Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about role models and how important they are.

Take, for example, the tennis world. Monica Seles (my childhood tennis hero and the reason why I play with a two-handed backhand) dominated tennis in the late 1980s, and 20 years later there is a generation of Serbian tennis stars inspired by her success — Ana Ivanovic (women’s number 1), Jelena Jankovic (women’s number 2) and Novak Djokovic (men’s number 3 and rising). Similarly, Anna Kournikova’s success inspired a lot of Russian tennis parents to invest more seriously in their daughters’ tennis education. The result is that 5 of the top 10 female tennis players are Russian.

There are, of course, role models who are not athletes. Entertainers also have the ability to inspire. Forbes just published its list of most powerful celebrities, and three of the top 5 celebrities are black and very well paid: Oprah Winfrey (number 1 with 2007 income of $275 million), Tiger Woods (number 2 with 2007 income of $115 million ) and Beyoncé Knowles (number 4 with 2007 income of $80 million). (Angelina Jolie is number 3 with 2007 income of $14 million, and David Beckham is number 5 with 2007 income of $50 million.)

I have no doubt that Oprah’s, Tiger’s and Beyonce’s success will inspire generations of future black athletes, entertainers and moguls.

I myself draw inspiration from their struggles and successes.

That being said, their success does little to undermine the common stereotype that blacks are just great athletes who can sing and dance. In no way do I want to downplay the success of stars like Beyoncé and especially not of Oprah. But my point is that while their amazing collective success and spending power show the value of hard work, God-given talent and clever marketing plans, and while they are trailblazers that still have to overcome remnants of racism within their respective industries, their success comes within an entertainment industry that has traditionally been relatively open to blacks.

That’s why I’m so happy that Obama won the Democratic nomination. I was rooting for Hillary, in part because I grew up with the Clintons and felt a certain amount of nostalgia. But even more importantly, I never thought that white people would vote for Obama, and I didn’t want to see another Republican in office. I thought it was impossible that a black man could become the Democratic Party’s nominee, and even more impossible that he would have a decent chance at becoming the next president of the United States.

I grew up surrounded by heroes, some of whom were famous black athletes and entertainers.

But the possibility of a black President never even entered into the realm of conscious thought, much less hope.

And it’s not like we’ll have to wait 20 years to see the immediate benefits of Obama’s trailblazing campaign. My mother, for example, is driving all over the East Coast to participate in the Obama campaign. He is causing black people of all ages to re-evaluate America and themselves. Before his campaign, my mother had never actively participated in the political process other than to vote. Now she’s giving donations, recruiting friends, calling me whenever there is an important Obama update . . . .

So I think that this is a really unique moment, not just because I can’t wait to get rid of George Bush and replace him with someone with a brain and a heart, but also because Obama’s campaign destroys one of the last areas where blacks have been denied access, where I thought it was impossible even to contemplate a possibility of success.

I mean, outside of Africa and the Caribbean, has a black person ever been elected to run a country in which blacks are a racial minority? Probably not, because there’s still a lingering suspicion/stereotype that blacks simply aren’t smart or capable enough (unless they’re Republicans, in which case they almost have to repudiate their “blackness” in exchange for political gain.)

On the other hand, there are already women running major Western countries and/or campaigning for the top spot, so we know it’s at least possible to dream of a female President.

But blacks have largely been unable to dream this dream. Until now . . .

Now it seems that maybe we can sing, dance, play sports and run countries too.

Here at nuroa, our real estate search engine, we’ve been experimenting with citizen journalism.

In Spain, we’re recorded 3 videos so far under our series called “Y Tu Que Piensas” (So What Do You Think)? Our first episode asked people on the streets of Barcelona how the current real estate crisis might affect their votes in the recent Spanish elections. Our second video covered the March for Decent Housing and asked the participants to define “decent housing”. Pretty soon, we’ll launch our third video.

In Germany, we’ve recorded 9 videos when we visited Germany to attend the Re:publica conference. Kirsten has already launched two of the interviews (here and here) that we did at Re:publica asking well-known German bloggers where they live in Berlin and why. We’ll be launching our Berlin series of videos over the next few weeks.

