Quoting David Thomson: "Barry" Obama is merely a race hustler like Al Sharpton, Jr. I increasingly find him to be reprehensible. Subconsciously, he has no real interest to improve race relations in the United States. On the contrary, he wants to use it to his political advantage. There is far too much white guilt. This greatly explains why normally sensible people like Peggy Noonan and Charles Murray make themselves look foolish praising Obama. And this is a very dangerous phenomenon! It inadvertently opens the door to scum bags like David Duke. I know that many will think I am exaggerating. Nonetheless, I am convinced that a vote for Obama is unwittingly a vote of support for the David Dukes of the world.

Beautifully written piece of satire! Very wingnutty. I particularly like the touch where you pretend to know what motivates Obama subconsciously. Brilliant! 5 stars.

If you're ready to give up your microbrews... http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

"I particularly like the touch where you pretend to know what motivates Obama subconsciously. Brilliant! 5 stars." I concede that one is playing with fire trying to interpret the subconscious motivations of others. Nonetheless, I have read enough of "Barry" Obama's own writings to logically come to this conclusion. We must never forget that if our troubles over race disappeared this very moment---a lot of people would be forced to find another way of earning a living! Race card hustling has proven to be very lucrative. It is very fair to say that Obama would not be a serious candidate unless he was a man of color. He is indeed an affirmative action candidate. Much of his life has revolved around the manipulation of white guilt. This is probably especially true after he attended Harvard University, perhaps the center of guilt tripped white America.

Quoting TwinSwords: Beautifully written piece of satire! Very wingnutty. I particularly like the touch where you pretend to know what motivates Obama subconsciously. Brilliant! 5 stars.

I agree. The surreality of equating Barack Obama's message of inclusiveness with allowing the KKK to get back into power was also remarkable. Best imitation of a full-fledged moron yet!

Quoting David Thomson: It is very fair to say that Obama would not be a serious candidate unless he was a man of color. He is indeed an affirmative action candidate. Much of his life has revolved around the manipulation of white guilt. This is probably especially true after he attended Harvard University, perhaps the center of guilt tripped white America.

More brilliance! But you forgot the part about affirmative action and white guilt also giving him all those grades he didn't deserve to finish in the top of his class, the affirmative action and white guilt that gave him the job of president of the Harvard Law Review, the affirmative action and white guilt that propelled him into undeserved recognition as a top community organizer, the affirmative action and white guilt that caused all those books to be sold, the affirmative action and white guilt that made all those people in Iowa vote for him ... Please. Don't stop. You must have hundreds more reasons why Barack Obama is, in fact, the worst person in the history of the human race.

Thomson is a right-wing race-baiter who doesn't deserve a response. He's one of those "Martin Luther King was controlled by the Communists" characters. When he invokes the KKK, he knows whereof he speaks. He's one of their cousins. A total wack job. Ignore him.

Quoting brucds: Thomson is a right-wing race-baiter who doesn't deserve a response. He's one of those "Martin Luther King was controlled by the Communists" characters. When he invokes the KKK, he knows whereof he speaks. He's one of their cousins. A total wack job. Ignore him.

You're probably right, brucds. But sometimes it's hard to let a cockroach walk across the floor without having the urge to step on it.

Debra's first post in reaction to Glenn Loury's TPM article lives here. (I say "first" because it sounded, both in the post and in the diavlog, like she might have more to say.)

Democratic Party presidential candidates like "Barry" Obama can never be truly post-racial. This is because the very premise of that party's approach to race relations is to refuse to solve the problem. Once agin, we are talking about jobs! The first American black elected to the White House will almost certainly be a center-right Republican. Only the GOP is eagerly trying to "get past race." It has little interest in continually picking at the scabs to make sure they never heal. Democrats are too invested in defeat. They don't want the good old days to ever end. Their intellectual class would have to find another way to earn a living.

Duke for Obama! Wow. David Thompson is insane.

Quoting David Thomson: Only the GOP is eagerly trying to "get past race."

And I'm sure they're proud to have you speaking on their behalf to further this effort.

Jesus, I just read Dickerson's article and what strikes one more than anything else is how poorly it's worn. The first page is full of predictions that turned flat out to be wrong - but more to the point based on false assumptions. The "truth" about Obama is that he chose solidarity with the traditional African-American culture and politics when he went to the South Side of Chicago to organize - and probably more telling, integrated himself into a "typical" African-American family by marriage. That he's been percieved as generically "black" in most societal situations where his somewhat unique personal history adds to the uselessness of Dickerson's formula. By Dickerson's lights, W.E.B. Dubois, Marcus Garvey and Stokely Carmichael weren't "black" either, because their heritage wasn't native-born descendants of slaves from America's deep South. Pretty nonsensical. IMHO the category of American Dickerson fits into most authoritatively is "eminently dispensable pundit" - an increasingly large and problematic demographic.

Liberals (particularly in the academy) may be the timid, self-loathing crowd you describe, but Barack Obama is obviously his generation's most talented political leader and thinker, and as such represents an immense beacon of hope for progress among black Americans. What the hell are you talking about with Obama being good for southern white racists like David Duke? Ya better check yaself, son.

Uh oh - next time he's on, somebody remind Orlando Patterson he's not black either.

oops - that sentence above should have read "where his somewhat unique personal history ISN'T NECESSARILY KNOWN, adds to the uselessness of Dickerson's formula."

the reason why hillary lost to obama is white guilt about slavery, the fact that we have a ridiculously sexist society and also because the media was practically lining up to give him a hand job throughout Jan and Feb.
they have essentially the same voting record except for the war and everyone who went from Edwards to Obama can explain why the war vote doesn't matter. polls also show the men strongly favor Obama.....hmm....I wonder why. i can't even count how many times i've heard "Just wait 'till SHE gets in office." or literally "I'd NEVER vote for a woman. I'd vote for McCain before Hillary."
there is absolutely nothing special about this guy compared to Hillary. it was so bad even SNL had to parody the media's bias. there's no way he'd even be considered if he were white, given that he's been in the senate for about 10 minutes.
that said, i have no problem at all with voting for someone because he's black. blacks deserve their chance and i was going to vote for hillary simply because she's a woman. but pretending there's something extraordinary

"Duke for Obama! Wow." David Duke would never be explicitly for "Barry" Obama. That's not my point. No, he would be the inadvertent beneficiary. Obama will do nothing to get past race. He is motivated to keep picking at those scabs. The more they bleed---the better off he is. Obama will worsen race relations in the United States. At the end of the day, David Duke will offer himself as something of a savior to more disgruntled whites. This is especially true regarding white men. They are very well aware that the politically correct establishment deems them to be cause of all evil in the world. Susan Sontag may be dead, but she has not been forgotten.

