My thanks to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for filling the “race in politics” void while President-elect Obama is vacationing in Hawaii. Blagojevich, who has been charged with trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, has refused to resign and instead chosen to make things difficult for the Democrats.

By defying both public and political sentiment not to name Obama’s successor, appointing former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the Senate seat appears to be a deliberate act to inject race into the political mainstream - again. On the surface Burris, who is African American seems ably qualified to replace Obama, the only African American in the Senate. However given Blagojevich’s legal problems and the tainted nature of Burris’ appointment, the Democrats are now forced to oppose the process and the man that came along with it. Clearly this was Blagojevich’s intention when he made the appointment.

For his part, Burris looks pathetic and must share the blame for being an enabler of Blagojevich’s race-baiting strategy. A career politician who has failed several times to be elected to his state’s highest offices, he sees the Senate appointment as his last and best shot at the big time, and is willing to sacrifice his integrity to get it.

When it comes to race and politics, it always takes two to tango.

And it’s living in college football. According to the New York Times, only four out of 119 NCAA coaches in Division 1 football are African American. This amounts to 3.4% in a sport where 50% of the players are black.

The latest high-profile example occurred at Auburn, where the university chose a white coach who had failed miserably at his previous job over a black coach who had turned his college’s program around and made it highly successful. Clearly there are double standards. At perhaps the country’s most visible and prestigious college football program, Notre Dame made headlines by hiring Tyrone Willingham as its first black coach, but after one good season and one bad one, abruptly fired him. Their next coach, Charlie Weiss, had nearly the same results and was given a seven year contract extension and a big raise. He remains on the job in spite of just finishing another horrible season.

At least Willingham has been able to find head coaching jobs after being fired. While the NCAA coaching mill is full of re-treads, no other African American coach has been able to find a head coaching job after being terminated.

This is a disgrace and looks like white affirmative action. You would think that if the public is willing to vote overwhelmingly for an African American president, the athletic directors and college presidents at these colleges and universities could find some coaches who better reflect the demographics of their teams. According to the Times, only 9.2% of the athletic directors and 2.5% of the college presidents are African American. That might explain something.

Today President-elect Barack Obama appointed a Hispanic American, Bill Richardson to be his Secretary of Commerce. Obama has also appointed two African Americans to high profile posts - Eric Holder to Attorney General and Susan Rice to UN Ambassador. And he has appointed three women - Rice, Janet Napolitano to Homeland Security, and Hillary Clinton to State. While everyone would expect Obama to have a highly diverse administration, the bar set by his predecessors is already pretty high.

According to the Associated Press, George W. Bush’s first cabinet had four women, two African Americans, two Asian Americans, and one Hispanic American, while Bill Clinton’s first cabinet had three women, four African Americans, and two Hispanic Americans. And while Obama is off to a pretty good start, there is still pressure on him to increase diversity in his appointments.

Many Hispanics were disappointed that Richardson did not get Secretary of State, and are pushing for the appointment of Rep. Xavier Becerra for U.S. Trade Representative. Notably absent are any Asian American appointees. Asian American groups are pushing for ex-Washington State Governor Gary Locke, Illinois Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth, and California Congressman Mike Honda.

While Obama is a noted proponent of diversity, he also values experience, as evidenced by several appointments who served in previous administrations. No doubt his administration will be diverse, not just in ethnicity and gender, but also in background and viewpoints, which should serve him well.

Look at what has happened to our economy recently. Foreclosures are through the roof, major financial institutions have failed, millions are in danger of losing their jobs, and the stock market has crashed. So what’s the good news?

The credit markets have imploded. It is much more difficult to get a home loan or credit card. So what? Borrowing money is far less culturally acceptable in Asian and Latino cultures, so the impact to Asian and Latino Americans of tightened credit should be much less than the general population.

People of color have historically been dominant members of the under-served banking community, often unable to obtain credit cards, home or business loans, or lines of credit. Many do not even have a bank account, largely because banks avoid placing branches in the inner-cities.

It’s hard to miss something you never had in the first place.

This is not to say that people of color won’t be hurt by the worsening economic conditions. The loss of credit and stock market wealth will result in significant job losses in every sector and will not be color-blind. But if you weren’t relying on credit from the banks, which many minorities aren’t, you’re probably doing better than the rest of the population.

Yes, Barack Obama is America’s first Black President, and African Americans overwhelmingly voted for him. But this is nothing new. African Americans would have overwhelmingly voted for whoever the Democratic candidate was.

Obama received broad-based support from all of the traditionally Democrat-leaning groups. But where he really gained support was younger voters and Hispanics. Not that Hispanics weren’t already leaning Democratic in previous elections, but in this election they chose Obama over McCain by 67 to 31 percent.

Frankly I am surprised that Hispanics have not voted Democrat in similar proportions on a more regular basis. Democrats are generally more pro-immigration, pro-labor, pro-middle class, pro-diversity, and pro-social welfare programs. African Americans figured it out long ago, and typically support Democrats at a 2-1 ratio.

