First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

82 Responses

1. story tellers says:

   March 1, 2008 at 9:28 pm

   THE WAY I PERCEIVE OBAMA
   IS THAT HE IS PART OF THE STABLISHMENT
   HE IS SORT OF USING MESSIAHNIC SMOOTH-TOMGUED SPEECHES
   THAT LEAVES THE AUDIENCE
   IN A KIND OF TRANCE,
   BUT….
   AT THE END ..
   IF YOU REASON IT OUT
   TO ME HE IS NOT THE CHANGE
   I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE BE A CHANGE
   FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN
   TO BEGIN WITH , HE IS NOT A REAL AFRICAN-AMERICAN
   HE IS MORE OF LITERAL AFRICAN-AMERICAN
   …AND ALSO HE IS MORE LIKE A WHITE UPPER CLASS
   THAT MARRIED AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN
2. HF says:

   March 2, 2008 at 2:08 am

   “While winning in still-segregated South Carolina, he lost in states where blacks and whites are more likely to share offices and public transport—New York, California.)”

   Obama won my home city of DC by 75%, and neighboring VA and MD, particularly the suburban areas close to DC. He almost won Brooklyn (and probably only lost because NY is Clinton’s home state). He tends to do better in urban areas. While you can argue that there tends to be some de facto segregation even in these areas, we’re certainly sharing offices and public transport. So I think Phillips is just wrong on this one. This statement, anyway.
3. Aussie Chris says:

   March 2, 2008 at 4:32 am

   Amazingly shallow and inherently racist article. If an African American like Oprah, Poitier, or Cosby is successful it is only because of a racist ‘bargain’ with whites. Not because Americans can recognize talent independent of race? I’ve even heard the same drivel about Tiger Woods and Authur Ashe.
4. Andrea Alexandria, VA says:

   March 2, 2008 at 7:55 am

   Thank you Mr. Phillips for the thoughtful article. I don’t agree with all of it, but I do agree with much. I believe Shelby Steele’s theory of racial masking explains *MUCH* but not all of Obama’s political success. Obama DOES represent a racial redemption for many of the liberal voters that make up his base. Being able to vote for this intelligent, charismatic black man makes them feel good about themselves as well as their nation. As such, much of the so-called “hope” he generates is directly related to his race and the US’s ugly racial history. I think Obama’s appeal to many conservative voters is also related to his race. He doesn’t act like those pesky challenger types like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. He isn’t constantly throwing racial injustice in their faces. The conservatives I know want Senator Obama to be a role model to those bling bling clad, poor grammarian youth. It’s a somewhat pandering but sincere point of view I’ve heard expressed by many of them. But once again, I defy anyone to tell me that this appeal has nothing to do with his race and the US’s racial history. He has taped into a deep need in many folks in the US to transcend racial injustice. This is consistent with Shelby Steele’s theory.
   I will concede that Obama also has some appeal that isn’t rooted in white guilt (for liberals) and racial alienation (for conservatives). But once again, I think his race plays a role. That is, Obama appeals to many people because he’s a physical manifestation of the US’s browner melting pot future. They identify with him.
   Many voters tell me they’re just moved by his words and his message of change. To which I always ask them to do a little thought experiment: Imagine Senator Obama was white. Same oratory skills. Same powerful message of unity, hope, and change. But also: Same thin resume. Same track record (or more precisely, lack thereof) of ACHIEVING hope, unity, and change. Same record (that is, the polar opposite of) political courage. Same deeply liberal, partisan voting record. Would you still be willing to give him the most powerful job in the world at this particular point in his public career? Or would you say “Where’s the beef?” (to quote on an old American commercial). Wouldn’t you ask him to PROVE he has the superior judgment he claims? (Sorry, one speech on the the floor of the Illinois State Senate against the war does not prove his judgment is superior to John McCain’s or even Hillary Clinton’s. I was against the war too, so I’m hardly impressed). Wouldn’t you ask him to PROVE he’s a uniter? (Don’t forget, George W. Bush ran as an inexperienced uniter candidate too. Look how THAT turned out.) I defy anyone to tell me Senator Obama would be this close to the Presidency of the United States at this point in his career if he was white. He wouldn’t.
   It disturbs me that so many voters are willing to take a chance on this guy based almost entirely on rhetoric and no evidence. But people are free to vote for whoever they like and for whatever reason. I may find their reasons irrational but it’s their right. But what TRULY disturbs me is how the US press has given him a free ride. They refuse to vet Senator Obama and have wrapped him in this cocoon of political correctness that squashes any sort of criticism of his record (or lack thereof) as well as any serious discourse that might deal with race. An Obama presidency will NOT do as an individual above said:
   “An Obama victory will create an intense and sustained energy in the discourse of the country about race that is the precursor to real change.”
   With all due respect, what exactly are you smoking? ALL evidence points to the exact opposite. Any criticism of Senator Obama has been scrutinized for so-called racial code words, racial insensitivities, and possible malicious intent. Just look at the majority of responses to Mr. Phillips article! How many times has he been accused of being racist/bigoted? My biggest fear of an Obama presidency isn’t that his liberal policies and absurdly naive foreign policy will harm our nation. We’ve survived MANY bad presidents (George W. Bush being the latest). My biggest fear is that the American people will not be allowed to criticize him when he does (inevitably) fail. After all, any criticism levied at Senator Obama so far has been deflected as racist. Ironically, where that rightwing, neocon, George W. Bush, failed to bring facism into our country, leftwing, liberal Obama will likely succeed.
5. Will Nemirow says:

   March 2, 2008 at 8:03 am

   Whether his distance ancestors suffered doesn’t matter AT ALL. Blacks’ ancestors’ suffering shouldn’t entitle them to some moral high ground, that is absurd. Just because he doesn’t fit your standard of what a ‘black’ person is doesn’t mean hes not ‘black’. I cant believe any1 would percieve his rise to president as anything other than a tremendous success against racism.
6. Will Nemirow says:

   March 2, 2008 at 8:06 am

   To sum up, like nearly all posts above me, this is incredibly shallow and full of non-sequitors.
7. james says:

   March 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   Andrea Alexandria (see above) writes:

   ” do a little thought experiment: Imagine Senator Obama was white … I defy anyone to tell me Senator Obama would be this close to the Presidency of the United States at this point in his career if he was white. He wouldn’t”

   Humbug. Baloney. Pure tosh.

   I think it is legitimate to serve up

   Mr John Fitzgerald Kennedy

   Pay closer attention to your country’s presidential history, Ms. Alexandria.

   Colour colour everywhere! Mr Kennedy did it, and he was

   Green . . . !!

   James
8. St Trinians says:

   March 2, 2008 at 9:33 pm

   The wonderful Bill Cosby undoubtedly helped to heal the rift, but let’s not ignore the possibility that many whites of Obama’s generation may have been conceived to the soulful sounds of the immortal Otis Redding etc ( for those who were not so lucky, this may be what’s wrong with them ? ) and later on mingled to the Walrus of Love himself, Barry White

   Meantime, back in Prospect city, anyone still buying into Trevor Philip’s hopelessly absract, idealised and reactionary left-wing fundamentalism is programmed to fail at everything, especailly life; other than lining the pockets of the few not the many

   The snake salesmen of UK socialism always manage to leave aside their principles long enough to bling up their property portfolios and Coutts accounts at our expense ( and their titles - ‘Lord’ Stevenson, ‘Lord’ Puttnam - indeed )

   Fortunately, the world has now seen enough examples of the fall out to know that socialism will never succeed ( apparently 1/3rd of all deaths in Russia are attributable to alcohol , and Russia now leads the world in suicide )because it is based on corrupting human nature instead of working in harmony with it

   ( Hence the decline in sales for the New Statesman magazine ?)

