C.A. Webb Speaks On...

Dem Race is Psych 101.

By now everyone has talked about the Democratic race for President. And, now that the election is all but over, I am going to weigh in with some thoughts and analysis to help us all settle down for the long campaign ahead. The point of this post is to help us understand how the personalities played into the politics of the last year. Moreover, this should help us get past the hurt feelings that divided Democrats.

Gender and Hillary Clinton

It is amazing to me see how liberals dealt with the ultimate decision - a black man or a white woman? Should we vote for a black guy who has struggled most of his life and offers a vision of hope even though he is young and inexperienced? What about a woman who challenges the status quo, is tough, and a fighter in light of her strong sense of entitlement and image problem?

Despite the campaigns, the problems, the issues, and so forth, Barack and Hillary offered the same vision for America. Both, are basically palatable to liberals.

The problem is that Hillary is a woman. Whatever our tolerances and thoughts about equality may be, we are all raised in a culture where Hillary makes us uncomfortable. She screams, yells, acts authoritatively, and is, unfortunately, not seen as in command, a leader, or heroic. Rather, she is viewed as shrieking, demanding, and bitchy.

Psychologically, Barack is much more comfortable to look at, hear, think about, and, ultimately, vote for - despite our belief that Barack is that much different politically than Hillary. Its our excuse, not our reason for voting for Obama.

Marriage and Bill Clinton

We all gasped when Bill Clinton made several gaffes - offensive or not - throughout the campaign. Politicos debated why he was failing at an art that he perfected and why he seemed so frustrated.

Let's be honest. Bill Clinton is making up - big time - for his indiscretions. This is one big I LOVE YOU HONEY and I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU and I AM STILL SORRY. His inability to make good on what he does best is why Bill has made so many mistakes. He feels guilty and inadequate - like he let his wife down...again. Let up on the guy.

HOPE and BARACK

Barack Obama psychologically tapped into something that a politician has not done in a while. He has helped us FEEL better as human beings for voting for him. We FEEL proud of ourselves for participating in some great social movement. We FEEL like we are being open, tolerant, and progressive by pushing forward a young and energetic black man who has made good on the American dream.

People didn't feel good voting for Hillary, they felt tired. Barack offered a movement and Hillary offered a struggle.


Let's all get real and understand that our politicians are human beings that aren't totally scripted. Their psyches have their own scripts- as do ours. Getting mad at the Clintons is pointless and, in the same, not voting for Obama closes the door on what Clinton would have done, too.

Instead, let's realize that this election has been one big emotional mess. We all need to calm down, let our feelings chill out, and rationally go forward.


PS This piece is not offered as TRUTH, but thoughtful thoughts and hopeful discussion.

From LBJ to Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.: Hillary Clinton's Racial Politics

In my last JackBlog post, I argued that the media was fanning the flames of racial controversy in the 2008 Election. I still believe that's true. But in light of the recent furor over Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., I also believe--as do many others the media, even the ones who weren't licking for a fight-- that Hillary Clinton has deliberately exploited racial tension in order to revive her campaign. Clinton's recent hounding of Obama on Wright, and her husband's bizarre comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson, make her MLK-LBJ analogy, then a major "racial controversy," seem like such a walk in the park. A series of recent articles have explored a startling uniformity in the Democratic primaries, and Clinton's success in manipulating racial conflict to win key states.

Recently, Matt Bai of the New York Times wrote about the counterintuitive success of Barack Obama in states that have either nearly entirely white populations or larger-than-average black populations. Bai writes: "What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other races [...] actually makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so." David Sirota, of In These Times, recently labeled this phenomenon "the race chasm" (looked at conversely, Hillary Clinton's success in states that have black populations of between 6 and 17 percent). Sirota takes this theory one step further, arguing that Clinton has deliberately capitalized upon racial tension (which, in the form of the Wright scandal, has surfaced since Obama's key victories in the largely white states of Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho and Vermont). Sirota cites Clinton's eagerness to discuss the controversy over Obama's pastor, while signaling to superdelegates and actual people that the controversy will plague Obama if he is the nominee (via the ubiquitous "electablility" argument).

