[TimG]

the following is from the Boston Globe:

Quote

President-elect Barack Obama, signaling that the ailing economy will top his agenda, will convene an influential council of economic advisers today - his first public appearance since his historic election as the nation's first African-American commander in chief.

What does it say about journalists and the American public that it seems important to include "first African-American commander in chief" in the lead paragraph for an article about the economy?

[jdonn]

I guess they had to say that part when they qualified "election" with "historic", but of course they didn't have to do that either.

[pclayton]

Even "Commander-in-chief" is redundant.

It will wear off in a few more days.

[Al_U_Card]

Obama is a machine when it comes to organization and execution.

Unlike Clinton (WJ), he has been preparing the transition since last August. He has planned objectives for 1 month, 100 days and 1 year into his term.

He showed his stuff during this campaign and I look forward to seeing some rigor and forthrightness in his approach and method. He is probably more conservative than what I would prefer but he will obtain concensus and go with higher ideals than just getting by...

[barmar]

Being the first of something momentous carries the risk of this form of pigeon-holing and labeling.

Neil Armstrong could have cured cancer, but he would still have been introduced everywhere as the first man on the moon.

[vuroth]

Canada has its first black acting head of state, and I only think I've heard the fact that she's black brought up twice in her 3 year reign.

By noon on November 5th, I'd heard that Obama was the first black president (elect, I guess) at least a dozen times, and I don't even live in his country.

My gut tells me that if his race really didn't matter, nobody would be saying it, but I don't know.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I guess they had to say that part when they qualified "election" with "historic", but of course they didn't have to do that either.

When was the last non-historic US election?

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Nov 9 2008, 01:49 AM, said:

Quote

I guess they had to say that part when they qualified "election" with "historic", but of course they didn't have to do that either.

When was the last non-historic US election?

When we were heading towards election night in 2000 I didn't consider the election particular significant. (I never bought into Nader's argument that there's no difference between Bush and Gore, however, I never imagined that Bush would be nearly as bad as he turned out to be)...

Of course, the 2000 election soon ascended into the history books with all the recount idiocy. And then Bush exhibited true genius in his ability to make bad situations worse...

[onoway]

Maybe it's unnecessary. However, even as non Americans we had a glimmer of what it was like to be black not so very long ago. My mother told me about Marion Anderson coming to Vancouver to do a concert and not being allowed to go into the hotel through the front doors. (At least there was a howl about it and they changed their policy). So I think that this is an achievement which deserves some recognition for being as remarkable as it is in such a relatively short period of time.
I would equate it in Canada somewhat to electing a Cree or Ojibwa person as Prime Minister, and we are I think a LONG way from that.
It's nice to have something to celebrate, there are few enough reasons these days it seems.

[matmat]

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

Quote

I guess they had to say that part when they qualified "election" with "historic", but of course they didn't have to do that either.

When was the last non-historic US election?

when was the last non-historic world series game?

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Nov 8 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

Quote

I guess they had to say that part when they qualified "election" with "historic", but of course they didn't have to do that either.

When was the last non-historic US election?

Come on, it's like if I talk about a bad 20 count and you say "what 20 count is bad?" In other words, context matters.

[Gerben42]

To me, it's the whole show and stuff around it that makes US elections more interesting than any other election in the world. I mean, have you seen European elections? They are usually MADE boring even if the outcome might be exciting.

[Aberlour10]

Gerben42, on Nov 9 2008, 04:56 AM, said:

To me, it's the whole show and stuff around it that makes US elections more interesting than any other election in the world. I mean, have you seen European elections? They are usually MADE boring even if the outcome might be exciting.

I don't agree.

This whole stuff mixed with poor family shows and dirty accusations battles makes such elections for many Europeans simply ridiculous. I only hope the day is far away on which we will experience it ourselves in Europe as a standard. Just my 2 cents.

Robert

[Gerben42]

Quote

This whole stuff mixed with poor family shows and dirty accusations battles makes such elections for many Europeans simply ridiculous. I only hope the day is far away on which we will experience it ourselves in Europe as a standard. Just my 2 cents.