   The delusional proponents fool themselves that the electorate no longer bother to vote now we’ve all got inside loos ; its possibly more likely we are so appalled by our politicians we try not to encourage them by keeping very still and hope they go away

   Obama’s dignified message of hope and DIY salvation for the victims of socialism ( and the wooden spoon agitators of race relations )
   has captured the imagination of more than just America

   Here in the UK , back in the 1950’s, our immaculately behaved ( and dressed ) black settlers arrived from the West Indies mustard-keen to work, in response to a highly sophisticated recruitment poster campaign ‘back home’ ; itself the net result of self-egrandising union fundamentalists pricing British workers out of the market (as they were to repeat later on with catastrophic results for miners )

   Their white working class neighbours were horrified - as they generally remain with all ‘cheap labour’ imports - and most local objections were not race but unemployment based

   ( The flames of the so-called Notting Hill Race Riots were hugely exagerated by our ever sensationalist press, and opportunistic extremists of all political parties )

   Within 50 years, thanks to the socialist state education policies of the 1970s ( as my father says : ” designed to make everyone as thick as each other ” ) the then students of which now attempt to ‘teach’ (don’t mention teddybear) the current generation . Judging by the massive increase in UK gun-crime, the shrapnel has caused gangreen

   Perhaps we need to ignore our detached at the neck academics and intellectuals who still define race and povery ( inbetween holidays at their second homes ) in terms that, sadly, all too conveniently suit those who gain power and huge bank balances by exploiting them?

   The discomfort of history will record social engineering projects
   as near criminal negligence, the results of which so far reveal the complete eradication of social mobility ; our teenagers ( if, like
   wiltshire lad, Henry Webster, they survive the claw-hammer sticking out of their skull) now top of every delinquent poll in europe ; and once justly proud Britain has become the land of milk and heroin

   If we begin to factor into the definition of poverty mix the more enviromental riches of space, peace, and independence, with a little lateral thinking it might not be too far fetched to suggest that the post-slavery afro-caribeans were possibly ‘the meek who inherited the earth’; had they been allowed and left in peace to do so ?

   The islands are largely self-sustainable, and when last I visited Barbados ( mid-1980s ) its young black children enjoyed literacy rates of an enviable 98%, and after school skipped onto sandy beaches to play cricket along the warm sea shore…
9. Keith says:

   March 2, 2008 at 11:00 pm

   I take issue with what was said about segregation.
   I grew up in Louisiana and for the last ten years have lived in California. There’s no way in hell that the South is more segregated that California and New York. More racist? perhaps. But then it’s hard to have racism when there’s no one around to be racist against.

   New York, Michigan, Illinos, and California–probably the states outside the South with the most blacks–are constantly berated for being the most segregated in terms of schools and neighborhoods.
10. Deepak Tripathi says:

    March 3, 2008 at 9:56 am

    I respect Trevor Philips because I believe he is a role model for many young Britons. But he misses the point when he says that Barack Obama may postpone the arrival of a post-racial America (See Healing Postponed). The analysis of Philips is heavily influenced by his often-repeated view these day that multi-culturism is a failure and should be abandoned, certainly when he talks about British society.

    I sense that when he mourns the possibility that a ‘post-racial America’ may not arrive any time soon, he has the same aspiration in mind. At the centre of his idealism is that we should all become homogeneous and display ‘Britishness’ here, so the possibility that Obama may put back the arrival of ‘Americanness’ there would be a bad thing.

    As someone who has lived and worked in America, and continues to take a close interest in the country, I believe a post-racial society is not imminent in America, as it is not around the corner here in Britain either. I long to see the day when humans shall not harbour prejudice against fellow humans and society will be rid of discrimination we see every day in jobs, promotions, housing and provision of other services. It would be immensely more preferable to the social divisions we have. Sadly, we are not at peace with ourselves and what has happened since 9/11 has made the struggle to reach that point a lot harder.

