The "Transcendent" Mrs. O

“For Barack,” said Michelle Obama in her wildly acclaimed speech tonight, “these issues aren’t political – they’re personal.”

That reprise of the shopworn feminist slogan — “the personal is political” — was the essential premise of her entire speech. In a cloyingly theatrical modern tradition, first ladies attend the national conventions to testify about biography, not policy; they talk about the man as only they know him. But Michelle Obama managed to effortlessly marshal both to tell a story about change in America — with the promise of more to come — and to deliver her speech transcendantly. (emphasis mine)

I watched Michelle Obama's speech last Tuesday and my take-away was nowhere near Salon's take on said speech, Michelle Obama: Beyond mom-in-chief.  My first thought was, "There goes that word again!   Why are Black "achievements" always described as transcendent by our alabaster brethren (they certainly used it enough in the run-up to, and selection of, the Changeling)?"  Answering my own question I said, "Because they only consider one of Webster's definitions of the word when it comes to some, former 'savages' -- exceeding usual limits : surpassing.

Discarding the white racial frame, Webster's second definition seemed a more apt description of the Mom-in-Chief's speech to me as I talked back to the TV like one of my great aunts used to do -- beyond comprehension.  This wonderful piece by Saswat Pattanayak, posted over at voxunion last weekend, captured most of my reasons why most eloquently in, Michelle Obama and American Status Quo Action Plan:

Michelle Obama’s convention speech has been both applauded and criticized for being too emotional. Those amazed at her love towards her husband have shed a tear or two, while the detractors are disappointed at her personal narrative lacking statistical substance.

A critical inquiry would reveal that her speech was anything but emotive. It was a carefully orchestrated rehash of an old American fixation with individual merits, family values and competitive prosperity. Her speech was a blueprint for humanizing capitalism. It was a justification for the status quo politics that has uniformly strengthened a populist cry for American hegemony; decade after decade, regime after regime. Michelle Obama’s speech has merely colored the template acceptable.

Then this week, Black Agenda Report Editor and senior columnist, Margaret Kimberley succinctly and skillfully laid waste to the white-framed idea of "transcendent" in her, Black America Stands Down for the Obamas:

The best example of foolishness masquerading as substance was the overwrought reaction to first lady Michelle Obama’s speech. She gave what has become a traditional address asking voters to support the candidate because his wife tells funny stories about him which will make voters determined to vote for the good husband/dad/one time poor student who loves his country. The only difference between Michelle Obama and Ann Romney’s speeches was in the quality of delivery and fashion sense. Apparently there is still nothing like a beautiful woman in the right dress to make otherwise intelligent people lose their common sense.

I, for one, certainly appreciate these "canaries in the coal mines," who (with facts), exposed the white-framed description of Mrs. O's "transcendent" speech for what it was, politricks as usual -- "with the promise of more to come."

That in mind, Ms. Hill's searing, "When the, Son of Perdition is Commander-in-Chief..." shouldn't be ignored:



Yet the beat goes on...

Double your Latinos, double your chance to win?

I truly don't plan to be a part of, as Glenn Greenwald kinda called it, this "conspiracy of stupid," writing about either the right OR the left in the run-up to November.  I neither like, nor believe any side.  Too much shit going on -- unabated and ignored -- in this state, in this country, and in this world to think that either really gives a damn. But I just couldn't resist this!

The RNC had Marco Rubio, American-born son of Cuban immigrants from Miami (who would've been a much better strategic choice for Romney as VP (except Romney wants it so bad, he wouldn't dare upset the whiteness of his main constituency). So, the DNC doubled down (pun intended), getting the mayor of San Antonio -- the younger; inarguably more handsome; up-and-coming; Julian Castro, American-born son of a Chicano, political activist, single mother -- AND, his identical twin brother, State Representative, Joaquín Castro (they have been known to do the twin-switch thing), to introduce him as the keynote speaker!!  If you're one of those who love symbolism and strategy over substance (and even if you're not), you just, gotta love this!

Free Speech Zones?

When I read the article below, the image above immediately popped into my head. I don't know, that just seemed the huge unspoken message from the DNC regarding how they see those who oppose this "selection."

