I have said (and got shot down for my efforts) that who Mr. Obama chooses for his Administration would indicate how he intends to run the country, and who he thinks are the best people to help him govern. I stand by that statement, because I would hate to see the first African-American President be no better than his predecessors in terms of pulling the wool over our eyes and we not see the devastation of their policies until years after they have vacated the White House, and earning fat paychecks on the speaking circuit and writing memoirs.I am well aware that MRS. Obama is surrounded by some quality sistas IN THE WHITE HOUSE - so don’t throw Desiree Rogers’ or Mona Sutphen’s names at me, please, when we have this discussion about the lack of African-American nominees in the Obama Administration. I don’t care to have second-in-command people pointed out to me, either; all that means is that if something happens to the Head Person-In-Charge, the Second-In-Command just assumes the position and hopes he gets invited back to finish out the term (someone should ask New York Governor David Paterson how’s that working out for him these days).
I wonder if this is the type of conversation that can be engaged at here. There seems to be a missing piece of critical thinking skills where people feel personally threatened by the idea of asking what should be standard questions about Black appointees and what Obama owes Black people. If people place the bulk of the value in emotionalism and symbolic gestures expecting reciprocity would seem like asking for the moon. If you consider yourself an equal partner and have high expectations of course you'd want to see the proof being in the pudding, not a speech or singling out a student though those are nice gestures as well. Let's just say the opposite had occurred and Obama had 7% white appointees in his Administration: white people would be howling and Obama would be under fire. But let's be clear: it would never happen. Blacks voted for Obama at a 97% rate. No other group of people gave him that unconditional support. He has not specifically promised Blacks anything. So while I'm glad he won and I want a successful Presidency we need to be a little more ruthless and clarify what our position is and demand it. But that's not going to happen because people are waiting for a hero to do all the heavy lifting and those that would be more critical who are doing so w/o animus are always challenged by those that want to tell them they're asking for too much and settling for crumbs (look at what he's done so far, blah blah) when it's simply expecting the same thing that EVERYBODY ELSE IS GETTING. Since when is that too much?
I, for one, don't feel threatened by anything said on this blog. Sometimes disgusted, sometimes outraged. Often overjoyed. Never threatened.As for the subject at hand: I have no aversion to a question being asked about the composition of the President's cabinet, even as I express a sense of "here we go again" when the question arises. Again. If I did, I'd skip the discussion altogether.But if the person asking the question has discounted facts when asking the question, which means the questions isn't based on accurate information but, well, emotionalism, then how much critical thinking can rule the debate? If we are going to be ruthless, as you suggest, we must begin by being ruthless in gathering all the facts first. If not, we're simply bloviating. Which is perfectly fine, of course. But that's not going to bring about much critical thinking on the matter.