Obama has run a campaign about common values that bring all of us together.  What this diary, and others like it, is about is the ongoing effort by supporters of rival campaigns to make Obama's campaign about race, whether in reality it is or not, based on the crass political calculation that if you are able to make his candidacy about race, your preferred candidate will win.  I would not be particularly surprised to see this from republicans.  I am surprised and frankly disappointed to see the ongoing race-baiting from democrats.  Its ugly.

Republicans have already said the drug use is on the table in the general.

You have Republicans like Buchanan saying Obama's bigoted, anti-semite Pastor, the Rev. Wright's name will be more well known than the Pope (there goes Florida).

His irresponsible comments on Pakistan will be thrown at him.

His trillion dollar Social Security tax increase will be thrown at him.

He will lose Ohio on Pa and maybe Michigan on the race issue alone.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the point you're making about "perceived" racism.  Back when I was in college, at the height of PC and also of the PC backlash, the standard narrative on race was one of what I guess I'd call moral relativism.  In other words, a white guy doesn't get to determine what's racist and what isn't.  The sole determinant is whether a particular listener feels offended by it.

White America, of course, always gets to determine what the mainstream is, and in this case the mainstream deemed that standard to be pretty unacceptable.  It was a power thing, I guess, no one wanted to cede the power to determine which statements are offensive.  And the really put-upon white guys - the Rush Limbaugh listener types - created a standard of their own, where the only thing that matters is the intent of the speaker.  If you don't mean to offend - even if you're a clueless idiot who has no idea what's offensive - then you're automatically absolved of the charge of racism.

And somewhere in the middle you have the rest of us, believing that some statements are racist even if you don't mean to offend, but also that some accusations of racism are nothing but oversensitivity.  You make a lot of enemies being in the middle so we mostly just keep our heads down.

The fact that it's a power struggle, that everyone wants to claim for themselves the right to say what's racist and what isn't, really comes to light in the context of a political campaign.  It's hard to tell who is honestly offended, who is just feigning outrage, and who is offended solely because they've been misinformed about what was said and the intent behind it.  And just like in non-racial politics, no one wants to give the other side total control to side what's out of bounds.  If you're a Clinton supporter who thinks there was nothing wrong with those various controversial statements, you probably look at the charges of racism the same way you look at the Republicans who say "how dare liberals accuse General Petraeus of treason, how dare John Kerry say the troops are stupid, etc."

I don't know if I'm making a point that pertains to the diary or if I'm just thinking out loud, but in all these years we still haven't been able to come to a consensus on the definition of racism and who gets to make the judgment.

I see. Your supporting Clinton based on your concern that white voters who support Obama are really latent racists.  Right.

This isn't about "engag[ing] in thinking."  Its yet another attempt to deal the race card against Obama.  And I'm sure it won't be the last.

but still relevant to your thought process. I urge you to vote for your original first choice, especially if you don't have a clear preference between Clinton and Obama. There are benefits to having Edwards stay in the race, accumulating delegates, even if he does not win the nomination.

Thanks bruh21 for trying to bring the topic of race into perspective and make it a topic we can discuss.  Race, prejudices and racism all have an impact on daily life for AAs and for any of us that live in a multi-racial and multi-cultural milieu.

What I have despaired about is that any attempt to discuss the fears and the various perspectives is immediately seen as trying to disparage Obama's candidacy.  We have to find ways to talk about these issues.  

I don't know what the outcome can be when we discuss these issues because so many don't know how to recognize their own attitudes.  Being self-reflective is a learned skill and usually occurs under challenging conditions.  

I applaud your raising the topic again.  Whether his supporters understand or not Obama's race is a factor and so is Edwards' and Clinton's.  Clinton's gender is a factor and so is Obama's and Edwards'.  That creates complexities that are not being well discussed.

I did not know the term "magic negro" until a few weeks ago.  I have puzzled over it and how some white voters do see Obama as a sign that racism will be ended if he is elected.  It seems like a concept completely isolated from the real world concerns and issues that all families are facing, especially the working poor of any race.  Nonethless the AAs face daunting challenges that will not be solved by symbolic gestures and that is why I support Edwards.  

If a year ago somebody had said that I would support the Southern white male over a woman or a minority candidate I would have laughed my head off.  But I actually am guided by issues.  I can't believe that this radical feminist is supporting the Southern white male.  I think I wanted to support Obama to show that we have moved beyond race in this country and that talent of any race is recognized.  But on issue after issue I just disagreed with him and agreed with Edwards.  I finally concluded that symbolism wasn't enough and not what we needed for the country at this time.  

He's been clear that his did not support Reagan's policies.  Its clear, though, that Reagan was able to engender support from democrats who disagreed with most of his particular policies because they appreciated his larger vision of America and the sense that Reagan gave that he was taking the country to a better place.

That's what Obama is pitching, in my opinion.  And he has, at least anecdotally, shown the ability to win over people who disagree with him on most particular issues because they like his larger vision of what the country can be.  And bringing in those people, who would otherwise vote republican or not vote is a formula for obtaining a mandate for progressive policies that even Clinton never had.

Hillary's arguments about her experience are fine in the primary, because she is the most experienced.  But frankly, no democrat is going to win this election over any of the Republicans if the general election debate is over who is most experienced.  The debate has to be one of change and one of altering course and direction.  And I think that in that debate, Obama's message resonates the best.  Just my opinion.