In his July 22nd commentary, "A free speech graveyard at the Democratic National Convention," John Whitehead informs us:

"Free speech zones have been employed by both Democrats and Republicans at past political conventions. This year, however, Democrats face the embarrassing possibility that they will be the only party actually caging dissenters. Protesters at the upcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Denver in late August will be corralled into caged "free speech zones" made of chicken wire and chain link fences which are located more than two football fields from the delegates' entrance. Those who attempt to exercise their First Amendment rights outside this makeshift cage, which is partially obscured by trees and sculptures, will be arrested. (Ironically, protesters at this year's Republican National Convention will not face a cage or even policemen in riot gear.)"

"Chicken wire and chain link fences??" "More than two football fields from the delegates' entrance??" If you were thinking the Changeling and his crew would be tolerating any of that First Amendment stuff on his big day - think again! Hat tip to BJ commenting over at No Quarter for this link to the judge's final decision: Judge OKs 'free speech zones' at upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Now, we're re-e-e-ally "Off To See the Wizard"

I'd decided to post less about the campaign because I'm just worn the hell out with all the double-talking bullshit. But Glenn Greenwald kicked me in the shins and I had to post this. As I've been told that I am long-winded (like I didn't already know that!), I'm only saying what I said to Glenn regarding his, "Obama, telecoms and the Beltway system" article.

####

Bravo Glenn!!! I've seen no one more dogged than you in covering this FISA sham by the HPIC (Head Party In Charge)!!! Oh, and to your question, "Has anybody seen Obama?" and your statement, "Several readers have emailed to say that they called the Obama campaign and were told that Obama and his staff are "literally reviewing the bill right now and will make a statement shortly." - not to worry, just like no flag pin, now flag pin/Rev. Wright & Trinity, no Rev. Wright & Trinity/NAFTA, no NAFTA/Hamas, No Hamas, etc., etc., etc. - the senator from Illinois and his crew will hold their finger up, test which way the wind is blowing and comment accordingly - I promise you ( remember, the goal is the first Black president, period)! He didn't move most of the DNC OPS to Chicago for nothing! The Daleys are seasoned in this kind of two-step! But I think you may have put his proverbial "ass in a sling" by pointing out his support of Barrow over Thomas. I'm not laying any bets, but I guarantee "Orator the Great" will come up with something that at least sounds a little more coherent than Pelosi's babble. And if he doesn't? Oh well. Now that he's anointed and the presidency is in the grasp, nobody will really hear what he is or isn't saying anyway.

A Unified Democratic Party?

Sorry Sen. Clinton, as much as I respect you and bask in the pride of your ardent effort to secure equal rights for women, just as Blacks are not a monlith - neither are women. This Black woman, after some consternation, decided to vote for you after following the primaries and doing my homework. The Democratic Party has done the unthinkable in a "democracy" (and I use that term loosely) in the way they schemed and appropriated the delegates for Mr. Obama, some of which he did not even earn, not to mention the total discounting of the Florida poplular vote, barring all attempts at a revote.

I come from a long line of Black Democrats and have been one since the age of 21 when I didn't really know any better. I am now 52. I voted for Bill Clinton twice because he got it - "It's the Economy Stupid!" - my favorite election season chant!

I have submitted my applicaton to switch from Democrat to Independent and I'll write in my choice or vote for the Green candidate before I vote for Sen. Obama. I'm not a "lock-stepper." I choose, based on my own observations, needs and beliefs. If he wins, more POWER to him, but woe is the America that will be subjected to his puppeteers' decisions because of his lack of experience.

God bless you. I know you'll be just fine. I will follow your work and if 2012 is an option, I will "work my heart out for you" because you've proven your mettle, to me - and I was a doubter! If I miss the chance to "write the next chapter in America's story" - so be it.

History or His story?

Tuesday, June 3, 2008 will no doubt go down in the record books as "historic." And for many Blacks especially, it means the world. I am not one of them. It's not that it doesn't matter - because it does. I simply do not believe in the senator from Illinois. I believe his run for the presidency is only about his story, with the history of it all being a mere collateral benefit.

