Obama talked about his joining the church recently.

He said that he was organizing in the neighborhood and people he was working with suggested that if he really wanted to organize the community, it might help if he "went to the community" directly, i.e., as represented in the church.

Obama had not been a church-going person but thought, "You know, that makes sense."

Is this calculating?

No, it's open-minded.

He thought there was merit to the suggestion that attending that church would help him get to know the people he passionately sought to serve.

Maybe he's lying about this, but if we take him at his word (and I see no reason not to), this is a perfectly noble account of his behavior.

There's nothing cynical about it at all and it speaks not to calculation, but to pragmatic problem-solving: getting to know people you want to help, even by putting yourself into an unfamiliar environment.

What's wrong with this?

I don't want to play this game of having to answer for everything that gthrasher says.

He may be expressing himself more stridently and polemically than I would, but as I say, his basic perspective on this issue resonates with me.

That's probably because we're both black men and as such have a common frame of reference.

Whether our frame of reference is "right" or not is another matter, but the point is, as Obama so patiently tried to articulate in his Philadelphia speech, it's founded in legitimate grievances and observations about American social dynamics, history, etc.

All I can do is try with all my might to articulate where I'm coming from so as to form the foundation of a productive interaction. I'm really trying here, Joan.

I really would ask you to meet me halfway by being as open and direct about where you're coming from, in a deep, existential way, as I'm trying to be.

I have no desire to talk past one another or to stay in my own corner. Really, I want understanding.

Mutual understanding.

The thing is, as to understanding you, you don't give me much to work with.

I wish you'd be a bit more generous on that count, because I think ultimately that would make for more productive dialogue.

It does sting on so many levels.

I know what you're talking about and where the pain is coming from.

I would urge you, however, to try to avoid hyperbole because it makes it hard for others to actually listen and hear, but that's a different matter. I understand why you're speaking the way you are.

I get it.

Sorry, I'm still trying to catch up.

Please bear with me...what page was your comment on? Or can you summarize it again here? Sorry, lots of things to address at once, it's hard keeping up.

(I have to run to pick up my (bi-racial!) kid, so I'll try to respond when I get back.)

Gthrasher, the last thing I'd want to do is silence you or control how you express yourself. This is a matter for you alone to wrestle with. I respect that you speak with your own voice. I was only suggesting that the way you speak might impede understanding to some. But I also recognize that it's clarion to others, so it's all about audience, I guess.

We all speak different languages and have different frames of reference. Nothing wrong with that.

David:

"you got shaking mad yesterday. if i've gotten it right, it's because Obama had to explain what no white politician would have to - a point expressed by rufus11 about the catholic church."

This is a small part of what enraged me, yes.

"and McCain, perhaps being republican had something to do with it, doesn't have to explain Hagee. and Walsh is not tarred by being in the same ethnic group as McVeigh. OK, i get that."

Basically, yes.

"(now here's the BUT).

BUT, Obama Isn't Black. He's Biracial and he thinks differently from either black or white. that he LOOKS black (far more than Wright) and he signs the forms, "black" and has a black wife and children doesn't change things."

I was thinking about this, David, on my way to pick up my kid.

I'm not upset because of what I think should be Obama's position re: the black community, but rather because the black community represents marginalized voices of all stripes.

I'm not just mad as a black man, but as an intellectual, as a liberal, as someone who embraces ambivalence and as someone who believes in diversity.

Inasmuch as Obama has rejected Wright, he has pandered to "the mainstream."

This is what saddens me. It's not about race, but about a much, much deeper issue concerning what is and is not "acceptable discourse" and "an acceptable version of reality."

This is my basic grievance. I believe that to truly embrace diversity, one has to embrace non-mainstream opinions. Not agree with them, but at least recognize their authenticity.

So I believe in post-racialism, truly. It's not as some kind of "black partisan" that I was infuriated, but rather as a liberal who believes in diversity and tolerance and a healthy skepticism of mainstream narratives.