So that’s why I read with particular fondness the post about the supposed Obama-supporting blogger that’s taking down the Obama campaign.  Mayhill Fowler, a blogger for OffTheBus.net, went to a campaign fundraiser as a citizen (press were not allowed to report on the event — it was supposed to be off the record), but she decided that as a “journalist” she had to publish in her blog Obama’s comment that poor small-town voters “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations. Of course, Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on the comments to show that Obama doesn’t relate well with an important base of the Democratic Party — poor whites. She claims that he’s elitist, as opposed to her and Bill Clinton, two Yale-educated lawyers who earned more than $109 million from 2000 to 2007. Obama, on the other hand, just recently paying off his student loans from Harvard Law School. But nonetheless, the quote is causing Obama a lot of grief, and some people are saying that it could change the course of the current race. (Maybe that’s just the traditional press looking for a story in a relatively slow news period?)

But my point is less to focus on Bill and Hillary, or Obama and Michelle, and to focus more on figuring out what a blogger’s responsibility is when she is both “citizen” and “journalist”. On the one hand, it’s clear that the Obama political team hoped to exploit “citizen journalists” by inviting them to political fundraisers and expecting traditional, fluff coverage about how great Obama is. On the other hand, it’s not clear that a blogger who’s invited to an “off-the-record” political event should be writing a story in which she breaks the basic rules by quoting the political candidates. After all, she wasn’t the only “journalist” invited to the event, she was just the only one to quote Obama in her blog.

What are the limits and responsibilities of a “citizen journalist”, and do they differ in any substantive way from the limits and responsibilities that “real journalists” face? What do you think? Is Mayhill Flower a snake in the grass, or a modern day Woodward and Bernstein?

This is the second episode of nuroaTV, our video channel for real estate. To record it, we went to the March for a Vivienda Digna, which took place on 1 March. We marched from Plaza Catalunya to Via via Laeitana to the beat of Brazilian drums. It seems like I can’t escape Carnaval! I was sambaing during the march — maybe I kind of missed the point?

More seriously, I should probably be more discrete, but that’s not my style. The real story is that we approached the organizers to see if there were some way that we could help out, since we too believe that everyone deserves dignified housing. As I will write in another blog post, I came to Barcelona in chase of quality of life. It’s still here, but life is now a life more expensive than it was just five years ago, and housing is only once indice of the problem.

In any case, the organizers kindly but quickly ushered us out of their offices, noting that they don’t work with “companies”, which I got the impression was a kind of dirty word. I respect that, even though I think that it’s important to include ALL voices in discussions that affect all members of a given society. I might not share the methods of squatters and more revolutionary anti-capitalists, but I do understand their frustration. And the only way to solve the underlying problems is to have a constructive dialogue in which we look for solutions together.

But I’ll save my kumbaya speech for another moment. For now, it’s enough that you enjoy the video, and let me know: What does the right to dignified housing mean to you? Does it mean anything? And if it so, what should society do to ensure this right?

I know that I should stay out of politics, but I don’t usually do what I should.

I have to say that I’m very happy that Zapatero won. Or almost more to the point, I’m very happy that Rajoy lost. One xenophobic homophobic leader (ahem, Bush) is enough for me.

This morning as I sat in a cafe listening to my iPhone and reading the paper, I was a bit surprised by La Vanguardia’s (the Catalan newspaper’s) headline: “Zapatero Gana Por El Apoyo de Catalunya (Zapatero Wins Because of Catalunya’s Support)“. Probably true, but somehow I didn’t think that was the most important element of the story. It’s like if Obama wins and then the headline were “Obama wins because Blacks Voted for Him.” It would be undoubtedly true and marginally newsworthy, but for me there is so much more at stake than regional pride.

Anyway, when I got to the office, I thought it’d be interesting to look at how international newspapers covered the story. The Wall Street Journal’s headline was: “Socialists Win in Spain, Get Clear Mandate“. The WSJ defines the mandate as “engineering a soft landing for a country that has fueled European economic growth for a decade” — which, for me, is the most important thing, ahead of which region played what role in the electoral process.

For the most part, the Journal has a favourable write-up of Zapatero noting that “[t]he Socialists’ re-election is a clear vote of confidence in the charismatic Mr. Zapatero, who became prime minister four years ago at the age of 43. Mr. Zapatero’s tenure has focused on social issues, including introducing gay marriage and tougher penalties on domestic violence against women.” The Journal also seems reassured that Zapatero “can count on the well-respected former European Union Economic Affairs Commissioner and two-time Spanish Finance Minister Pedro Solbes, who is likely to be finance minister in the new government.” In short, Zapatero is seen as a charismatic leader with a clear mandate and an effective team. Not bad, considering that the Journal is a more conservative newspaper.

