While Che's joke is really a statement of Obama's character and serious nature on one hand, it is also social commentary about the difference that the character of a person makes on really important matters. One of the most memorable comedic quips with deep social commentary at its base was when Wanda Sykes answered the question "What is soul food?" with "the second-leading cause of death of Black men under 50." The deeper meaning is for us to ponder what the leading cause of death for Black men under 50 is, and, once I say it that way, the social commentary becomes more obvious.
In both cases, what the comedians said were funny. In both cases, what the comedians implied were really more significant. It makes us think and ponder what is meant. Comedy works like that sometimes.
Politics should not work the same way comedy does. We should not wonder if Bloomberg implying that Obama supports him by using footage of him is a joke or not. We should not wonder what Obama thinks about Bloomberg's history on race relations. Obama should make it clear whether or not Bloomberg's marketing tactic of associating himself with Obama is how he wants his image used.
Even more disconcerting to me is Obama's lack of commentary on issues regarding Black Americans. If he gets a pass on it because he is Black, do we give Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas the same pass? That's a ridiculous argument.
We look to Barack Obama for his leadership and his sense of ethics. We look to him for the eloquent messages he can put forth on matters of race relations. He is a good and decent man. As a husband and father, he is in the discussion as the president who best exemplified what being good husbands and fathers are.
This isn't about whether Bloomberg has the right to use the footage; he does. It is not about whether Bloomberg is breaking the law; he isn't. It is only about whether Obama approves of the implicit endorsement I see every time a Bloomberg ad runs with his image on it.
Bloomberg embraced and defended the policy of stop and frisk. After the highest court in the land said it was unconstitutional because it targeted racial minorities to violate their fourth, fifth, and eighth amendment rights, he criticized the court. Even after criticizing the high court's decision, he was talking about how wanted posters can pretty much be photocopied at a talk from a leaked copy of him speaking. Since then, he has been much more careful to make sure the non-disclosure agreements are adhered to.
It is clear that Bloomberg entered the race with the hope of keeping Sanders from having a majority of delegates on the first ballot. Is Obama's implicit endorsement really an endorsement of Bloomberg's strategy? Does Obama want to keep his speaking fees given behind closed doors to rich party donors so badly that his silence is actually because he hopes Bloomberg can keep Sanders from getting the nomination?
Of course, it is.
When you consider the various identities that Obama has, none is greater than his identity as a Black man. Even his identities as a statesman, as an orator, and as a good husband and father do not match his identity of being a Black person. The identity that he downplays most is that he is also rich.
When you consider the various identities that Bloomberg has, none is greater than his identity as a billionaire. Even his identity as a former friend of Trump is such that he was the rich guy in those pictures. The only identity that Bloomberg has that comes close to his identity as a billionaire is his identity as the mayor who supported some of the most overtly racist policies of a generation. He says he is not racist, but that is the only evidence he can provide besides implying that Obama supports him.
Bloomberg is no friend to Black people. Obama cannot support him for that reason. The most logical explanation is that Obama is supporting him because of money.
Is it possible for Obama to be racist with his greatest identity as a Black man? Maybe we can get an answer from Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson, or maybe Obama could just speak up for himself, so I don't have to ponder the question out loud.
Even Obama should be calling for Perez's resignation for letting a Republican buy his way onto the debate stage, but he's silent on that, too.
If only Barack Obama would explicitly say he is against Bloomberg's racist policies of the past and he in no way supports him, we would at least have that evidence to consider. It might even be convincing evidence if it is sincere and verifiable.
