Agreed, but here's where it becomes impossible to have a meaningful discussion about racism.

The term needs definition before we can seriously evaluate how it effects us all and, more importantly, what to do about it.

I've not studied critical race theory, but it's in the air in my circles, so I have some basic understanding of the complexity of the issue, in scholarly terms, as well as my own personal experience as a black male, fwiw.

All of which is just to say it's worth discussing, but it must be handled with care. I feel the fact that most people are incapable of or unwilling to handle the issue with care is the heart of the problem.

Which is why Obama's speech was truly a revelation.

Bravo.

One small quibble, though:

"Many liberals, Democrats and other opponents of this right-wing faction have been squeamish in the past about engaging these low-life Freak Show tactics, thinking that they can remain above them and they will go away. That has to stop, otherwise -- like all unchallenged attacks -- they will continue to thrive with ease. Defensive, petulant objections to these tactics are woefully insufficient."

Surely it's possible to engage these "low-life Freak Show tactics" while simultaneously remaining above them, no?

Not sure what that would look like because I've not seen it in my lifetime. Actually, that's not true. Maybe Mario Cuomo would be a good model.

I grew up with him as governor and there was a champion.

Did not suffer fools gladly, had no squeamishness about ridiculing a ridiculous position, yet always conducted himself (as I recall it, anyway) with a sort of tough nobility.

Maybe it's because he meant what he said. He really believed the stakes to be as high as he said and thus tapped into his own passion rather than trying to stifle it.

I think Obama has a shot at becoming that sort of a public figure. He's still not quite mastered the balance between tough and gracious, but watching him these months, it does appear to be a balance he's trying to attain.

"according to the philosophy behind critical race theory, it doesn't matter what your INTENT was, you EFFECTIVELY shut tom up. why? in order to give that victim-punisher, KateTex a wider canvas. why? i posited it was your aversion to tribal loyalty. you say you didn't understand that. perhaps you ARE that dull."

Ok, I take your point.

I think you presume a bit much, but ok.

Thank you, that "argument" has always struck me as utterly specious too. No surprise the MSM never bothers to actually examine its merits, especially given that Clinton herself has articulated it, musing about Obama's difficulty winning big states, "states that any Democrat would have to win in November."

I don't know what the meaning of this phenomenon is, but it could demonstrate just the opposite of what Clinton's arguing, namely, that these are states in which the party machinery is sufficiently strong to favor the establishment candidate in the primary and will be equally strong in favoring the Democratic nominee in the general.

Clinton began with a huge head start, especially in her neck of the woods, right?

I've never understood the leap which suggests Obama will have trouble carrying NY or CA, etc. against a Republican.

Anyway...

Thank you for your candor, David.

That's perfectly understandable and it reflects the sort of difference in world view (ideological, you called it?) between us.

I, too, have had the same reaction to Kate in reading her posts. I don't trust her and I'm very much put off by her.

This is precisely why I'm trying to engage her. I'm trying to make an effort to find some common ground even with someone I mistrust. I'm trying to find some sort of commonality, some basis by which we can develop a mutual trust.

I fervently believe that we sink or swim together (the "collectivist" in me), and to that end, we have to figure out a way to create bonds even with--especially with--the most unlikely of candidates.

So for personal reasons, I feel compelled to make an honest effort to find the commonality that can be the basis of mutual respect, if nothing else.

I'm trying to see Kate as a human being.

I appreciate others don't share this orientation, but all I was asking of Tom was that he step back so as not to bait Kate in this particular time and place. No more, no less.

I guess I just wouldn't call that "shutting up Tom," any more than I'd call it shutting someone up to ask them not to interrupt a conversation.

Anyway, thank you, David, for responding. I think I'm starting to get you, which is a good thing, no?

Oh, and just because Kate is a racist is to me not sufficient reason to cease trying to find common ground.

Again, this is the sort of reason Obama appeals to me: his ethos of reaching out even to our enemies (not that I consider Kate an "enemy").

It's my belief that people are not the enemy, but rather animosities amongst people which breed fear and lead to dehumanization.

To me, dehumanization is the ultimate enemy.

In the words of the candidate we both admire:

"And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. "

You see what I mean?