they need to hear to have a reason to exist. Stay with the real, and enjoy the realness of the time.

Walt Bennett said...


Thank you for expressing yourself so beautifully. You truly have a way with words.

If you spend any time at my blog (I hope you do), you know that I consider the system and those who protect it to be the enemy. I thought Scam and you make some good points; in some ways you make the same point. Are we past "it"? I've written and read so much on that topic lately...the answer really is yes and no. Clearly we are past it enough to elect a semi-black, lofty-speaking, Harvard educated man when the incumbent party has blown up the country...you see what I mean? What this means in terms of raising consciousness to another level...I suspect that you, I, Morris, Scam, and everybody who cares, will have to keep working at that.

The most important next step if to unite not behind a man, but behind a movement. That movement must be based on a specific consciousness that class distinctions are far more critical to our lives than ethnic and cultural distinctions.

That movement must, if necessary, overtake the man.

The Mo'Kelly Report Headline Animator