    The problem is not the idea of multi-culturism; rather the old-fashioned way in which it was executed for decades in Britain. Now that multi-culturism is being actively discouraged, we can see its consequences. Interest in learning about other cultures at home and abroad, people and civilizations far away is in decline. There is less tolerance for next-door neighbour from a different ethnic group, religion or culture. And there is more ignorance because of the wall of suspicion, and a tendency to fortress ourselves, prompted by fear of ‘other people’ and exacerbated by governments for political expediency. For this, we are all losers.

    Much of what has been said above is as valid for Britain as for America. Focusing on the presidential election campaign across the Atlantic, it seems to me that the arrival of a post-racial America, though very desirable, will have to wait a little while. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, significant numbers of Afro-Americas and other minority groups will point to the ‘dirty tricks’ used by the Clinton camp in the campaign and to her formidable political machine, although, in truth, Obama’s machine is no less formidable. Her victory in the Democratic nomination battle may well alienate enough black voters not to bother to go out on polling day, thereby handing over the election to the Republicans, who are usually more effective in getting their supporters out in any case.

    Senator Clinton is a clever, hard-working politician and represents a gender that has not yet occupied the office of the US President since independence more than two centuries ago. Equally, a black or Hispanic or an Indian has never come close to winning the race for the White House. It is difficult to see how a polarising figure such as Hillary Clinton can win the November election when as many as 45 percent of Americans say they will not vote for her under any circumstances. Trevor Phillips seems not to rate the chances of Obama winning the Democratic Party nomination highly. That makes Hillary Clinton his favourite, but I am not so sure. Her invincibility has certainly suffered a few setbacks in recent weeks and a bruising nomination battle to the end is not something that would be in the interest of the Democrats.

    Trevor Phillips is right in that the era of ‘challengers’ is over and justice can no longer be demanded by reminding the majority population of past crimes. The most important reason, besides others, is that young white people in western societies today do not know much about past crimes and are not inclined to feel guilty for things they did not do. But he is wrong to suggest that Obama will set back the prospect of a post-racial America. That stage in our current history has not arrived yet.

    Deepak Tripathi
11. Polo says:

    March 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    What an embarrassingly psuedo-intellectual article for Prospect to publish. As I read it, I sat shaking my head at the fragile thread of (plagarised) logic he was attempting to spin.

    Even if we accept his simplistic segmentation of black political leaders, I fail to see why a ‘bargainer’, who can reconcile disparate communities and help them get over a few hundred years of history, is such a bad thing. Isn’t this what political leadership is all about? Nelson Mandela, anyone?
12. St Trinians says:

    March 3, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    This morning it was a joy to hear Samantha Power, foreign policy adviser to Obama, suggest - amongst other encouraging ideas - that because Obama is very secure in himself :

    ” He is not as vulnerable to focus grouping his way to decisions ”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml
13. Denise Sheppard from Brooklyn, New York, USA says:

    March 3, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    As an African American female, middle class, I must tell you that Trevor Phillips is more on point than many would care to believe. Whether Barack Obama becomes President or not (a) I still will not be able to get a cab in Manhattan because of the color of my skin; (b) my salary will always be lower than my white counterparts because of the color of my skin and the glass ceiling here in America based on gender; (c) I will not be able to live in certain neighbhorhoods because they won’t rent to me. The world would like to believe that black people here in America view Obama as the second coming of the Messiah, but anyone who has had to work their way to the up the ladder, knows better. The racial ugliness that permeates America shows no sign of wavering and will not. Obama is not strong enough to wither away at this ugliness that seperates this country. Furthermore, all those white people who for the sake of their conscious claim to be Obama supporters, whose lever will they actually pull on Election Day, I have heard mention that if Obama wins, he would be America’s first black president. Not so, google Warren Harding and be enlightened. Warren Harding is yet another dirty secret on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. As a proud African American, I am voting for Hillary Clinton. I see Barack Obama as controllable by forces that mean me no good, so he will not be getting my vote. I will not vote for a man who hides until the madness has died. This is not the kind of President we need.
14. john kelly says:

    March 4, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Crikey. What exactly do you mean about Warren Harding, Denise? He was certainly a rum president, certainly in his private life, even by the standards of Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton and Bush jr, but what has that got to do with the colour of his skin? I think we need to know.
15. St Trinians says:

    March 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    The Brooklyn Sheppard

    If you are for real ( excuse me, but this sounds suspiciously like a Clinton campaign plant ) it’s sad to read your negative programming has led you to feel this way ( or are there no longer any black cab drivers on Manhatten since my last visit ? ). However, voting for Hilary seems highly unlikely to achieve your goals

    Especially for women, because the naked ambition of her me-me-me first brittle example is enough to terrify most employers ( male
    and female ) into sticking with men wherever possible

    (I, personally, am nervous of any female finger - being, dare one say it, prone to irrational hormonal mood swings - hovering anywhere near the big red button of our times)

    Here’s an unsolicited suggestion : have you thought about becoming a cab driver ? This way you could perhaps save up enough to start your own firm, and buy your own home anywhere you can afford ?

    With appropriate parental attention your children (via, say Hunter?)
    can go on to climb the next rung of the ladder, or enjoy the view from wherever in the land of the free, as they choose

    It’s called evolution. If you believe you can, you can. Obama believes you can. Anglo-saxons at the top of the UK pile did not exactly fly in on squeasy-jet. Obama is a man who believes you can.
    Hilary is a woman who thinks you should. There is a huge difference.
16. No One says:

    March 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    You’re an idiot. You are an uneducated racist, nationalist, moron. White British men SHOULD and DESERVE to carry the stain of transatlanatic slavery FOR AS LONG AS BRITAIN IS A NATION. They deserve this because Britain brought those slaves to the new world BEFORE the US was an independent nation, while the US was COLONY of England and subject to ALL OF ITS LAWS WHICH INCLUDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SLAVERY THROUGHOUT THE NEW WORLD. The fact that Britain disdained and daintily turned its nose up at the horror that they wrought as they left the shores where they wrought the horror, does not mean in any way that they did not create the situation and leave it for others to deal with. Also, the Bank of England (and France!) supported the Confederecy during the Civil War (to protect their financial interests, of cours), which was fought with rivers of blood to stop the horror that Britain wrought when it established slavery on its colonial properties. The fact that British white men turned their dainty noses at having slavery at home, when they established and defended it with money and the sword elsewhere, means they bear more guilt, and are more hypocritical, not less. They also have much, much, much less moral authority. Not more.

    I’m sure your unresearched, stereotype-based race-baiting is mediocre at best, even within the class of unresearched, stereotype-driven, race-baiting articles.
17. s ippolit says:

    March 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Phillips children went to private schools. Mr Equality my backside.
18. Poitou says:

    March 5, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    My answer on http://poitou-crystalclear.blogspot.com/
19. St Trinians says:

    March 5, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Poitou

    I agree with all that you wrote. It’s difficult to figure out just what Trevor Philips motivation was ( antler-rubbing on behalf of an old guard who realise their time is up ? ). He possibly meant well, but did not come across as very well informed, nor constructive,
    apart from motivating this enjoyable debate.