Hispanics are responsible for almost all of the population growth in the country over the past two censuses and this doesn’t appear to be likely to change anytime soon. This, coupled with higher voter participation and more Democratic voting tendencies does not bode well for the Republican party - or the American people.

One party rule is not necessarily a good thing if it leads to too much government and too much bureaucracy. What we need are choices. If the Democrats are too far left, and the Republicans too far right, how about a third party with moderate positions?

If Barack Obama gets elected next week, there are a lot of people who think this is proof positive that America is now color-blind, or at least that racial discrimination has been reduced to a minimal level.

While electing the first African American President would be ground-breaking progress in race relations, let’s not overreact. Should Obama win, he will have had to counter the roughly 6% of the public who would not in any circumstances vote for him because he is black. In comparing him with John McCain, it is amazing the race is even close.

Might the “Obama effect” lead to an end to affirmative action? I think this is very much a possibility. There are several examples of high-profile people of color in the Bush administration - Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Norman Mineta come to mind. If an African American is elected President, there will be significant pressure to abolish Affirmative Action programs under the mis-guided assumption that they are no longer needed. Several states have passed ballot initiatives prohibiting race conscious programs, and more are certain to try it if Obama is elected.

Just because there are a few high-profile minorities in positions of power does not mean racial discrimination does not exist in the workplace. Affirmative action programs exist to correct evidence of historical discrimination, and should be sun-setted when racial parity is achieved for the entire workforce, not just the top position.

When Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President over the weekend, lots of folks assumed he did this because he is African American and wanted to support the first black candidate with a real chance of winning. Why is it so hard to believe that Powell actually thinks Obama would make a better President than John McCain?

Think of the political risks Powell is taking by making this endorsement. He has always been a loyal Republican foot soldier, taking a disproportional share of the blame for presenting faulty intelligence to the United Nations in the lead up to the Iraq war. He was essentially thrown out as the sacrificial lamb for Bush and Cheney - his career ended, reputation tarnished, and legacy questioned. If ever a guy could be excused for holding a grudge, this would be one of those situations. Yet Powell has scarcely criticized the Bush administration, and treated them with kid gloves in his published memoir.

So despite the fact that the majority of the American people feel Obama would make a better President than McCain for a whole host of reasons, Powell is being criticized for simply supporting a fellow African American. Why is it that the very people who insist race isn’t an issue are always the first to make it an issue?

According to NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, “scholars” believe this is the phenomenon that Barack Obama faces with respect to votes he could lose because he is an African American. He contends that there is a faction of the population that aren’t racist, but would just naturally gravitate toward one type of candidate versus another. He cites statistics showing white job interviewer, when faced with borderline candidates, will recommend the white candidate 76% of the time, and the African American candidate only 45% of the time.

Isn’t this the very definition of racist behavior? I guess in Kristof’s opinion, 76-45 isn’t a large enough disparity to call the interviewers racist. I’m not sure which is more appalling, knowing that African Americans already start with almost a 2 to 1 disadvantage at job interviews, or that some people are willing to write this disparity off as within the margin for error without the need for accountability, either by the interviewers, hiring managers, or the companies.

Sports Illustrated has a nice article about the expanding role of Latinos in sports. While there is prominent mention of superstars like baseball’s Alex Rodriguez, golf’s Lorena Ochoa, and soccer’s Ronaldinho, it is more important to look at the overall influence of Latinos on the sports industry - both on and off the field.

Latinos are responsible for half the population growth in the U.S., and watch sports in greater percentages than non-Latinos (36% to 30%). 94% of Latino males consider themselves sports fans. Put these facts together and it doesn’t take a PhD in math to figure out who the industry (TV, media, leagues, teams, sponsors, etc.) should be catering to.

The blame game for the $700 billion mortgage bailout is shifting into high gear, with Congressional hearings conducting a show trial with the CEO’s of Lehman and AIG. All of these folks have high-priced attorneys and lobbyists protecting their interests, and in many instances the golden parachutes they took with them. Who will represent the homeowners?
As the story goes, the government began pressuring Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and banks to increase loans to low-income borrowers, including minorities. These entities acted as a conduit by packaging pools of these loans to large institutional investors, underwritten by large Wall Street investment banks like Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman. Since many low-income borrowers didn’t have the cash to make a deposit or the income to make the mortgage payments, these loans were obviously riskier. To underwrite the increased risk, insurance giant AIG jumped in by protecting the investors against defaults.

Everybody made huge profits because of one factor - leverage. They were able to package, sell, and insure billions of dollars of these loans with minimal amounts of collateral, which translated into enormous returns on investment. But leverage is a two-way street. If real estate values increase, profits will be large. If they don’t rise, and defaults increase, the losses would be substantial. Because the real estate market was strong, competition to invest in subprime loans became over-heated, and lenders did not increase pricing or tighten underwriting standards to compensate for the increased risk.
It is clear that many loans were made to people who couldn’t afford them. But who is to blame for that? Lenders, investors, investment banks, or insurance companies who were making obscene profits and taking huge risks, or honest Americans, many of whom are people of color, trying to live the American dream. I fear Wall Street will turn the homeowners into scapegoats, and claim more than their fair share of the bailout funds.