The New York Times, which has more of a liberal slant, also noted that the election gave Zapatero a clear, new mandate. The headline was “Socialists Re-elected in Spain, After Bitter Campaign“, and the article noted that “[d]espite a bitterly fought campaign, the outcome seemed to endorse some of Mr. Zapatero’s boldest decisions, including the withdrawal of Spain’s troops from Iraq, the granting of more autonomy to Spain’s rebellious regions, simplified divorce and the legalization of homosexual marriage.” Again, the focus is on the fact that Zapatero is a bold leader with a clear mandate to move Spain toward modernity (in line with the direction that the NYT has called for the US goverment to move in).

Interestingly, the NYT ran a story on Saturday in which the author noted that Rajoy seemed just the opposite of modern. The reporter explained: “Mr. Rajoy, a 52-year-old former interior and education minister, has not been helped by his personal style. He has a graying beard, apparently to cover scars from a car accident years ago, that makes him look old-fashioned and older than his years. He laces his speeches with 19th-century expressions and suffers from unfortunate nervous habits, sticking out his tongue and bulging his eyes when he is angry.”

I agree with the Times and the Journal. Rajoy was an unwanted blast-from-the past that used fear of difference (gays and immigrants, among others) to win votes. Zapatero’s message was more inclusive and optimisic. So I prefer Zapatero. I think that he’s moving Spain in the right direction. The economic downturn is scary, but thanks to the Bush family, I’ve already lived through a few recessions, so what’s one more? It’s part of the cycle of life. What goes up, must come down . . .

My only hope is that either Obama or Hillary will win, because 8 years of Bush is almost more than I can bear. The US needs someone to take us back in the right direction.

I don’t know why I keep doing it, since it seems that the Wall Street Journal thrives on publishing racially insensitive op-ed pieces, but yesterday got annoyed again when I read John McWhorter’s op-ed piece called “Hillary and MLK“.

Hillary Clinton made the rather dumb observation that Lyndon B. Johnson had been instrumental in pushing through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which effectively outlawed racial apartheid in the United States. It represented the culmination of the rights for which Martin Luther King had fought and died. Getting the Civil Rights enacted — something that a lot of White Southerners opposed — required a politician with LBJ’s great skills and understanding of how Washington’s political machinery worked.

Hillary’s point was that she could be the Civil Rights Movement’s next LBJ — the sympathetic white president who has the legislative skill and experience to push through difficult civil rights legislation. Community activists (which is what Obama has been throughout much of his life) are essentially the poor man’s lobbyists, but there are many better paid, more influential lobbyists, and that’s a large part of the reason that blacks have not made so many significant political advances since the Civil Rights Era. They don’t have enough political influence.

The President of the United States is the most powerful and influential person in the US (in the world?), and having him (or her) on your side will do a lot to help you win difficult political battles.

So why do I say it was a dumb comment? Hillary was 100% right in her observation, but it was probably not the best comment to make when you need to convince black voters that they should vote for you instead of the first viable black presidential candidate. It’s precisely because everyone knows that the President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet that many blacks are drawn to support Obama — he’ll probably “feel their pain” better than Hillary can. For him, it’s not just a moral obligation, or the right thing to do. It’s personal.

Hillary’s comment was therefore substantively correct, but politically stupid.

So when I read McWhorter’s piece, I wasn’t annoyed by his premise: That Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is a civil rights warrior, and no matter how dumb the comment, she is probably not the biggest threat to the black community.

But I was annoyed by his tone. He remarks that blacks are paranoid and lack self-confidence, and that’s the reason why the black community took Hillary’s comment so personally. He writes:

“But why so very, very careful? What effect does it have on anyone’s life if that era is occasionally discussed in less than perfectly genuflective phraseology? Is the Klan waiting behind a hill? Will a black man working at an insurance company in Cleveland have a breakdown because someone didn’t give King precisely enough credit in a quick statement?

There is a willful frailty, a lack of self-confidence, in this kind of thinking. It suggests someone almost searching for things to claim injury about, donning the mantle of the noble victim in order to assuage a bruised ego. . . .

Well, politics is rarely pretty, but in this case the price is too high. For one, misinterpretation of statements in this vein makes black people look disinclined to process detail and context — in other words, dim. It only gives that much more fodder to views on black intelligence like those uttered by James Watson.“

But wait a second. I’m black and I agreed with the logic behind Hillary Clinton’s comment. And . . . surprise! He’s black too, and he agreed with Hillary’s comment. So why are all black people all of a sudden too insecure, too dumb and prone to proving James Watson’s theory that blacks are genetically inferior? Has he spoken to any black people before writing his op-ed? Or did he just listen to a few loud- mouth political activists like Al Sharpton who certainly do not speak for me and my black friends?