I started to respond but instead will simply re-post what I said in the last thread which you've never responded to:

The way we as a society get beyond racism is to start acting with people in an interpersonal way which drops statements like "people like you".  If you want to talk honestly about race then you need to talk honestly about our experiences and that this country has been, and continues to be in far too many cases, racist in a general and institutional sense, and non-racist is many specific interpersonal cases.  Merely having a black friend doesn't make you non-racist in general.  Having a nurse or doctor who performs extraordinarily well in an ER does not mean there isn't overall a problem with how people of color are treated in ERs.  Obama acknowledges this, how could he not?  Do you think really think his personal experiences have shielded him from this overwhelming force in our society.  As he said in the Howard debate when his blackness was questioned, no one questions whether he's black enough when he tries to hail a cab uptown.

But to define the world in only these large terms, to see it as only a clash "between the polar choices we are given in American politics (either the "magic negro" or the "Al Sharpton" treatment)", is to view our experiences only through the prism of racial prejudice...which in my book is the definition of racism.  The reality of our experience is not that we have the two polar opposites you suggest, but rather we have interpersonal colorblindness and institutional racism.  What we have seen over the past 40 years is that between these two forces, the interpersonal is more powerful.  It is why integration has been so important and continues to be despite any advances which may have been made.  It is, belatedly, the immigration experience of African-Americans into the melting pot which has defined America as a whole.  

And this is where Obama, not as a just a Black man, but really as a mixed-race man comes in.  In 2000, Newsweek ran a cover of "The Changing Face of America" which highlighted that mixed race people were the fastest growing segment of our society.   And yet our forms still don't adequately leave room for that segment, there is no box to check, and in many respects our politics has yet to allow room for that as well.  You see him only in terms of a black candidate.  What his supporters see is that he is both that and also something quite different.

When my daughter, who is half-Korean, was at Berkeley she was heavily involved in a class called Poetry for the People, which dealt with race in both extremely political and personal terms.  She and another mixed race classmate of a white father and hispanic mother, wrote the following which I think is very pertinent:

One of the common sayings you'll hear in the Poetry for People world is that "personal is political," but it is also important to recognize that the political is also very personal.  For those of us who are of "mixed race" the concept of labels and/or picking sides often has to do with who we come home to and who we face when looking in the mirror.

How do we negotiate our identities when the very words that we are given to do so completely negate each other?  The very phrase itself : "a person of color," implies that to be Caucasian is to be the absence of color.  Being both, these labels seem to cancel out our existence.  Because in reality, we are not the product of conquest, we are not the product of colonization or occupation, we are the product of love.  And it gets to the point where we can only latch onto the "color" in us for so long before we take offense not only on behalf of our fathers, but for ourselves.  

Our politics at this point is beginning to be integrated.  That is something which is good and has certainly helped to chip away at some of the institutional racism.  That's a work in progress.  But what an Obama Presidency represents for race is not just a bigger step for political integration but a radical shift , to move the American identity toward that of a mixed race person, and as a country to look in the mirror and truly see that person defined in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.  It is not to ignore our racial divides.  But it is to fully realize, without cynicism or fear, that what unites us is truly more powerful than what divides us. That is something which anyone who has had a child knows is truly the only reality which matters.

Having talked with scores of white Iowans who caucused for Obama, I think that his race was a plus in their minds, but not the deciding factor. I am not saying that people caucused for Obama just to show they are not racist, but I think that his candidacy drew more interest than a first-term white senator who was a great speaker would have.

I would also say that Obama's race made it a lot harder for Edwards to play the electability card in Iowa. It was very easy for Obama supporters to push back and accuse Edwards or his advocates of saying we all have to vote for another white guy.

I think there is something to the "magic Negro" analysis of how white supporters view Obama. His support was definitely not grounded in people reading policy proposals--as one person told me, "There is an 'it' and Obama has it."

On the other hand, negative stereotypes about black men no doubt create a minefield for Obama. One conversation I had while canvassing in December really drove this home for me.

When I've watched Obama in debates, and on the two occasions when I saw him speak in person, I've been struck by how low-key he his. He has a very different energy than Edwards or even someone like Biden. He doesn't sound particularly passionate when he speaks.

While I was canvassing, an undecided (white, female) voter in my neighborhood told me she liked Edwards, and also mentioned that when she listens to Obama she thinks he sometimes comes across as "too brash."

Too brash? Compared to Edwards? You have got to be kidding me. That "angry black man" stereotype is alive and well.

Maybe Obama is naturally low-key, and maybe it's always been his main priority to bring people together, but after that conversation with the woman in my neighborhood, I started looking at Obama's strategy differently.

Maybe this peacemaking, conciliatory persona is his best defense against stereotypes about black men.

"Maybe this peacemaking, conciliatory persona is his best defense against stereotypes about black men."

That's the thing about Obama.  Its not a "persona."  Its who he is.  When he's asked in a debate what his biggest weakness is, he tells the truth.  He doesn't transparently dress up some positive trait as a weakness.  I think that there is a genuineness to his optimism that sets him apart from all the other candidates, democrat and republican.  And that, I think, is what attracts people to him, even those on the other side of the political spectrum.

This reminds me of the true story about the fancy golf club in Westchester County, NY that claimed it did not discriminate because it had one black member: Bryant Gumbel (when he was the host of the Toay Show).

"Special cases" are merely an extension of the old crap.  You are so right.

Hopefully you can have a discussion on this issue. Here in GA the issue is more overt in a lot of ways.

I do, unfortunately, think that SOME Obama supporters think that if he wins an election all the problems that blacks have will dissipate. If he loses it could make things way worse.