Quoting bjkeefe: Debra's first post in reaction to Glenn Loury's TPM article lives here.

(I say "first" because it sounded, both in the post and in the diavlog, like she might have more to say.)

Yes Brendan, Debra will have lots more to say. But did you read Glenn's piece?
The gist of that piece had been lightly touched upon in his talks with McWhorter. I fully respect Glenn in his approach to this issue, yet I feel disappointed that he is probably correct that a trade-off of Obama's success could include a loss of a full hearing on the Black historical grievance. If I recall an earlier diavlog (Loury/McWhorter) correctly, Glenn hinted that his his support for Clinton was due to this concern that Obama would provide a cleaning of the guilt slate - with long lasting and irreversible consequences.
I hope to hear from him how a failure to promote Obama will further his desire for reconciliation, according to his own terms, sooner or more effectively?

You may ruefully wish that a figure like Barack Obama had come from the right, and I agree that one day soon such a "black" man will emerge from the right and lead the nation at a very high level, but alas he did not come from the right, he comes from the left, so get over it, and stop throwing mud around the room like a petulant child. I think some people hate the left so much, they are willing to discredit the nation's best presidential candidate and thwart a more than decent chance at furthering the national dialog on race. Embracing Obama will help the right eclipse the legacy of fools likes of Sharpton, Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright. Get on board!

Nothing exceptional about Obama next to Hillary except that his political skills are obviously superior since he's taken down the "inevitable," "experienced" candidate who was able to double-team him with a former President at her side. Actually, when I think about it, given the current scenario - with Hillary looking like little more than a sore loser and Obama more than likely the next President of the U.S.of A. - Obama's pretty "exceptional" as politicians go and Hillary is someone I wouldn't trust to be the CEO of a large corporation, given her inability to strategize, her history of failure at policy (health care & Iraq) and the spectre of the team she put together which runs the gamut from mediocre to "Enron-level" despicable.

One more thing - is Dickerson aware that Obama is a native born American, not a "Kenyan" as she constantly references him. He's spent more time in Indonesia as a kid than ever in Kenya, which he's only visited fairly briefly. And his having grown up mostly in extremely multi-cultural Hawaii is probably as big a piece in the puzzle of his "racial" psychology as anything.
I also have to say there's something incredibly annoying - creepy really - in Dickerson's whining that the only problem with her piece could possibly be that "even really smart people" "lose their literacy" in reading her. I'm sorry but an author who protests that much about being "misunderstood" has obviously done a crappy job of making themselves understood. In such instances, it's a better bet that the problem isn't bad reading comprehension on the part of "really smart people" than dubious analysis and bad communication on the part of the author.

"political skills" are worthless. (see "Karl Rove")
as i said, how is she supposed to win, anyway, when the whole thing is practically rigged. salon even just printed this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...04/07/hillary/ i don't care if someone can sway millions to vote for him for no reason at all. what value is that? "Yeah! His voters are really unfair and disingenuous!"
mainly idiot twenty-somethings anyway.

graz: Yes, I did read Glenn's piece. I read it the day it posted, so my memory may have faded a bit, but I think I felt about the same way you did. I hear his point, and feel somewhat unentitled to dispute it, being a white man appreciably younger than him, but a big part of me wants to say something like this: We might never get to the point of fully addressing black historical grievances. There are legitimate reasons to be unhappy about this, but it also seems to me that at some point, we should recognize that "kids these days" have never cared overmuch about "ancient history." Obama represents to a lot of younger people a break from dwelling on grievances and instead offers the view that maybe it's better just to muddle ahead, and not try to resolve every last thing in the past before we let ourselves look to the future. Another part of Obama's view, I think, and one that I agree with, is that people of different skin color waste a lot of time worrying about our grievances with each other, when we should be spending more time recognizing the similarities

The whole thing is far from "rigged" - all of the rules have long been in place and the terrain was known to one and all, despite Hillary's current tantrums about Florida and Michigan (after her man Harold Ickes approved the DNC's position) and political skills count for much if you're a...you know...politician. The notion of "poor Hillary" is beyond absurd. All I can say is that Obama's done the party a great favor taking this half-baked opportunist and her self-absorbed, reckless hubbie out of the running. Eight years of politics informed by Mark Penn's polling isn't my idea of "progressive."

yeah, in essence, it is rigged, when everyone is sexist, afraid to be called racist for letting the black guy get disappointed and for those reasons you get an absurd amount of attention from the media for months on end. that's, essentially, a rigged election. hillary can't be "poor"? if no one was paying attention to obama because he's black - would he be "poor Obama"? yes he would. obama's absolutely no more progressive than hillary because they have practically the same voting record. you can't get any more "opportunist" than winning based on the color of your skin and your sex.

brucds:

I also have to say there's something incredibly annoying - creepy really - in Dickerson's whining that the only problem with her piece could possibly be that "even really smart people" "lose their literacy" in reading her.

This bothered me, too. I remember reading that piece when it posted on Salon, and since I already had a lot of respect for her, I read it several times. I came to the conclusion, if memory serves, of sort of seeing her point without really buying it. It did seem self-centered of Debra to blame "everybody" for not understanding it. You're right -- it is the writer's first job to be clear. I also suspect that she equated "not understanding" with "not agreeing" in the case of some of her readers. She did come off, at times in this diavlog, as having the attitude that she is the only one who understands the whole racial problem. I'm not saying she's not smart about this. She is, I think, insightful in many ways. But disliked her overgeneralizing and I thought there was a little too much of "my way or the highway" in her manner.

Brendan: Thanks for the careful, considerate response.
Nice.

In spite of her longwinddddddddedness, Dickerson is on the right track. The term "Black" is merely a social construct. As such, all racial paradigms (and their semantic products) are reflections of dominant social and power relations. Where Dickerson demurs, however, is to throw out the entire racial system. Why maintain the use of the term Black at all? Asian has come into prominence as an ethnic, not racial identifier. The older term was once Oriental, which is widely recognized to have been loaded and racist. It seems that Black has simply replaced Negro, which as DuBois recognized more than a century ago was charged term. Obama's appeal is based on the fact that he does not fit into any racial category--i.e., transcends race.