I remember when I was at Yale College, a conservative friend of mine tried to convince me to join her political group. Her rationale was that I was the kind of black guy that her conservative party would love to embrace. I’m sure that Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas were lured by similar entreaties — that they were the “smart ones” among the race of gifted dancers and athletes. I’m not saying that she was necessarily racist. Just that she was looking for a black poster child to show that her view of the world was colorblind. The logic there is a little twisted, isn’t it?

But forget about black people for a second. Which interest group in America isn’t overly sensitive? Aren’t all politics based on a volatile mix of lobbying for substantive rights and interests, whining and posturing? Isn’t that the American way in an era of political correctness? Gay groups got Isaiah Washington fired from “Grey’s Anatomy” for saying the word “faggot” on national television. The Jewish community has an advocacy group whose primary purpose is to scrutinize public statements that might be viewed as anti-Semitic, or in some cases, anti-Israel. Cuban-Americans fight vigorously against any measure that might even remotely reinforce support for Fidel Castro, to the point that it is pretty much illegal for Americans to travel to (or spend money in) Cuba.

And it’s not just minority groups that play this game. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, has an entire television station devoted to fighting against the “left-wing” media, showing that even powerful white men get into the whole whining and word-parsing game.

Are all these groups also “dim”? Or is it only “dim” when black people do it?

I think it’s fairly disgusting when a black man feels like his only way to advance personally is at the cost of other blacks . . . like he wants to show the white world (and the Wall Street Journal’s target readers) that he is the genetic defect among his genetically inferior black brothers and sisters . . . the rest of us are idiots, but he’s been graced with the gift of keen insight. He probably wouldn’t have gotten published in the Wall Street Journal if he’d written the “obvious” piece noting that some black political leaders and Hillary Clinton were acting stupidly in this situation, so he chose to flavor his article and increase his chances of getting published by insinuating that this episode might prove to some that blacks as a race are genetically inferior.

All I can say is: “n***a, please”.

As I transition back into my day job as the CEO of an Internet start-up, I can’t help but reflect on what I’ve learned from the Hillary-Obama Battle Royale. Both politics and business involve a lot of careful strategic planning by very talented people. But in both areas, few of these well-laid plans ever play out as they were originally intended.

For example, both Hillary and Facebook were media darlings a few months ago, before being deemed profoundly “unlikeable” or “untrustworthy” and entering into the fight of their lives. Both seem to have survived these scares, but it’s unclear what the public’s final decision will be in either case.

On a more general level, I think that there are 5 key truths that apply as much to politics as it does to business:

5. When the going gets tough, a lot of investors get going. As soon as it seemed that she might lose the New Hampshire primary after already having lost the Iowa Caucuses, a lot of Hillary’s investors started to get cold feet, forcing the Clintons to have a lot of reassuring chats with their investors. Even in politics, a lot of investors want sure bets. As CEO of a property search start-up, I’ve often been surprised when some VCs seem annoyed that there’s some risk involved with start-up ventures. My advice is that if you are lucky enough to get various offers from VCs or business angels, go with the one who will be around when you face an unexpected setback (like a loss in the Caucuses) or encounter an unexpectedly tough new market entrant that’s generating a lot of buzz. Go with someone who will stick with you through for better or for worse, within limits.

4. Karma is a bitch: Sometimes its easier to take ethical or legal shortcuts, but the truth will eventually come out. And it will take a big bite out of your ass when it does. There are lots of business examples here:

• Enron and their “creative” accounting theories;
• Martha Stewart, who thought she’d save a few dollars thanks to insider trading, but ended up paying a lot more in fines and jail time;
• Marion Jones, who disgraced herself and her fans when she admitted to using steroids. She too will see the inside of a jail cell; and
• Facebook, whose founder Mark Zuckerberg arguably lied and stole from former friends and colleagues to develop his mini-Empire. Some of the negative publicity about Facebook’s advertising platform (Beacon) arguably stems from the fact that Mark Zuckerberg seems a bit slimy.

