Oh, Mel...

Because Mel Watt doesn't pull any punches. I had a chance to interview Mel almost two years ago. I asked him then if he would run against Liddy Dole. His reply was intelligent and based on his own past experience and the experience of another African American, Harvey Gantt, who ran a state-wide race in North Carolina. He told me point blank, without batting an eye that North Carolina still wsn't ready to vote for an African American in a state-wide race. He also told me that he didn't want the job. He said that representing the people of the entire state would mean that he would have to move to the right and that he liked being a progressive and representing the people of the 12th.

Mel Watt knows and is saying what nobody else wants to point out and that is there are many, many Democrats in the south who identify as conservatives and simply won't vote for a woman or a minority. It's hard enough to get them to vote Democratic. You can shout racism at the top of your lungs, gnash your teeth at the bigotry and pull out your hair at the unfairness of it all, but that won't change what very well could happen on the ground in 2008 in most of the south and a good portion of the rest of this country. There is hope, there is wishful thinking and there is the reality of what people really are ready to embrace. Just because it is way past time, just because it should be time, doesn't mean that time has come.

Mel Watt isn't stupid. Mel Watt had already endorsed John Edwards. He's staying with the man he feels is the most progressive of the bunch. Mel Watt is continuing to endorse John Edwards because he feels Edwards is the best person for the job and electability is only a small part of that equation.

I've often said that I don't like Barack Obama, at all, but the idea of breaking down racist barriers is one reason I WOULD vote for him. Not because of HIM, but in spite of him, for us.

I don't mind Mel Watt expressing what is his own deeply-held view, which he has a much better feel and understanding for, you'll notice my lilly-white mug over there ------->
I haven't had to deal with any of the things that Mel Watt has. But, I wish he could have said it at some point OTHER than in his endorsement of John Edwards.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

But what message is the Congressman sending to his young constituents of ALL races when he says things like this, Betsy?

Who does the moving? Who does the progressing? Who encourages growth, if not this man?

Who applies the pressure? Where to? How hard?

When?

this past weekend who told me it didn't matter that Obama was black or that Clinton was a woman. It just didn't matter. They thought I was insane when I asked if that would have any influence on the way they would vote. So maybe there's hope growing in a younger generation.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

I like him but have always noted a reticence that holds him back from true progressive goals. His attitude about impeachment for example; I won't be the one to hold the administration accountable but I'll support someone else doing it.

I guess he does have a better idea what Obama is up against but did he have to say it out loud just now? Why not just support John Edwards for the best of reasons? He is the best person for the job.

Is that at best it's an imprecise science, dealing in shifting quantities (demographics and turn-out) and the unmeasurable matter of mood and personality both in the electorate and in their candidates. Elections are won at the golden spot of intersection for these changing factors.

So to conclude MY involvement in this post (the busiest of the day, although it somehow never made it to the front page **scandal**) I'll just say that in the increasingly credible event that either Obama or Clinton are the nominee of the Democratic party, I know for a FACT that NO ONE HERE will say to us or to him or herself:

"It's over. Our nominee is unelectable."

That would be silly.

P.S.: I pray no one tells those nutty idealists over at BlueNC that they're dreaming if they think North Carolina will ever elect a gay man to the US Senate. Chuck Schumer says it can't be done.

I think if the title of this post had been

"Mel Watt Reiterates Edwards Endorsement"

It might have been front paged.

And as both an Edwards supporter (check the profile picture. Check the public donor records.) and as a HUGE Mel Watt proponent, I wish the story had struck me that way. But quite honestly I felt that Mel (my Congressman) misspoke. His statement hurt because for a moment it gave me a window into how he thinks about himself and his capabilities as a leader. The Mel Watt that I've followed is a highly capable leader, but he apparently feels that his effectiveness is limited. That's unsettling.

So I'm going to stop by my Congressman's office when I'm in Charlotte tomorrow and see if I can't make an appointment to speak with Rep. Watt in the near future.

I also think there may be differences in the way we view the utility of BlueNC as a place in which to prosecute these campaigns we're involved in. I don't believe we're explicitly fighting for votes here.

