> That makes it more dangerous and offensive, not less.
Basically, you are saying that Obama is more dangerous and offensive than Clinton or McCain, because as a Black man he had the spunk to make the (obvious) statement that -- before he graduated from Harvard or became a U.S. senator -- generations of Black fighters had already made substantial progress in the struggle for racial equality. Or because, as he makes it clear in his book, aside from recognizing that the fight for racial equality is an unfinished struggle, he lays out a vision for the country of unity across racial lines.
Offensive, perhaps. To some. Some people are more sensitive than others. But how in this planet does *that* make him more dangerous? How does that make him more likely than Hillary or McCain to promote racism? How does that make him more likely than Hillary or McCain to neglect the reconstruction of the Gulf coast? Etc. He won the South in the primaries thanks to Black support! Do you think that, if elected president, he would not want to be re-elected?
Don't you think your claim is a bit disproportionate?
And where's the Black backlash against Obama? I'm trying to follow the news and find no evidence of it. I'd be glad to stand corrected if in fact such an event is going on.
* * *
On the issue of Obama = Mandela | Denzel Washington | Tiger Woods | Derek Jeter | Barry Bonds, I think a more apt parallel could be Jackie Robinson -- the first Black baseball player in the Major Leagues, famous for his dignified serenity in the face of racial abuse. Although I defend the right of Blacks to rebel against oppression *by any means necessary*, I also respect the individual compromises and tactical choices that people like Jackie Robinson may feel they have to make to advance. And, based on the fact of the enormous popularity of Jackie Robinson among Blacks (at least in Brooklyn, where the Dodgers used to play), I imagine that Blacks are not extremely judgmental of the approach either.