Our insecurity as a people is Post Traumatic Slavery Disorder writ large. It keeps us hoping for, and grabbing onto anyone who looks like us for a sense of security, self and belonging even when that anyone may not have our best interests at heart. I understand it, but it still boggles the mind. The only treatment for such a disorder is to look inward, not outward, for the love and acceptance one seeks. It's difficult, but possible and definitely worth doing if, as a people, we are to survive.

Zora Neale Hurston once said, "All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk." Sen. Obama has made the veracity of her statement quite apparent to me over this long primary season. His story is not my history (neither is Sen. Clinton's, but we do have that pesky little gender thing, which often if not always breeds misogyny, in common).  Master strategist that I've come to believe he is, there is no doubt in my mind he'd been planning this attempt for some time which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But it got bad for me pretty quickly when I realized he was just a politician - no more, no less than Sen. Clinton (with the exception that her fight for universal health care being a long and dedicated one, unlike the senator from Illinois whose not had time to formulate a real passion for anything other than his own self-aggrandizement) - willing to say or do anything to continue writing his OWN story. I've no problem with the writing your own story part, it's the doing anything in order to accomplish that, that makes me want to wipe the green slime off me.

He knew he'd have to get his "skinfolk" behind him and he knew exactly how to do it - CHURCH. Most of us do love church, don't we? So, Barry went to Chicago and Barack - the community organizer, 20-year dedicated member of Trinity United Church of Christ where he found "religion," married his Black wife and baptized his children - was born (and let's not get it twisted, I have no problems with Rev. Wright I can't handle).

Unless there's some deep and grand plot to hoodwink white Americans by pretending to "denounce" his pastor and leave his home church in search of another, less Afrocentric one, Sen. Obama used my people and their insecurity to advance his own personal agenda and that ain't cool - at all. There's no "Balm in Gilead" to be found, not even in the highest office in the land, for the wound this little lost boy is trying to heal. That melanin in his skin, coupled with no positive connection to it whatsoever in his formative years, seems to have left a hole in his soul.

His political expediency regarding Florida particularly sticks in my craw because I live here now. I also went through similar political shenanigans imposed on us by Republicans when I lived here in 2000. Who woulda thunk it? Blacks, having been considered "three-fifths persons" constitutionally, had their value in Florida literally decreased by a "Black" man in back-room dealings with the DNC that halved the delegates votes, discounted the popular vote and handed him the Democratic nomination on a silver platter (Donna Brazile, I love that a sister has risen to such a powerful position in the Democratic party today, but your complicity in this internalized racism is both obvious and pernicious). And adding insult to injury, his Black supporters, so intent on having the first Black president supported it! A bit of the oppressed becoming the oppressor don't you think?

Being a South Carolina girl, born and raised, disenfranchisement of any kind really brings the "Angry Black Woman" out in me. A little S.C. history: In 1895, South Carolina enacted laws with the explicit intent of eliminating the electoral privileges of blacks (with Louisiana, North Carolina, Alabama Virginia, Georgia and Oklahoma hot on its heels). “Pitchfork” Bill Tillman, the Democratic governor of South Carolina during those dark days, reveled in the glory of that kind of disenfranchisement saying on the Senate floor in 1896:

“We have done our level best; we have scratched our heads to find out how we could eliminate the last one of them; we stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it.”

Figuratively, Obama's "strategy" concerning Florida and Michigan was the same thing to me. His "post-racial candidate" strategy is definitely working for some whites however. Either that, or they're just trying to find a justification for supporting him since he is now the nominee. In a recent Salon.com article -- "What role did race play with white Democrats?" -- one of the "round table experts" (what makes these people experts anyway?), Tom Schaller said this:

"Can I just say one thing about Obama and his post-racial identity, which I talk about at all public events that I do. The other thing that is the crazy wild card here, we just talk about him as a black candidate and her as the white candidate, and is America ready? But obviously, he's just not your average black candidate, and not just because his middle name is Hussein and so forth, but the fact that he's half-black and his black half is continental African. And that matters. And we don't talk about that that much. But I think it's [important]. There are so many things that are different about Obama from historical black leaders. He doesn't come from a clerical background, which produced leaders over the years, whether it was Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson or more recently Al Sharpton. He is half-black and so he's not full-blooded black, so to speak, and whether you believe in one-drop racism or whatever, it does matter. He's literally lighter-skinned. And that's something that's talked about in the black community and is going to have to be talked about in the white community. And that his black half is continental. It is different when your family is recently emigrated as opposed to being a slave descendant. And I think what's going to be really interesting about all this Rorschach notion of how white America sees itself and how white America sees black America is about how it views Barack Obama as a sort of sui generis black candidate. He is not Al Sharpton, and I think that's clear on so many different levels. But I think the question is, how much does his difference from Al Sharpton really matter?"