"Obama's appeal is based on the fact that he does not fit into any racial category--i.e., transcends race." Take a snapshot of Michelle, Barack and the kids and tell me that you're looking at folks who "transcend race." If, on the southside of Chicago - even in liberal, middle-class Hyde Park - the Obama's "transcend race" so do all middle-class African-Americans. And of course race is a social construct - which is why Obama has been "black" more than anything else when he arrived on mostly white college campuses or walked the streets of Chicago's South Side as a community organizer - and even as a local politician. If Obma isn't "black" in some meaningful sense in the racial terrain of the United States of America, neither is any black person who's arrived at a relatively high level of socio-economic or professional status. Frankly, I thought Douthat's comments on Michelle Obama were beyond insulting and particularly clueless. He assumes that someone who attains a degree of status or achievement would shed any sense of solidarity with the people whose shoulders they stand on. Not a surprising - and fucked up - attitude for

brucds: I also have to say there's something incredibly annoying - creepy really - in Dickerson's whining that the only problem with her piece could possibly be that "even really smart people" "lose their literacy" in reading her. I hope you don't mind me saying that if you read her books and not her most recent articles or listened to her grating voice, you would have a higher opinion of her. Damning with faint praise sure, but I agree that her whining is not easy to listen to.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: as i said, how is she supposed to win, anyway, when the whole thing is practically rigged. salon even just printed this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...04/07/hillary/

That Salon article, which just rehashes a case the Clinton campaign has been trying to make for weeks now, is a canard. It's ridiculous to be this far along in a contest and then start talking about how things would be different if the rules were suddenly changed. It's like being down in the fourth quarter of a football game, and trying to argue that since your team has scored two touchdowns while the other team has one touchdown and five field goals, things would be different if touchdowns counted for twenty points each. It also completely ignores that fact that Obama would certainly have campaigned differently if the rules were different. I'll be the first one to say that there are all kinds of things wrong with the way the Democrats choose their nominee. But Clinton knew the rules going in. (Or should have -- the obvious ignorance of some aspects; e.g., Texas's especial peculiarities, is something that can be blamed on no one but her

Frankly, I have no interest in her books after listening to this. She strikes me as a mediocrity - I have to say I didn't learn a solitary thing listening to her.

brucds:

Also Dickerson is off base when she attacks the black clergy for homophobia and misogyny in the context of Jeremiah Wright's ministry.

Perhaps so, but I think there was something to her larger point.

You've convinced me with the stone cold logic, Federovington - Hillary Uber Alles !

Of course there's a larger point, but it's evidence of her not knowing very much about the subject being discussed when she uses Jeremiah Wright as her "point person" to jump into this. It makes it sound like Wright is someone he's not and devalues his ministry. Not good form when the guy's being whipped - unfairly and absurdly - as a "racist", "anti-American", "black victimization-monger" etc. He's none of those. He can be rhetorically over-the-top occasionally - like his biblical namesake - but he should be considered a role-model, especially for pastors of his generation. The real embarrassments to the black ministry these days are guys like T.D. Jakes and Creflow Dollar - who fit into the "positive thinking" and "prosperity" theology - along with white guys like Joel Osteen and Robert Schuller - a "niche" which, IMHO, defiles Christianity.

oh.....my.....god. i'm gonna try to be as polite as possible but did you read any of the first few posts i made?
i didn't even read that article so i have no idea what it's about but i can tell it's a "what if" by the title. i was putting it there to help further a point i was trying to make to someone else (hint, hint
PLEASE respond to one of my "core" issues in any of my fist several posts if you have to respond. i'll repeat - i don't care that much about the article- i didn't even read it. it merely put there to help illustrate the "conspiracy of unfairness" as i will now deem it because i happened to be surfing salon in between posts.
if you must reply, please remember: -core issues
-no tangent arguments
-don't forget to include your own substance, not just a quote from me
-i'm not gonna argue about the salon article because i'm well aware it not one of my stronger points. the main points came in nearly every other post

fed:

i didn't even read that article so i have no idea what it's about ...

You post a link to an article that you haven't even read to support your argument, and then you ask me to respond to your "core issues?" I will resist the golden opportunity to point out your real core issues. Instead, I will merely note that one of your main beefs in this thread is that the media is being unfair to Clinton. That article seemed to be a basis for your argument, so it seemed reasonable to respond to it. Pardon me for not knowing that you hadn't read it. Most people do read the sources they offer. Strange, I know, but there it is. The other one of your main points, as far as I can tell, is that you don't like Obama, and have convinced yourself that because you don't, everyone who does must be supporting him for entirely dismissable reasons. This does not seem like something that has much basis in intelligent thought, and is certainly not something I'm going to waste any more time trying to get you to think differently about. Your commandments

...for continuing to bring major African American intellectuals, male and female, to this website. I have greatly appreciated hearing from John, Glenn and Debra in recent weeks. All three have had brilliant insights into current affairs. I hope we will also hear from leading academics and journalists representing other minorities in the near future. Instead of xenophobes like Mickey Kaus ranting about Mexicans and Aztlán, I would love to hear from Mexican and Mexican-American intellectuals who understand our community and the challenges it faces.

it may be a sop, but it's worthless because she already lost, it was pointing out (presumed unfairness), and how many articles have you seen in her favor when it counts, let alone ones that actually mention anything favorable for clinton....not nearly as many as O.
damn! i swore off that article!
you almost had another substance-free debate with me but you messed up. you really surprised me with that second paragraph Obama thing. that was pretty good! substance.
ok, now that i've gotten the obligatory insults out of the way, the reason why i assume that obama has the edge for dismissable reasons is because no one has provided any substantial evidence for supporting him! (i suspect it's because there aren't any) ((please only cite substantial differences/reasons for supporting him that don't include race or sex. keep in mind my reason for voting for hillary is because she's a woman.))
if there is reason to pick him over her, given their voting records, and equally vague/empty campaign formulas, then please enlighten me because i've yet to hear a good reason. i think another poster mentioned yet another good reason to

Dickerson is grating and seems to me not to have too much to say that is interesting, persuasive or intellectually helpful And did Douthat condescend to her in his genteel refusal to really take her on? For example, here is something Douthat quoted by Jay Cost about Obama’s speech that he, Douthat, associated himself with. It’s from his Atlantic blog:

…Wright's divisiveness constitutes a grievous mistake on what Obama takes to be the central question of American identity - are we one people or are we not?

Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. He has been a parishioner for twenty years, and he has been a strong believer in this philosophy of unity for at least four years, since his keynote address in 2004. I appreciate that he cannot walk away from Trinity because the church speaks to who he is. However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did

basman:

I say he wimped out intellectually and personally.

A part of me agrees with you, but I wouldn't go quite that far. First, from what I've seen of Ross both here and on "The Table" on the Atlantic's site, he tends not to be very confrontational in person, especially to people he doesn't know. He seems to be more direct when debating a friend like Matt Yglesias, and even more so, in writing. One could attribute this to manners and/or a preference for coming on strong when he has a chance to edit his own words before sharing them. Second, it's not the easiest thing to be directly confrontational, as a white person, when talking to a black person about race. Much of what Debra spoke about are points that are not, in any case, subject to much debate by any reasonable person. I did think Ross showed a bit too much deference at times, for example, in refusing to say the title of Chris Rock's routine ("Black People and Niggers"), and in not pressing her when she went too far in overgeneralizing, but I also thought he offered some rebuttals. Debra seemed to think so, if we take her

I can't believe what I'm hearing here......as long as blacks continue to 'hate themselves' and each other, and intelligent people like Glenn Loury are willing to deny a black man success based on his efforts because of the risk that it may provide a 'cleaning of the guilt slate'.......then the pimps of entitlement will continue to feed the taken-for-granted electoral machine which says to blacks that they cannot succeed on their own. Someone else has already said it but the message to poor blacks from the dems is: "It takes a village to raise a child, the village is Washington DC and the child is you". Find the article about the Vietnamese refugees who are killing in education and business since coming to Louisiana with virtually nothing. They don't feel they are owed anything so they just go out and do it. The black community has it pounded into their heads by the Lourys, Wrights, Sharptons of the world that they can't get it unless someone hands it to them as a redress of grievance and the results are manifest in innercities

yeah! i can't tell if you're mocking me or not but either way.....yeah! go hill! enjoy your loss as best you can. girl. Hillary 2012!

"i can't tell if you're mocking me" Why am I not surprised ?

I want the black community to show that for the next few trillions of dollars this, "conversation on race", is going to cost is a much better ROI. When the black community is still listening to leaders that direct the anger, whether it is justified or not, into messages of victimization and negativity it remains hard for me to see any use in poring more money down that hole. Mrs Dickerson seems to say this in less direct terms but sees the problem.

damn! i finally actually watched this vid and THANK YOU Debra.....and..............OWNED to everyone who has been attacking me for saying stuff similar to this. OWNED! Hey oh!
Bob, PLEASE ban Glen from appearing because he has finally been exposed as the knee jerk apologist liberal robot that he is. holy crap you "my new black friend" libs just got owned so hardcore. hilarious!
see? there's no conspiracy anymore it's just lots of racist white people and poor blacks who act like 'tards.
see? it's not that hard. it's called "being independent."
(see stuffwhitepeoplelike to find out what else is wrong with you)
Go Shelby Steele! Go Debra! Booo Glen
look who's racist now, fellow attackers, it's YOU for trying to suck up to black people because they're black. owned

Quoting brucds: One more thing - is Dickerson aware that Obama is a native born American, not a "Kenyan" as she constantly references him. He's spent more time in Indonesia as a kid than ever in Kenya, which he's only visited fairly briefly. And his having grown up mostly in extremely multi-cultural Hawaii is probably as big a piece in the puzzle of his "racial" psychology as anything.

Huh? Where does she "constantly" reference him as a Kenyan? I don't recall her referencing Obama as a Kenyan even once. (Same for the Salon essay -- she refers to him as the son of a Kenyan and later mentions his "Kenyan dad," but I don't see her refering to Obama as a Kenyan. Interesting that you and others were struck by her "whining" or her "grating voice." I thought she was a perfectly pleasant person to listen to. Maybe in part because I thought most of what she said was on the money.

fed:

... and how many articles have you seen in her favor when it counts, let alone ones that actually mention anything favorable for clinton....not nearly as many as O.

The primary race began with practically every MSM person in the country fawning over Clinton. She was portrayed as smart, capable, experienced, tough enough to take on the GOP, a survivor, etc. Much was made of the bonus of having her husband back in the White House, too. She got tremendous coverage after New Hampshire, despite the incongruity of the rapid switch from the "inevitable" meme to the "comeback" meme. She also got an excessive amount of boosterism after the March 5 contests -- almost no one emphasized how few delegates she had actually gained. Instead, the talk was all about her having regained momentum and showing how much she appealed to the "base" of the Democratic Party (poorer and older whites). When the sniper story broke, most of the media let her get away with the "misspoke" characterization, rather than calling it for what it was -- a lie that was built into her stump speech. And until very recently, she has been treated as being virtually tied with

whoa! i just watched the rest of the vid and i think i'm gonna have to sue debra for plagiarism because i believe i was saying some of these exact things two weeks ago. i don't care if i'm wrong about every argument i start here for the rest of my life. debra, you are so golden. ya'll got OOOOOOWNED! modest, aren't i?

I just found one black person who said some things that I agree with. Therefore, every idiotic thing I say about race is proven to be true.

Quoting bjkeefe: I just found one black person who said some things that I agree with. Therefore, everything idiotic thing I say about race is proven to be true.

Yes... case closed.
I am da winner.
And as I now own you, I banish you from further sense makin.

You need to listen closer as she she did refer once directly to Senator Obama as being Kenyan. Though from the context of the rest of the diavlog it was obvious that she meant descendant as she refers more tan once to Senator Obama's Kenyan father.

Quoting piscivorous: You need to listen closer as she she did refer once directly to Senator Obama as being Kenyan. Though from the context of the rest of the diavlog it was obvious that she meant descendant as she refers more tan once to Senator Obama's Kenyan father.

Maybe she did, but certainly not "constantly", and my point was that she obviously knows Obama's background perfectly well. And it's hardly unusual to refer to people as "Irish" or "Chinese" or "Italian" as shorthand for "of Irish ancestry" or "of Chinese ancestry" etc.