BlueNC is advertised as "The People's Think Tank" which indicates that the forum is a place to exchange ideas and, if necessary, to rework, correct and perfect aspects of the approach to the conversation that is occurring in the wider "real" world in our municipal, state and national government.

That said, I think it's valid and important to criticize our darlings here without undue concern that we are committing treason against the Democratic party or any of her viable candidates. Moreover, it's a place to strengthen the platform and redirect errant language and ideas. It's a place for the intelligent and the involved to talk to each other. It's a place to determine the awareness and sensitivity of Progressive candidates for state and local offices. It's a remarkably democratic environment in which to play with language. It is a wonderfully forgiving forum in which to misspeak. To me, these are the roles that BlueNC plays well and I'll continue to utilize the forum in that capacity...and with the utmost transparency.

I appreciate that you use your real name here, Betsy. I'd love to drop the Bullydoc thing but I can't seem to figure out how to do it. In exchange, I make the attempt to remember to sign my posts when they're particularly scurrilous. Because I wear my motives on my sleeve, I allow myself great latitude of speech.

This often includes entertaining myself and laughing at my own jokes, something I can't seem to quit. Self imposed rules of propriety FORBID me from exercising the colon closed parentheses emoticon at the end of sentences, so if I'm joking you'll just have to lump it.

I hope that goes a ways to bridge the apparent gap in our respective stylistic approaches.

Best,

Frank

The template I was using was this:

Elected official makes comment. Cite source. Quote source. Add commentary. Invite discussion.

I factored in the fact that the news story cited (a) involved my Democratic congressman and (b) was from the current news cycle and (c) spoke to a topic of current interest and debate.

What followed was a substantial discussion.

I've posted a lot of entries that weren't front-paged.

I feel that this one was marginalized.

I have been considering this post, the comment thread, and the "why" of the Congressman's action for several days. This is what I've come up with.

Congressman Watt knows lynching as more than a word in a history book. He experienced the changes wrought by the Civil Rights movement as lead by Rev. King, Malcolm X and many others. He knows the thrill of hope that his future might just have a chance to be different, better, than that of his parents and grandparents. And he knows what it is like to have that hope shattered by the bullets of assassins. The deaths of Martin, Malcolm and Bobby would have come when he was a young man and probably had quite an impact on him.

While there are certainly logical and worthwhile reasons for Mel to endorse John Edwards for president, perhaps, just perhaps, he doesn't want to have his heart broken - again.

Person County Democrats

From today's Politico blog by Josephine Hearn.

I apologize for not being able to introduce this better, but I wanted to at least share the link and an excerpt. Mel Watt is not mentioned in the post, though Butterfield's endorsement switch from Edwards to Obama is...

But now that Obama has won the Iowa caucuses and appears poised to do well in other early-primary states, some African-American lawmakers are pointing to the Clinton backers and calling them political opportunists who did not believe in the electability of a black candidate.

“They are all professional politicians, and the first thing professional politicians learn is to try to be where they think it is more politically advantageous to be,” said Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), an Obama supporter. “Many people will go with that which is projected, as opposed to going where there is no path and helping to blaze a trail."

Now I'm out the door and off to Charlotte in some very, very crappy weather.

That Davis perceived that

(1) many of his fellow Black legislators wanted to support Obama BUT

(2) they felt he was unelectable because

(a) a Clinton nomination was inevitable,

(b) these politicians lined up early behind Clinton because of political expediency and

(b) they lacked confidence in Barack's electability as a black man.

HIS INSINUATION IS, in my opinion, that they're NOT supporting the candidate they feel is best for the job; instead, they are following the "Conventional Wisdom" within the party that the Clinton brand is unbeatable and that the country is not ready for a black president.

Your use of the word "sad" harkens back to my original post and my repeated use of the words "heartbroken" and "crushed". My gut reaction to Mel Watt's statement that the country wasn't ready for a black president made me sad for him and how this particular thought must resonate through his entire person.

Does it mean he's a realist? Some say he is and the evidence to support that argument is certainly there.

Does it mean he's failing to recognize changes in the mood of the electorate? It's not impossible.

(Oh yeah: Charlotte trip cancelled.)