    ( Although, if what we read about his children attending private schools is true,he has gone up in my estimation. The politics of parents should not become a mandatory burden for their children )

    Obama reminds me of the saying :

    ” Don’t ever think that one person cannot make a difference - nobody else ever did ”

    ( Maya Angelou ? )

    It would be great if your comment, along with its interesting links, appeared directly on this blog too - for anyone otherwise engaged at the moment to find - before it gets too buried ?
20. Redshift says:

    March 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Phillips echoes Shelby Steele’s bizarre thesis that Obama’s appeal is primarily due to “white guilt” over slavery, with no more evidence than Steele has. This is revealed in his statement that present-day Britons can’t possibly have comparable guilt, despite the fact that they are as responsible for the practices of the Empire that brought their nonwhite citizens to their shores as present-day Americans are for slavery. The fact that he can’t imagine Britons feeling such guilt should be a clue — Americans don’t feel it either.
21. St Trinians says:

    March 7, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Redshift

    You’ve hit the guilt coffin nail on the head . ( Although many non whites would contest the notion of guilt for the British Empire )

    Have scientists biochemical proof its possible for anyone, other than under hypnosis, to feel - or be made to feel - actual guilt
    ( as opposed to sincere regret )for something that happened before they were born ? If so , when would it receed ? What about the Christians who got thrown to the lions ?

    This is not to say we cannot feel deep empathy and compassion for the suffering of their fellow man ( and polar bears ). Hence the UK current outrage at the ghoulish Tom & Jerry show in the Middle East

    The whole guilt trip simply suceeds in topping up a poisoned chalice
    of ” blacks cannot look out for themselves “, for those who seek to manipulate anyone prey to its dependency culture mantra, which sadly plays straight into the hands of left wing control fascists

    ( It was interesting to hear Tom Mangold c/o BBC R4 report, and air eye witness accounts, of the rarely mentioned extreme lengths to which FBI officers went to in order to break the Mississippi KKK )

    What’s the ol’ saying ? If you are not a socialist at the age of 20, you are a complete bleep - if you are still a socialist at the age of 40 you need psychiatric help

    Obama has galvanised support because he is the best man for the job. Not least because he has said that if a Whitehouse telephone rings at 4 am, he will talk to anyone of any race ..
22. The Bolter says:

    March 9, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood

    Credit where credit is due, it was brave of the BBC to commission this interesting ( albeit rather harrowing ) film examining British nationalism, including surprising analysis by Frank Field MP

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b009g794.shtml?src=ip_potpw
23. St Trinians says:

    March 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Now that the woefully misunderstood Hyacinth Bucket longer runs the
    conservative party, Shaun Bailey is all set to contradict Trevor Phillips provocative statement about black talent in the UK :

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=4866&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0
24. Dan Sweeney says:

    March 11, 2008 at 10:45 am

    RE Trevors over simplification of race issues :
    One of my colleagues applied for a job at the Commission for Racial Equality (one of the bodies merged into the new commission structure and former fiefdom of Trevor). She was asked to complete an ethnic monitoring form. It had two boxes: White or Black for origin. She inserted a third box ‘Creamy coloured ethnic Malay/Chinese’ and ticked this one. Oddly enough she wasnt interviewed.
    I believe we used to be referred to as ‘Black Irish’ in England which must be awfully confusing for people who view the world in monochrome - whatever their ethnic background.
25. St Trinians says:

    March 11, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    At the risk of sounding like Balloo the bear, it would indeed be simpler all round to have but a welcome smile at interview stage
    to convey ‘how interesting’ with regard to one’s ethnic origins..

    ( If asked, I always reply English. When still a child, playing with my fuzzy felt hospital set, the left wing attempted key-hole Britishectomy on the nation in order to install to install their own Strelnikovian ‘dependency culture’ instead )

    However, this laissez faire approach cannot pan out. For example,
    UK doctors have long had to respect a patients ethnicity, often delaying medical examination until a same sex ‘professional health-care worker’ is available ( hair in need of a good shampoo / grubby nails or not )

    May be its time to take a deep breath, and follow Obama’s refreshing example by getting on with our lives, under our own steam, and under a united flag

    The current cartoon proposal that UK teenagers should swear citizenship other than in words of four letters is too little too late - if the old adage ” give me the boy and I’ll give you the man ” is even half true, to obtain relevance, this needs to happen before the age of 7