I agree that he is quite similar in policy stances to Clinton. I prefer him to her for several reasons.

The vote for the Iraq War was an unforgivable betrayal of progressives.That's a compelling reason to support Obama, who denounced the war from the beginning. Hillary has tried to play her deplorable stroke of misjudgment and opportunism as the right thing to do given the intelligence at the time. She has even had the chutzpah to claim that she didn't expect Bush to really pull the trigger; after all, it was merely "authorization," not a declaration of war. But 23 fellow-members of the US Senate knew precisely what that vote meant. A majority of the Dems. in the House of Representatives voted against the authorization (126-81). Hillary played hawk careerist politics with the most important vote of her life. Now it's time to face the consequences of siding with the warmongerers of the Bush administration. In the fall of 2002 we peace activists campaigned with every Congress member in the nation, including Hillary Clinton. My group met personally with our Congressional rep, Lois Capps, to urge her not to green light Bush. Capps looked at

"I don't recall her referencing Obama as a Kenyan even once." Listen again. She clearly refers to him as a Kenyan and turns much of the discussion surrounding Obama's alleged "non-blackness" toward African immigrants. It's all very odd. As I said, if Obama's not black in Dickerson's world, neither have been W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Stokely Charmichael, Colin Powell nor Orlando Patterson - none of whom have any lineage traceable to the "typical black persons" who form the core of African-American culture/demographics, i.e. non-immigrant descendants of slaves from the American south.

One time? I said it was going to rain tomorrow. Then the weather report said the same thing. AFTER!!!111!! Bow down before my greatness.

It's all very odd. As I said, if Obama's not black in Dickerson's world, neither have been W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Stokely Charmichael, Colin Powell nor Orlando Patterson - none of whom have any lineage traceable to the "typical black persons" who form the core of African-American culture/demographics, i.e. non-immigrant descendants of slaves from the American south.

It doesn't seem so odd to me. She is simply saying that the descendants of slaves and segregation who were brought here in chains have a different culture and historical experience than black immigrants. Calling everyone "black" based on skin-color or pan-African ancestry, blurs important distinctions. This also operates, by the way, with "Latinos." The descendants of Mexicans in the Southwest are not the same as Cubans in Florida or Puerto Ricans in New York. It wouldn't occur to anyone to say César Chávez and the children of an dentist from Montevideo share the same culture or historical experience. Calling them "Latino" is confusing and -- in fact --- denigrating to both their heritages.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: whoa! i just watched the rest of the vid and i think i'm gonna have to sue debra for plagiarism because i believe i was saying some of these exact things two weeks ago. i don't care if i'm wrong about every argument i start here for the rest of my life. debra, you are so golden. ya'll got OOOOOOWNED! modest, aren't i?

It's fascinating how cathartic this was for you. You seem to be absolutely blown away. In your own words, could you summarize which "exact things" you said two weeks ago that Debra repeated in this diavlog?

Quoting TwinSwords: In your own words, could you summarize which "exact things" you said two weeks ago that Debra repeated in this diavlog?

Awww, make it hard on him, Twin. Request dingalinks and hyperlinks to his alleged corresponding posts. Note to fed-poop: we will notice the updated timestamps, should you be frantically rewriting history at this moment.

Quoting brucds: "I don't recall her referencing Obama as a Kenyan even once." Listen again. She clearly refers to him as a Kenyan and turns much of the discussion surrounding Obama's alleged "non-blackness" toward African immigrants. It's all very odd. As I said, if Obama's not black in Dickerson's world, neither have been W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Stokely Charmichael, Colin Powell nor Orlando Patterson - none of whom have any lineage traceable to the "typical black persons" who form the core of African-American culture/demographics, i.e. non-immigrant descendants of slaves from the American south.

Well, we always have a choice between reducing someone's argument to a soundbite and dismissing it, or treating it charitably and really grappling with it. When you ask whether she is aware that he was born in the US and say that she "constantly" references him as Kenyan, then it seems to me that you're reducing and dismissing. That's all I was trying to say. There's plenty to disagree with or agree with in her arguments, but suggesting that she doesn't realize Obama was born in this country (when it's obvious from the conversation that she knows his biography perfectly well) is quite unfair. I don't see what's "very odd" about

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: i don't care if i'm wrong about every argument i start here for the rest of my life.

Especially when considering the source, one must admire the occasional outburst of reality-grasping. Well. maybe not. fed-poop is right about being wrong, and he's also right about not caring, but I don't think he has a prayer of starting any arguments. Chum for snark attacks is the best I can imagine.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: damn! i finally actually watched this vid and THANK YOU Debra.....and..............OWNED to everyone who has been attacking me for saying stuff similar to this. OWNED! Hey oh!
Bob, PLEASE ban Glen from appearing because he has finally been exposed as the knee jerk apologist liberal robot that he is. holy crap you "my new black friend" libs just got owned so hardcore. hilarious!
see? there's no conspiracy anymore it's just lots of racist white people and poor blacks who act like 'tards.
see? it's not that hard. it's called "being independent."
(see stuffwhitepeoplelike to find out what else is wrong with you)
Go Shelby Steele! Go Debra! Booo Glen
look who's racist now, fellow attackers, it's YOU for trying to suck up to black people because they're black.

owned

^ I think this is what Ross was referring to when he said that Chris Rock stopped delivering his famous routine because white people were laughing a bit too much. The most racist people I know lean on Crosby like a crutch, and love to throw him in the face of evil white liberals. The same people take great delight in many of Dave Chappel's old routines. If it points the finger at black people

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: the reason why hillary lost to obama is white guilt about slavery
[...]
there's no way he'd even be considered if he were white

Of course, you must be aware that these feelings (and they are nothing more than feelings) of yours cannot be proven, or falsified. That leaves us with the question of why you believe them, and what that tells us about you. Any thoughts on that? Also: Why does "white guilt about slavery" aggravate you so much?

Wow, I have to say, Mrs. Dickerson is a truly amazing person and a stunning intellect. She is easily one of the best bloggingheads to ever appear. Please come back, Debra. We all need to hear more of what you have to say. Best hour of engaging dialogue I've seen in a long time. Ross was also his usual great self. They made a great pair for this conversation.