Sui generis??? I had to look that one up (some of us old people are woefully inadequate as the American lexicon constantly changes). It means, "constituting a class alone." A fitting description? Not really, there are plenty "light-bright-damned-near-white" highly educated, comparatively rich men like him out there who believe their skin color makes them better than (Brown Bag Test ring any bells?). Yet another sad truth about the Black experience in America.

A pleasing description to the senator from Illinois? Undoubtedly. How do I know? Well I don't KNOW, but back in February of 2007, when 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked Obama why he considered himself Black even though he was raised in a white household, the senator responded, "Well, I'm not sure I decided it. I think, you know, if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American." Sui generis, indeed.{smdh}

(Oh, that concession speech? Not as quickly forthcoming as I'd expected.)

Mr. Obama Comes to Florida

I just love Maxine!!!! She's probably who I'll be whenever I decide to grow the hell up! On second thought, we're already "more alike than we are different!" This speaks volumes, not only to that similarity, but to my feelings about the senator from Illinois coming here glad-handing, skinnin' and grinnin' and asking not only for more money - but for our support. I find this the worst of his "audacities." But I'm not surprised. Hubris is his second skin. Blocking our 1.7 million votes because the majority weren't cast for him may be a great political strategy in the eyes of those to whom strategy matters. But strategy doesn't matter to me -democracy does. I think primaries are the one, real chance for citizens to have their say about whom they want to represent them in the general election. As far as he's concerned, our say doesn't matter. This Herculean effort by him and his "crew" has been, and continues to be, nothing more than giving this Pied Piper time to hoodwink and bamboozle his way to a tainted nomination (I have got to find that blog I read the other day with the 48-star Old Glory and see if I can borrow it for my sidebar!) Magnanimously seating our delegates at the convention once the DNC gives him the nomination (yes I said it!) is no consolation for not counting our votes - as they stand. As a Black woman, there's surely nothing there of which to be proud. I expected better. Anyway. I'm sitting at the computer, listening to the news and they cut to a rally at which Sir Lie-A-Lot is scheduled to appear. I wasn't really paying attention at first, so I can't give you the exact location of this particular stop on his whirlwind, "Give Me More Money" tour of South Florida this weekend. I know the Cuban American National Foundation invited him to speak at the Independence Day celebration being held at the Intercontinental Hotel in Miami. I'm sure the "I stand with you against Castro and the Bush embargo" speech is fired up and ready to go. When I did look up, I saw the reporter, outside in the sweltering heat with a microphone in the face of one of the supporters who'd dutifully shown up - sign in hand. Confused that the senator was not there, she said, "I tried to call around to get more information about tickets to this and nobody knew much about it!" As it turns out, instead of his usual "present" or not at all votes, he'd flown back to D.C. to vote "Aye" on Senator Webb's bill (gotta keep the armed forces at least thinking he has their best interest at heart). He was late getting back so the town hall meeting at the B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, was rescheduled for a later time.

When the town hall meeting finally did happen, as much as I'm worn out listening to his bullshit - I did. Rather than rehash it point-by-point, here's a video I found sans the Q & A portion:

What do I say about this? PAN-DER-ER! Was that enough? No? Then, DAMN PAN-DER-ER!!

Now I know that's politics and all, so don't get your panties in a knot. They all have to play to the emotions of the crowd to whom they are speaking. Each of them has to make promises of both domestic and international policy changes - most of which they have no way of keeping without the legislative branch being fully on board. For the most part, every one of them must be adept at shining up shit and calling it gold. I get that. But really, this is something!