Not that parts, I basically mean all the coverage and debates and stuff. I also don't think all the dirty accusations should be part of it.

[helene_t]

Yes, but US politics is sometimes about serious issues, too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/...008/7716985.stm

[barmar]

This is indeed a historic time. Probably most of the people who voted in this election were alive when Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot. Obama was born at the beginning of the civil rights movement, and in this time we've gone from almost total segregation to electing him as President.

What's significant about it is the history of racial division in this country. Perhaps the only more revolutionary election of a black national leader was when Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa. For the US to have achieved something comparable, we would have had to elect an ex-slave to succeed Lincoln.

BTW, Wikipedia has an interesting list of African-American firsts:

http://en.wikipedia....American_firsts

[TimG]

barmar, on Nov 11 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

What's significant about it is the history of racial division in this country.  Perhaps the only more revolutionary election of a black national leader was when Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa.  For the US to have achieved something comparable, we would have had to elect an ex-slave to succeed Lincoln.

What you say is probably true, but I think it largely a matter of numbers. There were immediate advances when African Americans were first allowed to vote in the 1870s. From the wikipedia list:

1870

• First African American to vote in an election under the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, granting voting rights regardless of race: Thomas Mundy Peterson
  
  
• January: First African American elected to U.S. Congress: Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican, Mississippi)
  
  
• December: First African American elected to U.S. House of Representatives: Joseph Rainey (Republican, South Carolina)

But, one must consider that at the time of the Civil War, there were some southern states where the number of slaves exceeded the number of white folk. What were the African and white populations of South Africa at the time of Mandela's election? I seem to think that whites make up about 10% of South Africa's population. So really, it's not particularly surprising that an African was elected so quickly.

If I recall my US history correctly, there were more African Americans in federal elected office in the 1880s than there were in the middle of the 20th century. That is, things regressed between 1880 and 1960.

Wikipedia shows three African American members of the House of Representatives in the 1950s, 14 in the 1870s, and none between 1901 and 1929. There were two African American Senators in the 19th century and two in the 20th century, the first elected in 1966. (There was also one African American Senator in the 21st century, Barack Obama.)

Another item from your list:

1884 First African American to play professional baseball at the major-league level: Moses Fleetwood Walker.

Of course we all think of Jackie Robinson crossing this barrier in 1947. But really, as in so many other arenas, the door was opened in the 19th century only to be closed and not reopened for many years.

[ASkolnick]

Honestly, it bothers the hell out of me that race is a focus at all. Not because the fact he is African-American, but the fact that you need the label. To me all that does is exasperate any sort of racial tension there was in the first place. I would never want to hear this is the first Caucasian President, first Jewish President, first Hemophiliac President or first female President.

If you voted for him (I didn't because I felt McCain would be better, but I have to admit that his VP Palin was questionable), I hope you did it because you felt he was the best candidate for the job. That should be the only criteria that your decision should be based on.

But I do agree that US elections are a good sporting event.

[jdonn]

ASkolnick, on Nov 11 2008, 12:18 PM, said:

If you voted for him (I didn't because I felt McCain would be better, but I have to admit that his VP Palin was questionable), I hope you did it because you felt he was the best candidate for the job.  That should be the only criteria that your decision should be based on.

Maybe I'm a minority in this but I completely disagree. And that's regardless of my thinking it's no one's job to tell anyone else how or why they should vote.

Let me offer a hypothetical situation. Suppose you don't think that it matters much in the end whether we elect Obama or McCain as far as the political power of the president and the things they would do differently. Further suppose you believe the election of Obama will inspire millions more people (who might usually happen to be black) to lead better lives or become more ambitious people who reach for higher goals. Then what is wrong with using your vote in that way?

[cherdano]

To elect an African-American as president in a country where
- Blacks were not allowed to vote not long ago, and
- most Niggers were slaves not that all that long ago
is a huge historic event. I think it is ok if the press keeps mentioning this for another day or two, I hope you can live with that.

For my part, I find the constant use of the phrase "commander in chief" much more annoying.