I strongly advise you, for the good of all concerned, to rent and watch, several times, the movie "Putney Swope" It is a gripping story of racial tension in the world of high-stakes advertising.

I'm sure you will understand Obama's candidacy much better after even a single viewing.

Oprah apparently attended Trinity some years back. Accounts I have read indicate it was for a brief period. Churches, like marriages, can be left, and there isn't even a financial settlement to worry about. Oprah is not running for president.

Trinity practices Black Liberation Theology. In addition, it has on its website a Black Values System that explains more about Trinity's specific slant.

Obama's trouble is that he keeps trying to have things both ways. Earlier I mentioned Shelby Steele's book and you replied that he is a conservative. For instance, in his book it is clear that he opposes affirmative action. However, I don't think that means that his thesis isn't valid. Everything he said in that book about Obama's future difficulties as a candidate has played out so far in this campaign season.

"idn't work then and it doesn't work now. You are the bottom feeders, who have no lower bound on what you'll do to insure that an election not be on the issues, and to appeal to the prurient interests of your Puritan base, regardless of your own personal religious attitudes. "

Prurient interests of our puritan base? I believe we were discussing the whacko-demagogue pastor, nothing to do with sex or (my) religion, though by this point in your post you seemed to have frothed yourself in to such a state that you imagined we were arguing about it. Get a grip you silly woman.

This is my point, then. Those who are completely freaked out by Obama, especially in light of Wright, need t os-p-e-l-l o-u-t exactly what their fears are.

I'm sure many will, under pressure, cop to my hypotheticals, plus a whole lot more stupid scenarios that I can't begin to dream up. Put them out in the open, and then we can see who's truly "scary."

First you equate instapunk with Rush Limbaugh. That is more than a stretch.

Not when you compare their exhales side by side.

Then you complain the Tim Russert asks Obama to address the comments of Belafonte.

You did what Russert did, only worse.

Wait, Glenn was interviewing Limbaugh? Or was he interviewing 'instapunk'?

Or was he just making a separate point entirely?

Unless I'm mistaken, Reverend Wright is getting pasted for saying

God Damn America that She doesn't take care of her own. God Damn America that She behaves like God towards other nations.

And for saying

The chickens are coming home to roost.

(The latter being a quote.)
Could you tell me what about either statement is racist? I can understand what offended people in the above comments, but I cannot understand the depth of the offense, a point was being made in both cases that is never cited by those who claim offense. But I don't really understand your comment, so I would like to.

You say: "If you want to write about how black people are terrible niggers because they are violent savages then write that."

I have absolutely no desire to portray blacks as a monolithic bloc in any way. But it appears that you do.

I know, I know, of course the loonies think like this. But, when some of our favorite fan articulate their paranoia on Broadsheet, we can then better assess their ideas as a whole, no?

There are certain posters I can dismiss entirely because their own words have shown them to be missing some synapses.

(And, FWIW, I'd hardly call you racist. But, then, I was called bigoted and anti-semetic, on top of the typical misandrist, last week. So, what do I know?)

nothing to do with sex

So you were talking about literary satisfactions! Well, you are right, she's never satisfied with my prose.

I realize that you aren't asking me, but I'm going to jump in anyway because I like you and I think I understand the questions you're asking:

"The more relevant question is do people think that everyone who does not support Obama is a racist?"

No.

"Do people think that everyone who supports Senator Clinton is a racist?"

No.

"Do people think that people who think Jeremiah Wright's statements to border on racism are also racists?"

No.

"Do people think that people who think that Obama should have distanced himself from Trinity much sooner are racists?"

No.

"Do people think that just because I think Obama is a phony and and has a serious truthiness problem that I am a racist?"

No.

"Does Retired Military Patriot think T. Suarez is a racist just because they have a disagreement about Obama."

I didn't read far enough in the comments to know the answer to that one.

"Is everyone who does not support Obama eventually going to get tarred as a racist."

Everyone? I feel doubtful of that. Let me ask you though--do you think that some people out there, Instapundit being a frightening example, could be? Even so using the word racist doesn't seem to do anything but result in a knife fight since some white Americans feel that falsely accusing someone of being a racist is as bad as or worse than being a racist. The key question is of course, whether or not the accusation is "false" but I'm sure that Instapundit would defend to the death the fact that he is "not" a racist.

"Manos99 has already made a stenuous effort to paint me (in another thread) as a racist."

That's unfortunate and unfair of him. I think that you're trying to say that crying wolf doesn't really help in the long run (?) with accusations like this and I tend to agree with you.

"Are Obama supporters going to go on like this into the general election alienating everyone who disagrees with them instead of trying to win hearts and minds?"

Answer: kind of a loaded question. I hope that not all Obama supporters are trying to alienate people, but it hasn't been helped that even Joan Walsh who I admire and like refers to Obama supporters as "Obamatrons" or whatever she said. I felt hurt, and even alienated. But I'm moving on.

"To me, a really relevant question is can Obama win the general election running as an angry black male -- or at the very least suffering from supports who will defend him on the grounds of "it's perfectly understandable for black people to be angry" -- thus reinforcing that not only that he is the "black candidate" but an angry black male?"

Answer: I think that Obama is human. His temperament does not seem fundamentally or essentially angry as in the fitting of some steriotypical "angry black man" stereotype. Whatever that is. Don't you remember a couple of months ago when Obama was being criticized for being too cool as a cucumber and not as hot under the collar as John Edwards? I think Barack and Hillary have undergone one of the more challenging competitions of their lifetimes, I would imagine. I don't think that he is so transcendent (in fact I don't like that word) that he isn't ever angry, or that he's incapable of anger. I'm glad that he is angry sometimes--ie angry at the direction in which the country has gone. Or angry at Fox news for misrepresenting him, repeatedly.

But more importantly, I don't believe that he has an essentially afro-centric point of view, which seems to me what some people are afraid of. I don't believe that he is fundamentally angry or "only" concerned with the plight of black Americans. I believe that his constituency is larger than any one particular group. This seems provable by all of his actions, his words, his supporters, his books. Those who want to say otherwise seem to have an agenda of their own to promote.

"I think McCain will win it. I see the seeds of his win here at Salon."

Sometimes I see that too and I worry. I hope that all of us will be on the same side at some point, but this experience is hard, there's no other way to say that. What will come of it at the end, I don't know.