A few months ago, I won the Democratic nomination for a seat as the U.S. senator from Illinois. It was a difficult
race, in a crowded field of well-funded, skilled, and prominent candidates; without organizational backing or personal
wealth, a black man with a funny name, I was considered a long shot. And so, when I won a majority of the votes in the
Democratic primary, winning in white areas as well as black, in the suburbs as well as Chicago, the reaction that
followed echoed the response to my election to the Law Review. Mainstream commentators expressed surprise and
genuine hope that my victory signaled a broader change in our racial politics. Within the black community, there was a
sense of pride regarding my accomplishment, a pride mingled with frustration that fifty years after Brown v. Board of
Education and forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we should still be celebrating the possibility (and
only the possibility, for I have a tough general election coming up) that I might be the sole African American-and only
the third since Reconstruction-to serve in the Senate. My family, friends, and I were mildly bewildered by the attention,
and constantly aware of the gulf between the hard sheen of media reports and the messy, mundane realities of life as it
is truly lived.
Just as that spate of publicity prompted my publisher's interest a decade ago, so has this fresh round of news clippings
encouraged the book's re-publication. For the first time in many years, I've pulled out a copy and read a few chapters
to see how much my voice may have changed over time. I confess to wincing every so often at a poorly chosen word, a
mangled sentence, an expression of emotion that seems indulgent or overly practiced. I have the urge to cut the book by
fifty pages or so, possessed as I am with a keener appreciation for brevity. I cannot honestly say, however, that the
voice in this book is not mine-that I would tell the story much differently today than I did ten years ago, even if certain
passages have proven to be inconvenient politically, the grist for pundit commentary and opposition research.
What has changed, of course, dramatically, decisively, is the context in which the book might now be read. I began
writing against a backdrop of Silicon Valley and a booming stock market; the collapse of the Berlin Wall; Mandela-in
slow, sturdy steps-emerging from prison to lead a country; the signing of peace accords in Oslo. Domestically, our
cultural debates-around guns and abortion and rap lyrics-seemed so fierce precisely because Bill Clinton's Third Way,
a scaled-back welfare state without grand ambition but without sharp edges, seemed to describe a broad, underlying
consensus on bread-and-b***er issues, a consensus to which even George W. Bush's first campaign, with its
"compassionate conservatism," would have to give a nod. Internationally, writers announced the end of history, the
ascendance of free markets and liberal democracy, the replacement of old hatreds and wars between nations with
virtual communities and battles for market share.
race, in a crowded field of well-funded, skilled, and prominent candidates; without organizational backing or personal
wealth, a black man with a funny name, I was considered a long shot. And so, when I won a majority of the votes in the
Democratic primary, winning in white areas as well as black, in the suburbs as well as Chicago, the reaction that
followed echoed the response to my election to the Law Review. Mainstream commentators expressed surprise and
genuine hope that my victory signaled a broader change in our racial politics. Within the black community, there was a
sense of pride regarding my accomplishment, a pride mingled with frustration that fifty years after Brown v. Board of
Education and forty years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we should still be celebrating the possibility (and
only the possibility, for I have a tough general election coming up) that I might be the sole African American-and only
the third since Reconstruction-to serve in the Senate. My family, friends, and I were mildly bewildered by the attention,
and constantly aware of the gulf between the hard sheen of media reports and the messy, mundane realities of life as it
is truly lived.
Just as that spate of publicity prompted my publisher's interest a decade ago, so has this fresh round of news clippings
encouraged the book's re-publication. For the first time in many years, I've pulled out a copy and read a few chapters
to see how much my voice may have changed over time. I confess to wincing every so often at a poorly chosen word, a
mangled sentence, an expression of emotion that seems indulgent or overly practiced. I have the urge to cut the book by
fifty pages or so, possessed as I am with a keener appreciation for brevity. I cannot honestly say, however, that the
voice in this book is not mine-that I would tell the story much differently today than I did ten years ago, even if certain
passages have proven to be inconvenient politically, the grist for pundit commentary and opposition research.
What has changed, of course, dramatically, decisively, is the context in which the book might now be read. I began
writing against a backdrop of Silicon Valley and a booming stock market; the collapse of the Berlin Wall; Mandela-in
slow, sturdy steps-emerging from prison to lead a country; the signing of peace accords in Oslo. Domestically, our
cultural debates-around guns and abortion and rap lyrics-seemed so fierce precisely because Bill Clinton's Third Way,
a scaled-back welfare state without grand ambition but without sharp edges, seemed to describe a broad, underlying
consensus on bread-and-b***er issues, a consensus to which even George W. Bush's first campaign, with its
"compassionate conservatism," would have to give a nod. Internationally, writers announced the end of history, the
ascendance of free markets and liberal democracy, the replacement of old hatreds and wars between nations with
virtual communities and battles for market share.