Story by Sabrina M. Parker

When Black History Month rolled around this time we couldn’t think of any topic more relevant than Barack Obama’s historical election as the 44th U.S. president. Most Americans never thought they would see a Black man hold the most powerful elected position in the world. But there are a few who saw the possibility long before the stickers and buttons were printed.

For this special feature we talked to Obama’s political godfather Emil Jones, former president of the Illinois state
senate, about how he mentored Obama early in his political career. Then Dr. Jeff explains how images of an African-American first family will change Black relationships forever. To finish things off we talked to Questlove of The Roots about what the first hip-hop president (Obama said he has Jay-Z and Kanye West songs on his iPod) will mean to the hip-hop community.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was as historic as his win. He succeeded without rolling around in the mud, taking shots at the easy target that was the GOP’s vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin or promising reparations to the Black constituency. He displayed Cirque Du Soleil agility as he walked the political tightrope, addressing the diverse American public without alienating the Black community. It was an inclusive strategy that he developed in Chicago under his mentor, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr., whom he has called his “political godfather.”

We talked to Sen. Jones a month before his retirement to find out more about the lessons he taught President Obama and how Sen. Jones handled the attacks that he had to endure during and after the campaign. He has been called a “toxic mentor,” a “machine politician.” At press time, Sen. Jones was a top contender to fill President-elect Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat. (Editor’s note: This was written before Illinois Governor Blago­jevich was arrested, thereby throwing the whole process into turmoil because the governor was allegedly trying to sell the seat to the highest bidder.) Emil didn’t have anything to do with the Obama presidential campaign, but he said that it was identical to the successful U.S. Senate campaign that he helped Obama run in 2004. Read on to find out why he knew that Barack Obama could go all the way to the White House, which quality he thought Obama needed to tone down and his explanation of some of the strategies he taught his political godson.

***

Sabrina: The whole purpose of our talk is to just get some insight into the strategy behind the Obama campaign; we’re told you were a big part of that strategy.
Emil: Well, not really. You mean part of the campaign for president?

Sabrina: Yes.
Emil: Not really. We’ve known him for a number of years, and I’ve helped him considerably, but the strategy as far as the campaign, I was not a part of that campaign.

Sabrina: Okay. I guess you are more of, say, a political mentor?
Emil: Yes.

Sabrina: So you influenced the things that got him into a position where he would be a viable candidate, right?
Emil: Yeah.

Sabrina: I know he was saying that he came to you and told you you could make him president, so do you think that you did that for him?
Emil: His elevation to the presidency came after he won the U.S. Senate seat, but he came to me and we were sitting and talking and he said, “You’re now the senate president; you have a lot of power.” So I asked Barack, “What kind of power do you think I have?” He said, “You have the power to make a United States senator.” I told him, “All of that sounds good, but do you know of anyone I can make?” He said, “Me!”

Sabrina: Did you ever see him going on to the level that he’s at right now?
Emil: Oh yes. It’s his intellect, his charisma, and I recognized this back in the year 2004, that he could be on the national scene; I knew that back then.

Sabrina: You’ve pointed out the things you saw in him that make him a good candidate and effective leader, but is there anything you saw in him that needed to be changed? Anything you advised him he needed to do less of?
Emil: Early on in our relationship, he was very idealistic. I had to teach him and advise him to be more pragmatic on issues and so forth, and sit down and work with others to see if he can come to a resolve in any differences you may have. And during his tenure in the Illinois Senate, that’s what he did. To recognize that there are always points of views; you don’t have to change your principles, but listen to the other side and see how you can come to a resolve and still accomplish the goals you wish to accomplish. He did that quite well in the Illinois Senate.

Sabrina: When you say he was idealistic, does that mean there’s no right and wrong in politics? There’s just a middle ground that everybody needs to find?
Emil: No. When I say “idealistic,” for example, for certain things you are opposed to and you may be in favor of at the same time, being practical about situations—how can you resolve it? Just like his opposition to the war in Iraq. I noticed during the campaign, he had the ability to change recognizing that you couldn’t walk in and pull all the troops out immediately because of the impact it will have. So being practical and being more pragmatic; that’s why he set forth a timeframe for accomplishing the goal. Everyone would love for the troops to be out instantly, but it cannot happen that way. It’s those types of issues that I watched him develop and grow and become more pragmatic.

Sabrina: Did you ever advise him to vote “present” in the Illinois state Legislature?
Emil: Yes, that issue came up on numerous occasions. Many of the present votes were votes that were done as a caucus; we were in the minority—and especially on budgetary items that we did not like [that were] being presented by the majority—so in order to force the majority to the bargaining table because they could not muster enough votes from their own to pass it; so it was a technical move on us to get the majority to deal with the minority. That’s where a lot of the votes were. But understanding a present vote, for example: you might have a piece of legislation you strongly support, but there may be one provision in the legislation that you are vehemently opposed to. So the present vote allows you to not vote for the bad portion of the legislation, at the same time not vote against the good portion. The sponsor may then, when the bill gets to the other chamber, he would have that portion that is objectionable to you removed. And to protect yourself, in case it’s not removed, you go present because if you don’t do that, when it comes time to campaign, you will be attacked for voting for that one bad provision. And if you vote no against that, you vote no against some of the good provisions. So that’s what those votes really were.

Sabrina: Right. That makes sense. I don’t think that was fully explained, like why legislators even have the “present” option. Another thing we noticed in his campaign was he didn’t run on purely Black issues like “I’m going to do this for our people.” Did you ever advise him on what percentage of his effort he should spend on the Black community?
Emil: We had those discussions. And especially the campaign for the presidency was similar to the campaign that was run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. There was no need for him to single out one particular group simply because you need support from everyone. And just the mere fact that he is of African descent, he automatically is going to take care of those issues and address those issues. So therefore, it would not have been wise for him to paint himself in a corner like that. Once you get trapped in that corner, it’s very difficult for you to broaden your base. So it was wise, very wise of him, not to get trapped into becoming the Black candidate.