Twin:

I think this [fed-poop pooping] is what Ross was referring to when he said that Chris Rock stopped delivering his famous routine because white people were laughing a bit too much.

My thoughts exactly. I liked a lot else of what you had to say, but there's one part that troubles me: you appeared to agree with Debra's argument for succeeding "in spite of;" i.e., the whole idea of making something wholly within the black community without any involvement with whites. There's something to be said for this attitude, but it can get carried away into an attitude of determined isolationism. For all the righteous indignation at bigotry, and at the well-meaning but misguided efforts by other whites, this vision ultimately does not help. As a rallying cry, I can admire it, especially as juxtaposed against waiting for someone else to come along and solve all problems. As a true guiding principle, though, I reject is as no different from, and no better than, previous invocations of "separate but equal." It's a small planet and a lot of people, and none of us can afford to reject the others.

Quoting David Thomson: if our troubles over race disappeared this very moment---a lot of people would be forced to find another way of earning a living!

Quoting David Thomson: This is because the very premise of [the Democratic] party's approach to race relations is to refuse to solve the problem.

Despite your obvious contempt for anyone who wishes to talk about race problems, you have twice acknowledged that they exist. I wonder if you could do me a favor and describe the nature of the race problem. Can you be specific about describing exactly what you mean by "our troubles over race" and "the problem" with "race relations"?

Quoting brucds: I'm sorry but an author who protests that much about being "misunderstood" has obviously done a crappy job of making themselves understood.

That's just not true as a general rule. (Whether it's true in the specific instance you're describing is another question.) Clearly, and I'm sure you would agree, there are certain subjects that cannot be broached or discussed honestly in certain societies at certain times. Taboos against certain ideas are every bit as powerful as taboos against certain behaviors.

Quoting sleepyhead: Interesting that you and others were struck by her "whining" or her "grating voice." I thought she was a perfectly pleasant person to listen to.

Agreed.

Quoting sleepyhead: Interesting that you and others were struck by her "whining" or her "grating voice." I thought she was a perfectly pleasant person to listen to. Maybe in part because I thought most of what she said was on the money.

Agreed.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: everyone is ... afraid to be called racist for letting the black guy get disappointed
[...]
paying attention to obama because he's black
[...]
winning based on the color of your skin

You know, someone should probably point out to you that Barack Obama isn't the first black American, nor the only black American. (There are actually several million of them!) If there was even a slight bit of truth to your thesis that Obama's success is entirely due to white guilt and his skin color, wouldn't we have elected a black president a long time ago? Along with a whole slew of black governors and Senators and Representatives? Doesn't reality itself demolish your premise, since there are scant facts to support your argument? Why do you believe things with no factual basis?

I agree. I read alot of the comments before watching and I was expecting her to be much more abrasive. Her point about nobody understanding her essay, was poorly worded, but not "whiny" to me. I thought she made some very interesting points and was also quite funny. The point where she tried to bait Ross into saying the N-word was classic. The look on his face was absolutely perfect. He was great too. Though I often disagree with his politics, he always asks great questions and gives thoughtful responses. My only wish was that (as good as Ross was) it would have been great to have John McWhorter on with Debra. Maybe next time. I think it says alot about America and our obsession with racial identity that somebody as interesting, intelligent and positive as Barack Hussein Obama can be raised as an American with bi-racial heritage and world experience, and yet we can't resist trying to fit him into a racial category of black or white. Great diavlog. Definitely have Debra back.

"there are certain subjects that cannot be broached or discussed honestly in certain societies at certain times" I'm sorry but Dickerson's lame, lazy thesis doesn't even begin to approach a "taboo" subject. She could have written an interesting piece on the varieties and complexities of being "black" in the current U.S. of A. without coming off reductive to the point of not making much sense and, frankly, abusing her subject. And her predictions in the piece have turned out to be fairly consistently wrong. It was a lousy piece of writing - mostly because the thinking behind it was remarkably superficial.

Quoting brucds: "I don't recall her referencing Obama as a Kenyan even once." Listen again. She clearly refers to him as a Kenyan and turns much of the discussion surrounding Obama's alleged "non-blackness" toward African immigrants. It's all very odd. As I said, if Obama's not black in Dickerson's world, neither have been W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Stokely Carmichael, Colin Powell nor Orlando Patterson - none of whom have any lineage traceable to the "typical black persons" who form the core of African-American culture/demographics, i.e. non-immigrant descendants of slaves from the American south.

brucds, You can also add Louis Farrakhan to your list. And Malcolm's mother who raised him was from Grenada. It's actually striking how many prominent Blackamerican leaders (especially Black Nationalists) are of Caribbean heritage. Partially, because of your comments I am reluctant to even listen to this diavlog, but I assume that someone trying to make the argument that Obama's heritage was not consistent with most Blackamericans, would probably try to argue that all of these people from the Caribbean still came out of the experience of being enslaved and brought forcibly to the western hemisphere rather than out of any immigrant experience, which is a different experience. But

Also, when I said Dickerson was "whining" it had nothing to do with the quality of her voice nor her persona. She's pleasant enough and I don't find anything striking about her voice one way or the other. The "whining" was her notion that the only reason someone would find fault in her piece was because it was so "deep" in parsing race that they didn't get it. It was a silly piece. Remarkably so.

Oh, and just to be topical, neither of the two gentlemen just inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon are "Black" (according to Ms. Dickerson's definition) either. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Abu - I shouldn't have limited that to "African immigrants." Dickerson also explicitly includes immigrants from the Caribbean in her discussion of folks who are percieved as "black"' but who don't share the "typical" African-American experience in the USA. The problem with Dickerson is that while she claims to want to parse "complexity" she does it in a way that's actually reductive.

"I don't see what's "very odd" about pointing out that Obama's background is quite different than that of most blacks in the United States, and thinking about how that different experience shapes his relationship with the black community and his relationship with the white community." Nothing odd about that - what's odd is writing a stupid piece in Salon that pretty much in retrospect gets everything wrong about Obama's potential and uses the nonsensical forumlation that, given his having a Kenyan father, he's "not black" in the context of the U.S.of A. There are people who would claim that Dickerson "isn't really black" or "isn't black enough" anymore because she married a white man and has a relatively elite professional status. Their case has almost as much merit as Dickerson's silly construct of Obama's credibility as a "black man in America." And of course, they're idiots.