    In the meantime, UK tax-payer funded job application and benefits system forms might include mandatory smallprint writ large of a wistfully Magna Carta moment where subjects swear allegience to the Crown ( anyone whingeing about this might wish to emigrate to a republic instead - Chechnya perhaps ? ) with an ‘end user license agreement’ box of respect for fellow subjects and the rule of law
26. Jackb says:

    March 14, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Trevor Phillips is a real Uncle Tom in the UK, as my black friends in London say again and again. He is also linking up with/representing the Disney + Israel Lobby crusade to prefer McCain (”our Jadaephile brother”, says the Jerusalem press, now shrill on ABC with Brian Ross and Cokie Roberts)or HillBilly and War , War, not Jaw, Jaw. Tragic. Where does “Prospect” really stand - more of the same which perpetuates oppression against the Palestinian people and threatens the peace and honor of Israel and the Middle East and its Bush-HillBilly ally, we fear. And the team that won the last Clinton election by curbing the reach of the SEC and thus paved the way (along with profligate spending on invasions/occupations for the present financial crisi in our rich/poor land.
    This vet has had enuff, and hope Obama’s intelligent judgment can turn the tide of the new Imperialism and profligacy.
27. St Trinians says:

    March 14, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    JackB, I too think Obama would be a more enjoyable, reasonable, less warmongering president than Clintonclogs. But …please don’t be put off Prospect-the-messenger just yet ?

    As an established fixture of our bathtub reads, throughout the year Prospect genuinely seems to reflect all sides. If, indeed, it has a stand, this seems to be one of lofty magnanimity; whereby it bravely publishes articles in order that debates are thrown wide open to all

    It is mildly perplexing that the blog post has not yet reviewed the
    ” outstanding documentary ” BBC Rivers of Blood ( and their film bloke selected comparitively irrelevant TV to blog about instead ) but perhaps in more or less planting the seeds of the current UK debate back in 2004, as to whether open border immigration can be
    to the detriment of employment and welfare options for existing immigrants already in a country, Prospect has done enough ( who knows - a proper review might appear in the next printed issue )

    No, we’re not on the payroll - but always welcome healthy debate
28. Ramesh Raghuvanshi says:

    March 15, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Obimamay may elect the president of U.S. but he must remember he will not get success.Traditional citizens will tolerete black man rule on them.
    I dare to say his fortune may be just like Kenddy.
29. Nigel says:

    March 24, 2008 at 12:11 am

    Personally I think the Shelby Steele analysis hails from a generation back.
    “Challenger” and “bargainer” seem to me like academically prettified versions of “uppity n****r” and “Uncle Tom”. Neither category describes Obama, and both belong to the past.
30. Nyasha says:

    March 24, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    It is sad to say, that it seems Mr Phillips is representative of a group of Black British and Black American middle aged men, unable to overcome there innate envy of another, more powerful and perhaps in their eyes, more successfully assimilated black man than themselves.

    I fail to understand how the mere fact that a black man “is” to be elected president of a country whose wealth was founded on slavery, is not indicative of a new and markedly more progressive era of social and political change most notably and importantly in regards to race relations.

    It upsets me that a black man who must, at some point in his life, have suffered prejudice and discrimination can be so prejudiced and discriminatory towards the one political figure who is finally in a position to initiate real change in a deeply flawed democracy. That he is black, descended from slaves or not, makes it all the more important and significant for all races.

    Times are changing, for the better. Why must’old man cynicism’ be entertained if it does nothing more than undermine that very progression?

    Beats me.
31. B. Umeadi says:

    June 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

    OBAMA has made the world proud in the USA 3rd June 2008;
    I hope Mr Trevor Phillip shall follow his example to run for British Prime Minister after all he is black British.
32. Dekkah says:

    July 4, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Well Malcolm X’s Caribbean ancestory came from Grenada and not Trinidad.