By Drew Adamek
I like Barack Obama but I don’t think we elected the right man to be our first black president.
It was clear to me from the get-go that the “hopey-changey” stuff was really just top-notch spin. Anyone who knows anything about Chicago politics knows that if you are going to be a change agent, there is no better place to start than right here (Hi, Emil).
Don’t get me wrong; I was truly touched when the Obama family stood on the stage in Grant Park in November 2008 and I realized that they were America’s first family. I was amazed that America had gone, since my freshman year in high school, from arguments about the merits of a black quarterback to a black president. I was proud to be American; I was thrilled that a Chicagoan was president. Obama’s election was a touchstone moment in American history.
But as incredible as the Obama election is in context, there seems to be something missing. Obama, in my mind, has proven himself to be a man of transient convictions and flexible promises. He is a great speaker, and I do like his measured, tempered approach. But I am disappointed because it feels like he lacks the true power of one’s convictions and that he’s wasted the certainty of his electoral mandate.
I wish the man we elected in 2008 would have more confidence in his convictions, be less likely to compromise, and be less like a Republican president. We face an uncertain world, and I want a president who is resolute, hard-core: a grown damn man. Like, say, Carl Ridenhour, otherwise known as Chuck D.
Here, then, is why Chuck D should have been our first black president:
Posted on April 19, 2010