I say the fundamental intellectual problem with Debra Dickerson is to conflate public and private spheres and assert Blackness as a social construct into the public sphere where, generally speaking, race and ethnicity should be incidental. Social construct analysis is a post modernist bane that privileges identity politics, which itself leads to special pleading. Which is why, underlying David Thomson's strange and wierd posts, lies a kernel of truth.

One thing that stood out in this diavlog...I will never understand why so many Americans (especially conservatives) get their panties in such a bunch over "patriotism." In such a large and complex world, where an understanding of everyone's interests and motivations is crucial, the America-as-the-center-of-the-universe and damn anybody who says otherwise outlook seems overly simplistic to the point where it irrationally retards critical thought. the irony is that the same "patriotism" crowd often seems to completely fail to understand how people in other countries (like Iraq) might feel the same way. At what point is it ok to condemn the actions of your government? Should the Chinese be patriotic today? How about citizens in Nazi Germany? I just don't understand why people are so intolerant of anyone pointing out the warts that are apparent to all, on the face of our own country. Isn't that the first step to trying to improve it. Ross is right about this, especially in white America.

His FATHER was black. His MOTHER was white. That makes him half black & half white. When we call him black, aren't we accepting the old racist canard that one drop of black blood makes you black? I thought we really had gotten beyond that.

Obama's FATHER was black. His MOTHER was white. Therefore, he's half black & half white, & would be just as justified in calling himself white. Unless we accept the old racist canard that one drop of black blood makes you black. But I thought we really HAD gotten by that.

It doesn't seem so odd to me. She is simply saying that the descendants of slaves and segregation who were brought here in chains have a different culture and historical experience than black immigrants.

Perhaps it isn't odd. But in any case that isn't all she's saying. She's also saying something about the meaning of the term "black" in America -- that it properly applies only to the descendants of West African slaves. That's an empirical claim about the semantics of an expression in American English. Debra referred to her argument for that semantic claim, but I didn't hear one in the diavlog, or find one in her article (though she says she presents one in her book). Rather, she simply asserted that that's the term's meaning, that that's how it's currently used. But that seems rather contentious, given how so many people -- blacks (in her sense) included -- apply it to Obama (e.g.). Obama may not possess all of the core features of "blackness," but current usage of the term in America suggests that he possesses enough of them for the term to properly apply.

Calling everyone "black" based on skin-color

I am a white Canadian, but if I were an American, I believe--and I am a liberal--that I would not owe nobody anything except to look out for those near and dear to me, support a fair and decent, race neutral safety social net, obey the law and pay my taxes. And I don't think I would feel one ounce of what is called so easily and loosely --even though perhaps only to reify it --"white guilt".

Perhaps it isn't odd. But in any case that isn't all she's saying. She's also saying something about the meaning of the term "black" in America -- that it properly applies only to the descendants of West African slaves.

That's not what I got from listening to her comments or reading the article. I concede that the most felicitous way to make her argument was not to say, "Obama isn't black," but what she means neither not mysterious nor wrong: She's simply pointing to the distinction between immigrants with African ancestry on the one hand and the descendants of slaves and segregation on the other. She is making a very rational call for more research into how these societies/experiences/cultures differ, intersect and converge. I'm as mystified as she is that her article stirred up a shitstorm of controversy.

"Asian" is general, but we can speak of Koreans or Japanese when we want also. Similarly, the (for many purposes important) distinction between descendants of West African slaves and Nigerian or Caribbean US immigrants is an easy one to make. (I just made it, and it was easy.)

It's not easy. That's her whole point. If it were easy

What room does Barack Obama walk into and people's heads turn ("black" peoples or "white" peoples) and somebody whispers to another, "Look at that cute white guy!" or some such. Let's please stop the stupid. And given Dickerson's attempts to parse the "varieties of black experience" let's stop and think for a minute what the hell "white" means. How can Dickerson justify the vernacular, all-purpose use of the term "white" - which includes in the American context folks of extraordinarily disparate ethnicity, cultural heritage and national origin. "White" means nothing more than "not black." In fact, I doubt that the generic term "white" was particularly important as a catch-all designation prior to the American experience. It is a term that is predicated on the proximity and legacy of subjugation of people who are "black" and exists solely because of, frankly, the utility of racism in American history. "White" became a way of binding a bunch of disparate groups - and most importantly classes - together on the basis of an assumed shared superiority and privilege. The very notion of "passing for white" makes it obvious that this has historically been a matter of how one is percieved in a social

I should have said "equally meaningless" rather than "even more meaningless"

In fact, I doubt that the generic term "white" was particularly important as a catch-all designation prior to the American experience.

European colonialism invented "whiteness" and exported the racist ideology to the rest of the world. It's a hard meme to erradicate.

The very notion of "passing for white" makes it obvious that this has historically been a matter of how one is percieved in a social context based on skin color. So how "black" one looks is the marker.

Not true anymore. Biracial people who look as white as Hillary Clinton or John McCain often identify as "black," just as Barack Obama does -- by adhering to a black cultural community; i.e., belonging to a church, living in a neighborhood, marrying, speaking African American English, attending a predominantly black university like Howard or Spelman, etc.

"Biracial people, etc. etc." - yeah but that's a choice THEY make if they, in fact, look "as white as Hillary Clinton." In fact there have been numerous examples of "white" people, i.e. soley of European national origin, who made this same choice during the era of segregation because of marriage, cultural affinity or even an ethical choice. But a person who "looks black" doesn't experience that as a choice - even today. Obama, in fact, "looks black" and doesn't have a choice as to how folks percieve him (given his celebrity it begins to become a moot point because so much stuff is attached to his person that goes well beyond "black guy.") There are all kinds of qualifiers and caveats one can attach to the notion of "blackness" but I know from my own family that if you are biracial and have obviously black features one of the most peristent experiences one confronts in social situations is dealing with a set of assumptions based on "black" stereotypes. This happens if you're a student at an elite college who gets dealt with by campus security in ways that white kids never have happen to

i've got a great game for all you pc nerds:
http://backhand.uchicago.edu/Center/ShooterEffect/
you probably saw it as it was in the nyt. pretty revealing, huh?

“We can make categorization by race go away, but we could never make gender categorization go away,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/op...44e&ei=5087%0A here's the adjoining article for all of you 'tards to who have a hard time with this stuff. do you guys ever get tired of getting owned or do you just get used to it?