Note that I didn’t say “Good guys finish last”, because I’m not quite sure I believe that. But the truth has a nasty and persistent habit of being discovered no matter how clever or careful you think you are. Just ask Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

3. Keep it simple, stupid! One of Obama’s great gifts is that he’s able to communicate controversial and complicated topics — race and poverty — via visual cues and oratorical flourishes. He doesn’t really ever delve into a 100-point plan. There’s no need to. His aim is to sell his vision of America. Great Internet companies like Google use a similar strategy. Both Obama and Google could obviously explain their core concepts in painful detail, but do you really care how Google generates so many relevant results in so little time? Or do you agree that Google’s minimalist home page conveys a simplicity that enhances its user experience. Great communicators — and great products - hide a lot of the complicated stuff , because they know that most consumers/voters suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder.

2. It’s great to be strong and visionary. But sometimes it’s okay to admit that you have weaknesses and doubts. It’s okay to be human. This is one that’s particularly easier said than done for me. A lot of people expect leaders to be emotionless robots. Winners execute exceptionally well no matter what the personal circumstance or obstacle. Displays of emotion are for the weak. But I think that the Hillary crying episode showed that the public resists leaders that appear inhuman and inflexible. In reviewing why people tend to be railing against Facebook all of a sudden, for example, Duncan Riley of TechCrunch explained that Mark Zuckerberg would “be better off relaxing a little more and being more open and honest; Facebook must reach a tipping point this year in growth and people will feel a lot better about supporting him if he was little less robotic, and more importantly more open.” Closed and robotic is out. Open and honest is in.

1. Charisma and “likability” matter, particularly when you want to be the top dog. Hillary is probably very annoyed that, although she has paid her dues, a much more charismatic male candidate is threatening her for the top spot. Although Obama is a lot less experienced than Hillary, voters are willing to focus more on his likability factor. All other things being equal, people like to see nice guys or women do well. In his Digg case study, for example, Nisan Gabbay argues that the Kevin Rose persona has a lot to do with Digg’s success. He explains: “I believe that Kevin Rose’s personality and public persona played a big part in Digg’s success. Initial users wanted to see Digg succeed because they wanted to see Kevin succeed. When Digg was raising its first VC round, some well-respected Internet investors felt that better products were about to be launched that would unseat Digg. However, we have learned that having a superior technical product is not necessarily the determining factor for success. Consumer Internet services are both an art and a science. The Kevin Rose persona was a big contributor to the “art” side of Digg that is impossible to replicate by competitors.”

To paraphrase Hillary’s evaluation of Obama, successful leadership is as much about poetry as it is about prose.

What makes for a great first lady?

Are they the same traits that make for a great woman (as opposed to a great “lady”)?

First ladies — particularly younger first ladies — are often thrust into their nations’ fairy tales, representing their nation’s hopes and desires. They must become the people’s princess, which entails a series of contradictory and often impossible-to-achieve expectations.

It seems that first and foremost, most nations want their first ladies to be beautiful or at least supremely feminine/elegant. A first lady must be strong yet vulnerable and lady-like. She must be out of reach of the average male voter but somehow transmit accessibility. She must be classy but humble. Men must want to ravish her, and women must want to be her. Most importantly, she must never forget that her rightful place is at best next to (and usually behind) her powerful husband, who is the commander-in-chief. (It’s ironic to note how different the situation is when the wife is the person running for President. One of Hillary’s biggest appeals to many Democrats is that Bill Clinton comes as part of the package.)

In this sense, the quintessential First Lady is Jacqueline Kennedy, who claimed elegance by conjuring the spirits of her French ancestors (the Bouviers).

Carla Bruni is at least as pretty, as elegant and as learned as Jackie O. So how then do we understand all of the controversy and excitement about her planned engagement to French president Nicolas Sarkozy?

On paper, Bruni has it all:

• She is beautiful: She was one of the most highly paid models in the 1990s. She was the face of Dior and Chanel, and shot over 250 magazine covers.
• She is rich: She is the heiress to an Italian tire fortune.
• She is “well-bred”: Her stepfather is an Italian tire magnate and classical composer, and her mother is a concert pianist. She is well-educated and speaks three languages.
• She is successful: In addition to being a supermodel, she won the French equivalent of a Grammy as the country’s best female singer in 2004.

So what is it about Bruni that turns some French people off? Is is that she already has it all, and no one likes to see the genetically lucky get luckier? Is it that her relationship with Sarkozy started so soon after his divorce from his ex-wife? Is it the difference in age and sex appeal between Bruni and Sarkozy? I’m sure all of this has something to do with it, but I don’t think it’s the main reason.