Meanwhile, in this Sunday's New York Times, John Harwood bemoans the exploitation of racial tension within the Democratic party, which has long suffered attacks at the voting booth from Republicans who have successfully stirred up racial fears (beginning, as Lyndon B. Johnson predicted, with a Republican-fueled backlash to his groundbreaking civil rights legislation). Harwood writes:

Mr. Obama's dominance among black voters, once believed loyal to the Clintons, heightened the focus on race. Mr. Clinton, whose own campaigns were marked by racial bridge-building, helped that process along by likening Mr. Obama's victory in South Carolina, where African-Americans made up 55 percent of the vote, to Jesse Jackson's past success there.

Both Harwood and Sirota discuss the Democratic Party's history, over the past half-century, of black-white coalition, and the threat posed by recent race-based controversies-- possibly exploited by the Clintons--in reversing this legacy. Sirota writes:

As ugly as it is, the Clinton firewall strategy is stunning in its ruthlessness. It has been half a century since the major triumphs of the civil rights and party reform movements, yet a major Democratic candidate is attempting to secure a presidential nomination by exploiting racial divides and negotiating backroom superdelegate deals.

Harwood, meanwhile, makes the argument that--considering their political interests, and the political history of their party-- Clinton and Obama would have been better suited as political allies, rather than enemies:

As this historic Democratic primary season enters its next grueling phase, the party has become embroiled in a conflict between antagonists who would seem better cast as allies. Senator Barack Obama is a black candidate who has built his career on de-emphasizing race, while Senator Hillary Clinton is a white liberal who has been sensitive to minorities, and the issues facing them, during her long years of political activism.

And yet, in contest after contest, particularly in large states with diverse ethnic populations, support for the two candidates has reflected the sort of splits that normally divide Democrats from Republicans.

Somewhere, L.B.J. is rolling in his grave, and Republicans everywhere are smiling.

No 'Unnamed Sources,' Ledger? You sure?

Cledger-Ledger honchos have been known to declare that the paper does not use "unnamed sources." We already know that's not true due to mucked-up stories like the one by Ledger Washington Bureau reporter Ana Radalat (OK, they called her that before the muck-up) where she wrote a story based on an MBN memo in 2003 "obtained from" Frank Melton, who was then an unnamed source. Ledger Metro editor Grace Simmons accepted the piece, despite the supposed policy against unnamed sources—and, alas, the memo turned out to be largely false, blah, blah.

Today the Ledger has a page one story about Judge Delaughter by reporter Jerry Mitchell that relies solely on an unnamed source that he doesn't bother to explain at all, even to say they're an unnamed source, which leads one to think that the Ledger thinks that not admitting to unnamed sources means they're not using them. Uh, no.

In essense, he starts the confusing story by telling us:

Authorities are investigating the finances of suspended Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter, including his purchase of a Civil War-era house.

Note that he then does not tell us how he knows that information (like: "according to a source in the U.S. Attorney's office..." or "according to an internal investigative memo leaked to The Clarion-Ledger.") There is no explanation whatsoever, which is a common habit at the Ledger, and one we've seen Mitchell use a number of times in the DeLaughter saga alone. Is this to get around admitting to a naive public that the Ledger is, in fact, using "unnamed sources"? If not, it's just sloppy and should not get past an editor.

The truth, whether the Ledger wants to admit it or not, is that all investigative reporting needs unnamed sources -- to tell us stuff, to blow the whistle, to give us documents. Pretending that they don't use them is extremely disingenious, and an article written like this one just makes the reader wonder what the reporter is up to. In addition, very little else is said in the piece, other than previously published information on a house that DeLaughter bought.

The story seems like a hit job to me because, clearly, no one in the DeLaughter camp talked to Mitchell. Thus, how does he know that DeLaughter didn't, say, use the book advance from his book about the Beckwith case to buy the house? Or that his wife didn't come up with it in some way? This story clearly did not seem ready for primetime.

Speaking of the Beckwith case, why is Mitchell writing about the DeLaughter-Peters scandal? He was also in the film he refers to, which was loosely based on a case his work helped with—he clearly has a conflict of interest in covering DeLaughter and doesn't even reveal it.

We have noticed that readers are questioning Mitchell's coverage of late as well. Under this story, one reader has posted:

This is another patch-work story by I-no-longer-care-about-investigative-reporting Jerry Mitchell. The only thing new here is Delaughter's house payment. Which includes some yo-yo that reads the NY Times and believes "A balloon is very conservative.". Gee - what a nut. And the sad part is the CL thinks this quality (or lack of) reporting that belongs on the front page.

