His answer to an interview conducted on C-SPAN dated April 9 went as followed:
"... I always knew is that it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites and the media because anybody that they didn’t agree with, they would take apart. And that will happen with virtually — you pick your person, any black person who says something that is not the prescribed things that they expect from a black person will be picked apart. You can pick anybody, don't pick me, pick anyone who has decided not to go along with it; there’s a price to pay. So, I always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with."
Of course, Thomas's thoughts raise questions on the issue of race and its impact on politics. It was one of the biggest factors of Obama's Democratic nomination in the 2008 elections, and a milestone with his 2012 re-election. But was the president able to attain his seat of power solely because he was "passable" and therefore likable by political elites and the media? If so, what made him OK by the media's standards — the nature of his Hawaiian upbringing and mixed ethnicity? And just what was Thomas alluding to in suggesting that Obama's approval is geared by the idea that he says that is "expected" from a black person? That he fits the bill for your typical black Democrat and therefore makes him nonthreatening to the status quo? I am not sure of the answers to these questions, but they're worth discussing.
What are your thoughts on Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion? Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments section either below or continue the conversation with me on Twitter @akandez.