Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
04.02.2008 6:34 am

Cleaver’s dilemma: Is conflicted the word?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

For those who have been paying attention, Emanuel Cleaver’s heart-head conflict has been lingering for months.

The congressman and former mayor from Kansas City has been pushed into the national political spotlight for comments he made in an interview that aired Sunday on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

Cleaver, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter, said “If I had to make a prediction right now, I’d say Barack Obama is going to be the next president.”

“I will be stunned if he’s not the next president of the United States,” Cleaver said.

Obama supporters and others in the Democratic party calling for Clinton to make a graceful exit from the race are pointing to Cleaver’s comments as proof that even her own fans recognize the inevitable.

But although Cleaver has publicly been loyal to the Clintons, his affection for Obama has been hovering near the surface.

Last month, Cleaver wrote to party chairman Howard Dean, asking him to quell the rhetoric between the two candidates before it evolves (devolves?) into a “fist fight.”

Earlier, the Kansas City Star’s Steve Kraske asked Cleaver that if he were the last superdelegate standing, would he stand in the way of an African-American becoming president?

“I’d have to think about it,” Cleaver said.

And before that, Cleaver told me for a story in advance of the Super Tuesday primary that, as a racial trailblazer himself, he has some mixed emotions about Obama’s candidacy.

“I don’t know if the word is ‘conflicted,’” Cleaver said. “I certainly feel a tinge of pride.”

Cleaver developed a close relationship with the Clintons during his time as mayor, and was even eyed for a job once in Bill Clinton’s White House.

But as pastor who was active in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the first African-American mayor of Kansas City, it would be difficult to imagine Cleaver does not have at least a sentimental connection to the Obama campaign.

Sounds like “conflicted” really is the word.

Emanuel Cleaver

Cleaver: Is he “conflicted?”

4 comments

Comments are closed.

Cleaver would have to think about it? Simply because Obama is black?

What would happen if someone said they were voting for McCain because he is white?

This double-standard is the pinnacle of hypocrisy!

— Jim (the republican)
9:50 am April 2nd, 2008

Jim (the republican)’s comment echos the sentiment of many regarding what he/they perceive to be a “double-standard.”

Let’s be clear: it is overly simplistic and indicative of an ignorance of history to attempt to draw a moral equivalency between Cleaver voting for Obama because he’s black and someone voting for McCain because he’s white. Here’s the difference: the history of this country is such that blacks have been marginalized and dehumanized. Whites have not. A black person voting for another black person is, in essence, a reaction to white racism. Conversely, a white person voting for another white person is proactive and emblematic of white supremacy.

Study your history, particularly the period of reconstruction to see how blacks who were attempting to exercise the franchise were treated.

— Robert
8:52 am April 3rd, 2008

I don’t perceive this to be a double standard .. it IS a double standard!

If I’m reading your words correctly, I’m a white supremacist because I plan to vote for John McCain?

The fact is, skin color, or what someone has between their legs should NOT be a reason to vote for or against a candidate. Period.

Why does it seem to be an appropriate thing for women and blacks to get away with it, when they’re so blatant about it? White men would be run out of town on a rail for publicly suggesting such a thing!

— Jim (the republican)
3:55 pm April 3rd, 2008

Aw, Jim, you finally admit your a typical GOP white guy, a racist! Good for you!

— Tim Hogan
10:22 am April 4th, 2008