Are you deliberately misreading me? I make no claims that one politician is more dangerous and offensive than another. I claim the lie that blacks are 90% equal with whites is more dangerous when it comes from the mouth of a black man than a white man or woman. You and Obama's other supports keep trying to make his statement equal to simply claiming "progress has been made" when that is not what he said. Since minority wealth in the US is only about 60% of white wealth claiming it is really 90% is dangerous. It is more dangerous because if a white said this it would be pointed out that it was a lie and would work to keep dialogue alive on racial disparity in wealth distribution. If it's 90% however there is no need for such dialogue. We can tweak that 10% pretty easily with no major government policies needed. Is the fact that you and his supports need to rephrase his statement to make it palatable not evidence enough for you of it's offensive nature?
> 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?
>
If I had claimed what you state I did then yes it would be disproportionate. Since I didn't claim any such thing I'll stand by my real claim.
> 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.
>
How do you define backlash? Obama has many black detractors and they are easy enough to find. Some are on this list.
> * * *
>
> 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.
Obama faces nowhere near the racial abuses Jesse Jackson faced when he became the first black man to make a serious run for the US Presidency so I'm not sure where the Robinson analogy comes from. Unless it's part of the whole unrealistic hyperbolic praise that so many people seem rather anxious to heap upon a candidate with rather unremarkable and centrist views.
John Thornton