Bruni’s biggest drawback, presumably, is that she is (as Beyonce might say) an independent woman. She has been quoted as saying that “love lasts for a long time, but burning desire, two or three weeks“. As such, she prefers polygamy and polyandry to monogamy. She has also described herself as a “cat” who knows how to tame men. And, of course, she has often been photographed throughout her career in her underwear.

In this sense, Bruni is a highly sexualized, unconventional woman.

Shakespeare might call her a shrew in need of a good taming. That’s not exactly high praise for an aspiring first lady.

A similar argument was made about Hillary Clinton when she first entered on the world’s stage. Before the designer pant suits, blond highlights and expensive hair cuts were the images of an asexual, humorless, fashion-illiterate Hillary with coke-rimmed glasses, a headband and not one ounce of glamour.

It is arguably this enduring image of Hillary — and her statements implying that she felt no need to “stand by her man” like some “little woman” and the disdain with which she contemplated being a housewife rather than becoming a high-powered lawyer — that explains why many “traditional” men and women have been uncomfortable with Hillary and why her tears were such a powerful statement of her renewed status as a woman.

It would be like Carla Bruni saying that she was a born-again virgin.

Though one was a top fashion model, and the other seemed to resist any desire to be fashionable, both Carla and Hillary share the fact that their unwillingness to conform to traditional gender roles arguably renders them inappropriate first ladies before large sections of their respective publics.

But maybe Carla has started a new trend. There are rumors in the Spanish and Latin American press that Naomi Campbell is the new sweet thing of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. The official version is that Naomi is meeting with various Latin American leaders as part of her new role as a contributing editor of GQ Magazine, and that one of her interviews was with Hugo Chavez, who supposedly fell head over heels inlove with the tempestuous model. Now that Carla has conquered Nick, it seems that the tabloids think that love is in the air whenever a model is in the vicinity of a horny, middle-aged politician.

These arm-chair discussions about race and gender are one thing.

But let’s seriously hope that Naomi is not that crazy.

I must admit. I wasn’t so happy the first time that I saw “Mama Sarah” on CNN. After noting that getting to Mama Sarah’s remote village in Kenya was almost as difficult as parting the Red Sea (my words, not hers), the reporter explained: “When we arrived, Sarah Onyango Obama was waiting with a smile as she cut up corn maize preparing animal feed. As the chickens clucked and a rooster crowed, ‘Mama Sarah’ is as busy bringing in the crops as her grandson is trying to bring in the votes.”

In this case, a video really was worth 100.000 words. Couldn’t somebody have taken Mama Sarah to the beauty shop and gotten her a nice little pant suit? With $100 million raised for his election, Obama could have probably sent her a few hundred dollars to prepare for the interview. And Michelle Obama could have lent her those white pearls she’s always wearing.

Instead, there was Mama Sarah looking as if time had stood still and she was still back in 18th century Africa surrounded by her hungry chicken. As the CNN reporter explained: “The Obamas of Kenya still live as they have for decades, even though their most famous relative is in a hotly contested race to become the next president of the United States.”

I was hoping that the CNN report would be the end of the Mama Sarah story until I opened up a Spanish newspaper today and saw a two-page spread talking about how race could enter into US politics via Obama. Though the point of the article was that we should not descend into traditional, divisive racial politics, the accompanying picture was of Mama Sarah, though the story had hardly mentioned her. There was no picture of Obama. The picture of Mama Sarah apparently said it all.

There’s no doubt that Mama Sarah has a certain Harriet Tubman-esque poise and dignity that belies her underprivileged social status (Harriet Tubman was a runaway slave that helped freed hundreds of black slaves during the 1800s. She is viewed with great respect in the black community). But there is also no doubt that her image is more Oxfam than Vanity Fair.

Perhaps I suffer from some sort of post-colonial mindset (I’m pretty sure I do. How could I not?). I mean, my Jamaican grandparents all grew up on farms, and one of my fondest memories of my grandmother is when she killed her prized chicken and served it to my sister and me on one of our annual visits.

That being said, if I were running for President, I’m not sure that that personal image would be the one I would want circulated. And if I’m being 100% honest, the issue is that I can’t imagine Mama Sarah in the White House with European royals or foreign dignitaries. I don’t know if Obama would invite her in any case, but I suspect that she wouldn’t fit in.

But maybe that’s the point. My “slave-mentality” issues aside, there’s no doubt that the politicization of Mama Sarah can be politically dangerous for Obama. White voters might be willing to tolerate him, because he represents the ideal of a colorblind America. Obama is biracial, was educated at Harvard, and is more eloquent and inspirational than even the best white candidates like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. He is the American Dream writ large.