It was apparent the professor had reviewed his lesson plan before class. After all, he had a great reference in his AIPAC speech from March of 2007 (some of this is plucked right from it!). There is a slight, but very noticeable change in this one, however. He added how it pains him "to see the strains between the African-American community and the Jewish community." I guess back then, he needed to get that money with no distractions whatsoever. But he writes a good speech. Just don't ask him to debate because he's really not good on the fly - too ill-prepared, defensive and petulant when he doesn't get the material before class.

In any event, he said everything a Jewish person might want to hear. But in my humble opinion, his delivery was somewhat stiff and very tentative. Kind of like a young comic testing his material out on an unfamiliar audience hoping not to bomb. Actually, it was quite entertaining to watch him give his lecture on Jewish History to Jewish people who know their history far better than most of us. It just seemed like a, "See, I know all about y'all!" moment." And what was that, "I know how much Israelis crave freedom, uh, crave peace" about? A Freudian slip?

And somebody please explain again why Sen. Clinton's statement, "Dr King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done," sent almost everybody into such a hissy fit? Why did so many take that truth, blow it way the hell out of proportion, splash it all across the mainstream media and twist it into the most racist thing ever? Because she's white? Does that negate the truth? Reread Joe Califano Jr.'s, "It Took a Partnership" - he was there.

Now comes the "Repairer of the Breach" (hey, he referenced the Prophet Isaiah not me) with, "...because I know, Dr. King could not have done everything that he did, were it not for the support of the Jewish community." Somebody please tell me why no one, not a single person Black or white, took umbrage to this truth? Is it because he's Black? Is it because his audience, no doubt had the cash to fill his coffers? This hypocrisy is not only daunting, it's laughable.

After dedicating 15 minutes of his speech to:

1. The Jewish History lesson
2. Assurances he'd be the one to recognize the Jewish state of Israel
3. Promising to "defend Israel from any attack whether it's from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran (remember that tiny country he said posed a major threat during his AIPAC speech, then didn't pose a serious threat during his Portland speech last Sunday, but again poses a major threat during his B'nai Torah Congregation speech?),"

Almost as an afterthought, he devoted the last two minutes and 37 seconds to those pesky little domestic issues that are in "violation of the spirit of justice" he'd found in the Jewish faith and for which he expressed his deep affinity. You know those issues - substandard schools, underpaid teachers, college that's not affordable and Oh! Health care. Two minutes and 37 seconds! Somebody please give this man a damned napkin so he can wipe his mouth!

UPDATE: I read this very interesting post from Glenn Greenwald at Salon and since the senator from Illinois was waxing so philosophical about what "Israelis need" and sharing his "fundmental difference with former President Carter" about meeting with Hamas, I thought I'd share: "Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas"

I've Decided - Not Too Late I Hope!

After watching the debate in Austin, I have to say, since my candidate - John Edwards - was eliminated early on in the primaries, I have been struggling to decide between the "Black, silver-tongued devil" and the "Female wheeler-dealer" (I have to be honest here people). Since another Republican Administration is not an option, as a 52 year-old Black woman, I made my decision tonight. I may be a day late and a dollar short, but I have decided. I don't care what the media has to say at this point (listened to the Anderson Cooper after-party and it's the same old, same old - men behaving badly), I have finally figured all of this out. The reason Sen. Obama has been referred to as an "empty suit" is because he was. I compared my notes taken on prior debates to the one tonight where he kept reminding every one - "I have detailed plans." - and I finally got it! He's NOT HAD a detailed plan. All along, he's been ambiguous as he formulated his details. The reason they sound so much alike is that he's been listening, re-tooling and borrowing the messages of Edwards and Clinton all along! She has been consistent and bold on every issue (that may not have been a good idea because it put too much out there for him to clone and give to people as something new and substantive) and even though I've thought of her as a "wheeler- dealer," NO ONE can touch her on health care. I remember her first foray into the eel-tank of Washington politics as a First Lady with the cojones to have a thought and the audacity to try and make it work (I thought then, she should have been the president instead of Bill). I admired that about her, but I knew the machine would not allow it to come to fruition (again, men behaving badly). Health care is something this woman has been dogged about for a very long time and she can go toe-to-toe with the best (and worst) of them on the topic. Her grasp of the Washington that IS, makes her a much more viable candidate in my opinion. Yes, we all want "change," but she knows what it's going to take for that to happen. She's been in the thick of it - good and bad - as First Lady and a senator and she knows that just asking for change won't make it so. I think he does too, but he can't say that, given the platform upon which he's been running. Anybody listening to the whole debate should be able to see that they are, as Maya Angelou said, "more alike than they are different" on policy (with a few distinct exceptions). The last question of the debate was her finest, finest hour (if she'd answered anything BUT, I would have done some serious eye-rolling!). As a woman, who's been through her share of the fire and is willing to be honest about it, as a mother of a son who returned from a year in Iraq in one piece, as an aunt of a nephew now serving his THIRD tour there and as a Navy veteran myself, I connected with her tonight like I never thought I would. As a Florida voter, disenfranchised by the DNC and the local Democratic Party, I hope somebody can slap Howard Dean upside the head and let him know that you can't spit on us in the primary by not counting our votes for the nominee and not seating our delegates at the convention. If he wants a unified Democratic Party, he needs to know that we matter - or maybe someone else can head the DNC.