My Statement About Mike Lacey’s Use of Racial Slur

April 18, 2008—When I first heard that one of AAN’s highest ranking executives had used the n-word to jokingly refer to a deceased friend of his, I assumed his friend was black and was shocked. When I learned that the friend was white, I was just as appalled. The issue, to me, is not who he was talking about; it was about his use of the most notorious white supremacy label as a flippant term of endearment. Even more puzzling to me is why Mr. Lacey, or other white men, would even consider doing such a thing considering the baggage that word continues to carry for so many Americans, black and white.

Mr. Lacey has the right to choose his words, and they were clearly his own words—just as Don Imus chose his and Sen. Trent Lott from my state chose his to honor his good friend Strom Thurmond. But as someone who considers myself a civil libertarian, I always believe that the best response to offensive speech is more speech. Thus my remarks and personal observations today.

Regardless of Mr. Lacey’s intent, the most disturbing consideration to me is the message that one public episode, in a roomful of respected journalists including African Americans and their families, could send about our industry, especially if both journalists and readers do not intentionally use the incident as a tool for self-examination and to further racial dialogue on our staffs and in our communities.

Unfortunately, that one incident—which Mr. Lacey says he regrets and which his friends say does not accurately reflect his racial sensitivity—has the potential to say to both readers and potential alternative-news staffers (of color, and white) that this kind of casual use of the most hurtful language is acceptable at the nation’s alternative newspapers. It could compel some potential good hires of various races to turn away from our papers, or not to even consider us in the first place—simply because we do not show enough understanding of why the phrase was so wrong (as would have the use of “my ______; fill in with a gay, Jewish, Latino or Asian one-word perjorative). And it could cost us readers, especially new ones who aren’t as familiar with the alternative press and our mission and history.

As the diversity chair of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, I know well the determination of members of the alternative press to diversify our staffs and our coverage, as well as to move more people of color into management positions. Like other media, we do not have a perfect track record in this regard, but we are working hard and deliberately on making progress, and have for years before I took this position last year. For two years in a row, I have been invited to the Gatekeepers gathering at Columbia University, which is a diverse and straight-talking workshop for media “gatekeepers” from around the country led by experts like Keith Woods of the Poynter Institute. Last year, I gathered much information, not only on diverse hiring, but on how hiring and retention is interdependent with diversity content efforts (including images) throughout our newspapers in editorial and advertising, as well as on efforts to ensure that our newsroom cultures are open and sensitive to the concerns of diverse staffs. The diversity committee is also doing extensive demographic research on how our target audience is changing, and how younger attitudes from all races and ethnicities toward media are growing more expectant about diversity.

This summer at our national convention in Philadelphia, AAN has scheduled a business-editorial track presentation by Alden Loury, editor/publisher of the Chicago Reporter, to help us present up-to-date demographic/diversity information and advice to our member papers, which are hungry to address diversity challenges. We will continue that discussion on a new diversity blog and on a listserv that will be open to all AAN members.

We are also continuing our existing efforts at diversity training and hiring—which have focused on both our diversity grant program and the Academy for Alternative Journalism at Northwestern’s Medill Journalism School in Chicago every summer. Both of these programs are designed to deliberately reach out to journalists and interns of color in order to get them into the alternative media pipeline for hiring and advancement. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that Mr. Lacey and his company helped fund and launch those programs and have hired many AAJ grads over the years.

In many ways, that is a major reason that his comment in Phoenix was so disheartening to me personally and professionally. Such an insensitive use of such a painful, loaded word has the power to overshadow some of the diversity efforts that AAN in general, and Mr. Lacey and his papers in specific, have made over the years.

I am disappointed that this incident occurred and have high hopes that it will not damage the diversity efforts of any alternative newspaper. However, I urge AAN papers, and the media and public in general, to seize the moment to have more intimate and revealing conversations about race and the language of racial hatred so that good can come from this moment.

Donna Ladd
Editor, Jackson (Miss.) Free Press

Suggested links:

AAN Academy for Alternative Journalism

“Let’s Do It Better!" Workshop on Journalism, Race & Ethnicity

Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education

Poynter Online — Diversity

ARTICLE: Rape and Race: We Have to Talk About It

In this article on TheRoot.com, Melissa Harris-Lacewell talks about a public discussion that took place in a church in Brooklyn, NY - a discussion of the touchy subject of intra-racial rape in the black community.

I witnessed something truly astonishing on Monday night: a public discussion of black women's experiences of sexual violence at the hands of black men. It was an intergenerational group of black men and women, gay and straight, survivors and perpetrators, all grappling with the legacy of rape and race.