But on an equally symbolic level, Mama Sarah is a visual reminder of the complexity of race, the pervasiveness of racial differences and the often impermeable nexus between race and social status.

And someone wants Americans to remember that if they choose Obama, Mama Sarah — and all that she represents — comes as part of the deal.

I’m not saying that Obama has to hide Mama Sarah, but if I don’t know anything about his white grandmother (or even his white mother who raised him), why do I need to know so much about Mama Sarah? Why is this story — and these images in particular — so newsworthy?

Who the hell is circulating this story about Mama Sarah? And why is it that so many traditional media outlets seem to think that the Mama Sarah back-story is so important. A Google search for “Mama Sarah Obama” generates 32,600 stories in English and, more impressively, 34.500 in Spanish.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can’t help but remember the blog post that I wrote the other day noting that Karl Rove helped George Bush get elected Governor of Texas, beating a popular incumbent, by calling voters and insinuating that the Governor (a tough woman) hired lots of lesbians in her office. And then he helped George Bush beat John McCain by calling voters and insinuating that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black baby.

Politicians — both Democrats and Republicans — will do anything to win, and they are not above inciting racist and homophobic fears.

The main Spanish newspaper, El Pais, is in agreement with this theory. In an article called “La Abuela y la Lágrima” (The Grandmother and the Tear Drop), the author posits that there are various groups that will do anything to guarantee that Obama loses — both Democrats in favor of Hillary and Republicans preparing for a general election. And they want to make sure that US voters get to know Mama Sarah, who speaks no English, is poor and has a third-world lifestyle.

White voters might be comfortable with Obama in the White House. But they might not be so happy imagining Mama Sarah and her clucking chickens there.

Let’s hope that they prove me wrong.

I was rewatching this video, as it’s one of my favorite performances of all time. And I was thinking that if you replace Jennifer Holliday with Hillary Clinton, and replaced Curtis (the love interest) for the dream of becoming President of the United States (or the American public), you’d understand Hillary’s Clinton’s emotional response when she realized that voters didn’t “love” her.

As Hillary/Effie puts: “Am I’m Telling You . . . I’m Not Going Nowhere . . . I’m Not Living Without You . . . I’m Staying, and You’re Gonna Love Me!”

Doesn’t Curtis (the love interest) look a little bit like Obama? Just a little?

Here are the full lyrics. Just try it. Instead of an unfaithful lover, insert the dream of becoming President of the United States or the American public. Take your pick.

———
And I am telling you
I’m not going.
You’re the best [man] I’ll ever know.
There’s no way I can ever go,
No, no, no, no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
I’m not livin’ without you.
I don’t want to be free.
I’m stayin’,
I’m stayin’,
And you, and you, you’re gonna love me.
Ooh, you’re gonna love me.

And I am telling you
I’m not going,
Even though the rough times are showing.
There’s just no way,
There’s no way.
We’re part of the same place.
We’re part of the same time.
We both share the same blood.
We both have the same mind.
And time and time we have so much to share,
No, no, no,
No, no, no,
I’m not wakin’ up tomorrow mornin’
And findin’ that there’s nobody there.
Darling, there’s no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
I’m not livin’ without you.
You see, there’s just no way,
There’s no way.

Tear down the mountains,
Yell, scream and shout.
You can say what you want,
I’m not walkin’ out.
Stop all the rivers,
Push, strike, and kill.
I’m not gonna leave you,
There’s no way I will.

And I am telling you
I’m not going.
You’re the best [man] I’ll ever know.
There’s no way I can ever, ever go,
No, no, no, no way,
No, no, no, no way I’m livin’ without you.
Oh, I’m not livin’ without you,
I’m not livin’ without you.
I don’t wanna be free.
I’m stayin’,
I’m stayin’,
And you, and you,
You’re gonna love me.
Oh, hey, you’re gonna love me,
Yes, ah, ooh, ooh, love me,
Ooh, ooh, ooh, love me,
Love me,
Love me,
Love me,
Love me.
You’re gonna love me.

Politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

I just read Karl Rove’s explanation of why Hillary won. It’s the Wall Street Journal’s most popular piece of the day.

We have Karl Rove to blame for George W. Bush’s success in American politics. Rove has often been the “architect” of GWB’s election campaigns, getting him elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and 1998, and then as President of the United States in 2000 and 2004.