Florida and Michigan Disenfranchisement, Superdelegates - What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Today I received a mass email from ColorofChange.org asking for my support in contacting the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) regarding the superdelegate situation. Here is the body of the ColorOfChange letter:

"Dear Congressional Black Caucus Member, Over the last several weeks, voters in CBC districts have spoken with clarity about their choice for President—they overwhelmingly support Barack Obama. But the clear mandate they've laid down is threatened by those in your ranks who as superdelegates may break away from their constituents to vote for Hillary Clinton. The Congressional Black Caucus has worked hard to protect the political voice of Black Americans. You took the lead in 2000 and 2004, insisting that all votes be counted and that they count. Using your status as a superdelegate in 2008 to undermine the people's will would be a tragic reversal. I'm writing to ask that you use your power as a superdelegate to amplify the voice of the informed, engaged, and diverse electorate in your district and across Black America, not silence it. I urge you to make it clear that as a superdelegate, you will support the voters' will. We deserve elections determined by the electorate, not by insiders. And we need you to stand with us, as we speak in a strong voice about who we wish to see as the Democratic nominee. Voters should decide elections--not politicians."

Since I am not in total agreement with the letter drafted by the organization, I decided to send my own email to the CBC: To the Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen of the Caucus: I have supported ColorofChange.org in every endeavor they have requested. However, I cannot support them in this one and here are my reasons:

1. I agree. In 2000 and 2004, CBC members stood up to defend the rights of Black voters that had been disenfranchised, insisting that all votes be counted and that they count. WHY IS IT THAT NOW, IN 2008, ONLY THE VOICES OF BLACK AMERICANS VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA ARE WORTHY OF PROTECTION? As a registered Democrat and a taxpaying citizen of the state of Florida, should not my voice also be protected?
2. The DNC together with the Florida Democratic Party have effectively silenced the voices of millions of voters (Black, Latino, Asian and Caucasian alike) in Florida and Michigan by not counting our primary votes and threatening not to seat our convention delegates, never mind what the superdelegates do. WHO THEN WILL SPEAK FOR US? SHOULDN'T WE HAVE A SAY IN THE CHOICE OF NOMINEE?
3. And if, in fact, the rules set by the DNC to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters are upheld, why should the DNC's superdelegate rules not also be upheld?

I assure you, I am as informed and engaged as the rest of the diverse electorate to whom the organization refers and I agree, we ALL deserve elections determined by the ENTIRE ELECTORATE, not by insiders such as the DNC, the Florida Democratic Party and super- delegates.

Voters should decide elections - not politicians, yet that is what has happened here in Florida and in Michigan. In such an extremely close race, I think it is a shame that some Blacks feel it is okay to do to other Blacks what was done to us all in 2000 and 2004 - all in the name of electing the First Black President. It seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

For the record, John Edwards was my first choice to be the nominee and he is the person for whom I cast my vote in the primary - even though it did not count. So, my only dog in this race is the integrity of the process. Let's be clear, being able to have the First Black President ever during my lifetime would indeed be historical and uplifting for many. But, if the Florida and Michigan delegates are not seated, we will not have had a fair and honest election. And should Sen. Obama win the general election, this historical presidency will be forever tainted by that disenfranchisement.