Quoting brucds: What room does Barack Obama walk into and people's heads turn ("black" peoples or "white" peoples) and somebody whispers to another, "Look at that cute white guy!" or some such.

Let's please stop the stupid.

Good idea! Let's start by dispensing with the stupid rhetorical questions that distort and caricature arguments you disagree with, such "Is Dickerson even aware that Obama was born in the U.S.?" or "What room does Obama walk into and somebody whispers to another, 'Look at that cute white guy!' or some such?"

Since Dickerson called Obama a "Kenyan" and obsessed on the issue of African and West Indian immigrants as somehow invalidating Obama's "blackness" in an American context, that's a valid question. As for the rest, what's your point ? You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

holy shit!
MORE pwnage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnl...one_last_time/ god damn!

She's simply pointing to the distinction between immigrants with African ancestry on the one hand and the descendants of slaves and segregation on the other.

She is making a very rational call for more research into how these societies/experiences/cultures differ, intersect and converge.

Again, she's not simply doing that. She's also expressing a thesis about the meaning of "black," even though that may not be a main concern of hers.

It's not easy. That's her whole point. If it were easy for Americans to make those distinctions regarding African immigrants to the USA and African-Americans of slave/segregation descent, the question of Obama's identity would be crystal clear. But it's not.

No, making the distinction itself is easy. If people were offered a convincing story about why they should make the distinction (and there are obviously lots of possible stories of that sort), any normal adult would easily make it. Being able to make the distinction, however, doesn't help one to understanding the current meaning of "black" in the US (and hence Obama's identity with respect to blackness). That's shown by the fact that, among people who can easily make the distinction (I, you, Debra, etc.), some think

Quoting brucds: Since Dickerson called Obama a "Kenyan" and obsessed on the issue of African and West Indian immigrants as somehow invalidating Obama's "blackness" in an American context, that's a valid question. As for the rest, what's your point ? You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

It's only a valid question if you pretend that you didn't hear her discussing the fact that Obama was born in the U.S. to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya who then abandoned his family and left the country again. Let's stop the stupid, as you say.

Again, she's not simply doing that. She's also expressing a thesis about the meaning of "black," even though that may not be a main concern of hers.

I think we differ on what is the take-away message of her article. For me, the key point (both existentially for African Americans and in general for intellectual clarity) is the distinction between immigrants with black African ancestry and American descendants of slavery/segregation. For Debra's critics the uproar is that she "accused" Obama of not being "black." She is dismayed by this criticism because she didn't mean to call his identity into question. The confusion is partly because of her punchline buried deep in the article:

Obama isn't black.

Shocking on its face, but followed by a working definition of "black" (in quotes in the original) which clarifies what she means:

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that

I think we differ on what is the take-away message of her article.

I have no strong opinion on what her main message is/was, and I haven't been addressing that at all. (It might help to say that, although my initial post was a reply to one of yours, I really used your post as a good jump-off point to say a few things I wanted to say independently. My intention wasn't so much to express disagreement with any of your main points.)

She is dismayed by this criticism because she didn't mean to call his identity into question.

I believe she did intend to call his blackness into question, and is making no secret of that. (Can you point to any places where she explicitly says otherwise?) She just thinks that because (according to her) "black" means descended from West African slaves (etc.) -- as is made clear in the extended quotation you provided -- then of course Obama isn't black. So what's the big deal? Well, the big deal is her controversial claim (unargued for, as far as I have seen) that "black" means descended from West African slaves (etc.).

I understand her to be saying, "For the purposes of

She nowhere says anything like, "For the purposes of this conversation let's call..."

But she does. She says,

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.

This implies that OUTSIDE "our political and social reality," black means something else. I doubt very much that if she met Desmond Tutu and he said, "I am a black man," she would reply, "No, you're not. Your ancestors never lived in Georgia." She would, of course, concede that by "black" Tutu meant people like him (and Obama's father). That's because "black" means something different in Tutu's "political and social reality."

I do think your and my disagreement is a further illustration of the fact that her position on this matter is less clear (or at least has been expressed less clearly) than she believes.

On that we can agree!

This implies that OUTSIDE "our political and social reality," black means something else.

I doubt very much that if she met Desmond Tutu and he said, "I am a black man," she would reply, "No, you're not. Your ancestors never lived in Georgia."

She would, of course, concede that by "black" Tutu meant people like him (and Obama's father). That's because "black" means something different in Tutu's "political and social reality."

I agree. But I see this (and I believe Debra does too) as a difference between American English and other forms of English -- which can be conceived as distinct, though massively overlapping, languages. (This list of differences between American and British English shows the sort of thing I have in mind.) What's important, though, is that the semantic differences are objective facts about word meanings in the languages of different language communities. They're quite unlike cases in which one stipulates that a word will be used in a nonstandard way for the purposes of some conversation. It's this that enables her to say, "According to the way we use the word "black" here in the USA, Obama isn't black." And I believe she's wrong about how the term is used in American English (in spite

"voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics" is the new black. Dickerson was discussing a phenomenon which any reasonably informed person who has spent fifteen minutes thinking about what the dubious concept of "race" means in various social contexts would already likely know. She did it poorly and used a particularly stupid locution in asserting that in our "political and social reality" a person of Obama's particular ethnicity and background isn't "black." The distinction she's attempting to make goes much deeper than even she asserts in the "varieties of blackness" in America. For her assertion regarding our "political and social reality" to be even "half-true" it would be necessary for the answer to the question, "How is a person of Obama's ethnicity percieved by the majority of folks who function within our political and social reality?" to be "Not black!" That's not true of the way such persons in general - or even Obama, about whom we know much - are percieved among black folks, much less white folks.
Dickerson belabors some obvious differences in

damn! another one.
http://http://www.washingtonmonthly...._04/013495.php triple own??

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: damn! another one.
http://http://www.washingtonmonthly...._04/013495.php

triple own??

You want praise for demonstrating an inability to cut and paste?

Why are we even still having diavlogs about race relations in America? Don't you people remember that Bruce Bartlett solved all these issues almost a month ago??

Important and very inclusive discussion for those of us who are desperate for peace and reconciliation. About Senator Obama, anyone who can endure the ridiculous campaign process for over a year, with sleep deprivation and barely seeing ones young children is proof enough of patriotism for me. Thank you, Debra.