The experience was unusual because black people rarely talk about sisters being raped. We talk about all kinds of things: trivial, critical, humorous, serious, political, painful and frivolous. But as we observe Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April, I am reminded that there are things we don't talk about.

We are silent about black women as victims and survivors of sexual assault by black men.

In African American communities rape narratives are not women's stories. They are men's stories. Rape is tied to the historical legacy of white terror. Strange fruit hanging from Southern trees has led to a legacy of disbelieving women who report sexual violence and intimidation.

Black women raped by black male perpetrators often remain silent because they are alone. They don't want to confirm white racial stereotypes; their own families and communities tell them to shut up; they have little reason to think that authorities will take their cases seriously; they fear the devastating ramifications of a manhunt in black communities if they are believed; and in the history of lynching white women have been adversaries, not allies, on the question of rape.

Recovering from rape is burden enough without having to shoulder this vicious legacy.

If you read the rest of the article, you will see the culmination of black women and men working together to openly address this issue. If we were to have this discussion nationwide, what sort of impact do you think it will have on the black community? How do you think it should be done, and what do you think should be on the agenda?

Village Voice Media Owner Offends with Racial Slur

OK, so this was not the best moment for the alternative-news industry. The owner of the alternative newspaper industry's most corporate chain, Mike Lacey, accepted an award from the Phoenix Society of Professional Journalists on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death. At the podium, he referred to his deceased (white) friend, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tom Fitzpatrick, as "my n*gger." In the audience were black journalists, as well as an 82-year-old mother of a deceased black sports journalist there to accept a special award on his behalf.

This is what Gawker has to say about Lacey's oh-so-hip usage of a racial slur in such an offensive manner:

So how much contrition has Lacey shown for his remark—the classic fatal mistake of white men who mistakenly believe they're down enough to say whatever they want—delivered to an audience including grandmothers? He's sorry that his "comments about a dead colleague rankled listeners."

"My words, meant to honor a friend, were inappropriate," Lacey said. "All present have my sincere apology. It is regrettable that any phrase of mine offended those attending a First Amendment awards banquet."

He's sorry the sticks in the mud in the audience are oversensitive enough to get offended. They probably didn't realize he was down.

My feelings about this stunt are obvious to anyone who knows me. However, I do want to say this: Not only is this offensive to individual people of color (not to mention whites who take racial slurs seriously), it is not the right message for a leader of the alternative-newspaper industry to send. Nobody is questioning his First Amendment right to say something stupid and offensive; respondents are challenging Mr. Lacey and other white men who see nothing wrong with this to think again about their actions.

As the diversity chair of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, of which Village Voice papers are members, I know well that the alternative-newspaper industry, like much media throughout America, is working to increase our diversity, in content, staffing and attitudes to better reflect and serve our readership. Mike Lacey's comment certainly does not speak for other alt editors and publishers. I, for one, am appalled.

Hopefully, though, this episode can serve as a way to increase dialogue on race, racial healing and ongoing distrust and disparities in America. We can only hope and pray that it will.

Here's the video of Lacey's remarks, by the way.

Who's Got the Biggest Fallacy?

The MississippiforMcCain Web site is truly acting like a cyber-moron at the moment. We just turned up this general swipe at "another lefty"—who, it turns out, is a guy with radical, inconsistent (at best) views at best who wrote a letter to the Ledger the McCain crowd doesn't like. George Lambus wrote to the Ledger complaining that:

Carroll County in Mississippi has been from its inception a hotbed of Klan activity, now if Sen. John McCain's great-grandfather was once a sheriff there, what does that say? Apples don't fall far from the tree!

So, the McCainians apparently did a Google and found this letter from the same wacko in the JFP, in which he shocked our sensibilities with his lambasting of young, black males, even as he stated that he is himself black. This letter is one of the more notorious that we have ever received here, and even drew a response from our former assistant editor, Natalie Collier, who is black.

The fun part, though, is to watch the Mississippi McCain crowd try to use these whacked-out letters to paint the whole "lefty" crowd (presumably anyone not supporting their geezer).

Listen up, Mississippi Republicans: This kind of illogical, ignorant witchhunt for "lefties," coming from the party that perfected the southern race strategy in Mississippi, is why your party is in trouble with younger generations. This is not real; it is stupid, and it is reminiscent of the "communist" and "liberal" bashing of past years.