A few details about Rove:

• He never knew his biological father. After his parents divorced when he was 19, he learned that the man who his “father” (Louis Claude Rove) was not his biological father, and he later discovered that his adoptive father (Louis Claude Rove) was gay. He says that he loves Mr. Rove, though he’s not against using anti-gay sentiments to convince Republican voters to support his candidates.
• He started college at the University of Utah but never finished.

• He has known George W. Bush since 1973.

• He was fired from George H.W. Bush’s 1992 presidential campaign after it was discovered that he had spread a negative story in Esquire Magazine about another Bush adviser who was more favored than he was.

• GWB won his first election as Texas Governor, in part because Rove’s staff called voters to ask whether people would be “more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if [they] knew her staff is dominated by lesbians.” During the race, a regional chairman of the Bush campaign was quoted criticizing Richards for “appointing avowed homosexual activists” to state jobs.

• During the 2000 Republican primary against John McCain, Rove’s staff played on racist fears to undermine rival John McCain, asking: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

• He eventually resigned as a Bush adviser when it became clear that he had helped to leak the name of a CIA operative to the press because her husband had written an op-ed in the New York Times doubting that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. Bush let his “architect” go, because he was involved in too many scandals and investigations related to the misuse of power to attack and undermine political enemies.

I give this background to explain why I wasn’t shocked by the clearly racist innuendos advanced by Rove in his explanation of Hillary’s victory, which makes me think it’s just a sneak peek into the Republican National Committee’s eventual attack on Obama if he becomes the Democratic nomination. Either that, or they’re trying to convince Democrats and Independents to vote for Hillary, because they’re ready to go to battle with Bill and Hillary — Rove’s been locked in that battle since 1992 when he got kicked off of Bush Sr.’s campaign — but Obama is still too new and too charismatic to attack too directly.

Rove notes that Hillary won for four reasons:

• Her appeal to women: No problem here.

• Hillary’s “personal” moments: His attack on Obama here is phrased in subtle racial terms. He says that Obama shouldn’t have told Hillary that she was “likable enough”, because it was “trash talking [that] was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.” Excuse me? I agree that Obama’s comment was ungracious, but John Edwards was a lot more aggressive in attacking Hillary. And both Bill and Hillary attacked Obama non-stop (a point he credits Clinton for below). Would the basketball imagery be equally applicable to Edwards, Hillary or Bill? Or is it most suggestive when used about a black guy? When I first read it, I thought: Hey, maybe I’m being too sensitive, maybe Rove isn’t a racist despite the tactics he’s used in the past. But then I read on and realized that the basketball comment was just a warm-up.

• Bill’s attacks on Obama: He just got through saying that Obama was ungracious to attack Hillary’s likability. But Rove then goes to great lengths to credit Bill Clinton for attacking Obama (though Rove is careful never to actually praise either Clinton too much). He says that Clinton makes a decent attacker but promises that there is more harmful information out there about Obama (and suggests that he has it) and that there are people who are/will be more skilled at executing the killer blows.

In his words: “Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iraq. There’s more — and more powerful — material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting “present” on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through. . . . He won’t escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won’t cut it.“

So Obama is “lazy” and given to misstatements, but George Bush was Shakespeare? Didn’t he have difficulty speaking basic English? Also, isn’t it curious that the votes that Obama missed were precisely about abortion and gun-control — two issues that Republican strategists use to rile up their supporters? Might this just a pre-emptive attempt to dissuade Republicans thinking about voting for Obama? Given that Obama is undoubtedly pro-choice and pro-gun control, why would a Republican highlight that Obama supposedly missed votes? Would that make it easier to get their favored positions passed?

In summary, according to Rove, Obama is a lazy, uninformed, basketball-playing Negro who is afraid to — or too lazy to — vote on issues such as gun control and abortion.

• Obama is a great speaker but he’s not saying anything meaningful: On this point, I can’t really disagree, except to say that most politicians don’t really saying anything meaningful, relying mostly on soundbites and symbols to get elected and re-elected. Anyone remember “you’re either with us, or you’re against us”? Hardly a very sophisticated statement of substantive foreign policy, though it literally changed the world with its simplicity (or better said, simplification of complex issues). And as the Hillary crying episode showed, sometimes images are more important than being brilliant and substantive. It’s sad, but that’s how people like Karl Rove get weak candidates like George W. Bush elected President.

That being said, I have no doubt that Obama will make a more substantive president than George W. Bush.

But then again, that’s not setting the bar very high.