Try something new, please.

It's been 40 years. What have we learned?

Today marks the 40-year anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination. Dr. King was only 39, but the man was eloquent and mature way beyond what his age would indicate.

Since Dr. King's death, how much closer are we in realizing his dream? King was known for his notable participation in the Civil Rights Movement, but he was also against the war in Vietnam and spoke out about poverty.

The mainstream media turned against the Nobel Peace Prize winner because of his anti-war stance, specifically becaue of comments he made about America's involvement in the war:

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just."

Yet today, some Americans believe that those who are against the war in Iraq (not the soldiers, but the war) or who point out any of America's weaknesses are unpatriotic, or even worse, traitors. Regarding poverty, the last effort Dr. King was involved in was the Poor People's Campaign, a campaign where citizens of all colors would unite and demand economic aid for the poor, and King pointed out the government's provision of military funds being grossly larger than their provision of funds to help the poverty-stricken. Antagonists called him a Communist because of that, and people today still accuse those who advocate for the poor as pro-Communism or pro-socialism.

ABC News has an article about what Dr. King might say if he were alive today. Hold on to your seats:

Were King alive today, the disciple of Mahatma Gandhi would most certainly be speaking out against the Iraq War, says King biographer David J. Garrow. However, citing the famous "Drum Major Instinct" sermon King delivered from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta just two months before his death, Garrow says people might be surprised to hear echoes of presidential candidate Barack Obama's controversial former pastor.

"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war," King said of the fighting in Vietnam. "And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it."

While King didn't go as far as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in suggesting that God "damn America," he predicted that the almighty might punish this country for "our pride and our arrogance."

"And if you don't stop your reckless course," he imagined the deity admonishing, "I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

Since Dr. King gave America such a tongue-lashing decades ago, does this make Barack Obama unelectable since Dr. King is an inspiration to him? Hmmm...

What have we learned since April 4, 1968? Have we changed for the better, or are we still going through the same cycles that change their outfits every few years? We've gone from Jim Crow to de facto segregation, lynching to the disproportionate imprisonment of black males and from sharecropping to stigmatizing "welfare moms." If America looks in the mirror and does not like what she sees, she should get a face lift.

Finally, for some perspective, here is Dr. King's last speech, "I've Been to the Mountain Top":

Part I


Part II


I ask God to bless America, but I also ask America to bless God by pleasing Him and treating our fellow man a whole lot better than we have been. Let's not allow Dr. King's ultimate sacrifice to be for naught.

Need 'Famous' Jackson Pets

OK, what animals do y'all know of in the community that are "famous" in some way—meaning have to know people beyond their owners. Pets that live in businesses? Pets with lots of friends? You get my drift. Need fast!

The JFP Bloggers' Guide to Success in Life and Business

Thanks to a conversation that started about tipping over on under Kaze's column about race dialogue, I promised I would start a thread so that JFP readers could discuss tips about etiquette in life and and business (and continue the tip conversation if they want). So here is my thread, as promised. I'll start with a few random things I've learned from running my own business in Mississippi; feel free to add your own and discuss:

1. Don't ever call for directions right before you're supposed to be somewhere. In fact, never ask a busy person for directions and landmarks. Get the mailing address, print out a Google map, figure out where it is in advance, learn to read street numbers, and then get there without excuses about getting lost. If someone does that to me for a job interview, I automatically assume they can't think for themselves well.

2. Don't ask anyone else for a phone number you can look up for yourself. And don't rely on e-mail alone. The phone is still relevant.

3. Don't text-message when having a conversation with someone or while sitting in a meeting. It's rude, and they will notice.

4. Do learn to tip appropriately.

5. Remember that employers will always remember the last things you did when you left a job first. Never be an irresponsible short-timer. And never burn a bridge you don't have to: I've been fired by people who later became some of my biggest supporters. On the other hand, I've seen people "rape" the computers at jobs because they were shortsighted (and use that word to brag about it). Life is long, so don't mess up your chances with stupid stuff, and don't assume they will give you a reference based on your first month and not your last.

6. Never assume the bosses won't hear about you badmouthing them. They *always* do.

7. Work harder when your boss is out of town—if you want to be promoted later. It's not the time to goof off and miss work.

8. I've gone to job interviews and come face to face with people who waited on me in bars and restaurants. See tipping advice.

9. Give, give, give to those around you. My own students have become some of my best editors, and paid me good money to do stuff. You never know.