how rude.  Did you even read the diary?  This is a pretty respected diarist around her relaying a very personal story.  How rude.  Maybe you should take your alerts back to the Daily Obama.

Thank you for announcing yourself.

His mother was just such a white person. As he's made very clear.

On what do you base your belief that he doesn't know such white people exist?

WHAT...now you want to claim that BO only meant his mother was a typical white person of age 80 and up or something else ridiculous like that?  And STILL that is racist remark to assume they were all the same anyhow.

...the top of your head?

white - I think he identifies black.  His choice. Nothing wrong with that.  Also a good choice if one is running for president. Many people think it's time for a black president.

That might be true, but he identifies as black and ignores his white half. He pushes only the black part, which is only one of the many ways he exhibits racist behavior.

emsprater, I hope your grandson is never forced to choose whether to identify himself as "black" or "white".  No good can come of that.

I hate to say this, but yes, "all that past history about race in America" is germane to him.  He may be insulated from that now, but he'll find out about that on his own, from one side of the racial divide or the other.

Don't forget, when Barack started running for president, he wasn't "black enough."  It can come from both sides.

Here is a very revealing story from DREAMS OF MY FATHER.

Steve Sailer is doing a blog, finding facts among the verbiage of Obama's memoir "Dreams of My Father"
 http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama -throws-his-own-living-grannie.html

In this entry he quotes Obama's white grandfather displaying some shocking liberal guilt (and dysfunctionally dumping it on a 17-year-old Obama).

Obama set us back the minute he came on the national scene...he dug so deep and caused so many bad feelings between the races the minute he played the race card...I can still here Michelle Obama talking to the students in SC and I hear her priming those kids...I think of all the films on this guy that I have watched, this one bothered me the most.  From there it all went down hill...I will never vote for this man, he doesn't deserve my vote nor has he even come close to earning my respect. JMO

He doesn't mention the jewish kids who got themselves killed in MS for voting rights in the 60s.

"You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South."

He doesn't mention the longstanding coalition between black leaders and Andrew Young and Charles Rangle and Miriam Waters, on the one hand, and people like the Gores and Clintons on the other.

"I think that Bill Clinton and Hillary have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think that they care about the African American community, they care about all Americans, and they want to see equal rights and equal justice in this country."

He belittles and besmirches two generations of people of good faith -- from many races --  by implying that he and only he can heal the country's wounds."

"Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own."

By listening and working with MLK, LBJ used his leadership as a powerful Democratic President to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed along with the Voters Rights Act of 1965 even though he knew it meant that the old "South"  would be lost to the democrats for decades to come, which has been proven very true time and time again. He said as much just after he signed the Civil Rights Act to one of his trusted pols. However, he knew the country had to go for forward.

Hillary was blamed with accusations of being a racists for saying pretty much the same thing about LBJ.  I wonder today if LBJ would be called a "typical white" if he were alive today!

Unfortunatley, it appears this campaign has taken us a few steps backwards.

This video on PBS by Bill Moyers is a good example of what is stated above.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/011820 08/watch4.html

I'm just finishing up Dreams from my Father, and though it was written some time ago, I think it's an interesting window into the real Obama. In it he demonstrates nearly zero appreciation for the sacrifices his Mom and grandmother made or how hard they worked to provide him with the opportunities he's had. His biggest influence in his early life is his grandfather, and he skips over the contributions of his grandmother, who turned herself from a housewife into the VP of a major Hawaiian bank, or his mother, who worked tirelessly across the globe to earn her Ph.D. and pursue her work with third world communities. He doesn't seem to appreciate women at all, even his African female relatives, though he's astute enough to comment on the unfairness of it with dispassion, at least where they are concerned.

Anyway, I'm definitely concerned with his thinking on women and whites after reading it.

That is not what he said.

Forgot the comma after "here." ("Here" meaning at MyDD.)

You might as well profit from the racial divide you have been working to foster.

Race-baiting motherfucker.

and it took what Obama said completely out of context.  If you found it brilliant and moving, then the Rove Troll Patrol has found another victim!

Ahhhhh... poor things... a few out-of-context quotes and a guilt-by-association pastor must make all of you feel SO wounded.  

Meanwhile, 4000 dead in Iraq courtesy of an Approved war, but that's old news isn't it?  Why hold your Senator accountable to death, chaos and violence when, after all, the real issue is if the half-white candidate really hates white people. Do you guys actually hear yourselves? Amazing.

This was a beautifully written heartfelt diary that brought tears to my eyes.  WAPO passed up real talent.

This is excellent, Linfar.  I don't visit the Orange site anymore, but wouldn't mind seeing this diary cross-posted there.  Very moving story.  Thank you for sharing it.

But some of them like populista are under voting age.

Obama works very well with people who have never seen someone like him before.  There is a reason there are no top politicians like Obama and its not that people like Obama don't exist.

Its that people like Obama such as Duval in Mass just don't get the job done and only last 1 term

Wrong. Obama's use of black racism/white guilt has been one of the most shameful episodes since George Wallace ran in 1968. We will work to defeat this fraud.

I think you are utterly deluded.

His speech on race was the single biggest step forward we've had in in many years on race.

Finally adult understanding of both sides.

What he says is the opposite of what you attribute to him. That is what makes him so different from the Sharptons

"But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

n the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

ergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

He has not trashed the legacy of millions of whites. I realize you say this in your diary, but you really don't support it in any meaningful way.

The issues of race are something you hurt over, and Obama's campaign, by its very existence, has brought issues of race to the fore, but Obama's campaign has not denigrated white people who fought for civil rights for black people.

Do you really think that the typical white person does not struggle over issues of race, does not (as you do) feel that maybe black people don't have their backs, does not (as Obama's grandma admitted to) fear black men who pass them on the street? Obama acknowledged and validated the frustration you express at losing out on opportunity as a working class white person because you were put head to head against black people (and the way your interviewer treated you was crass and intended to make you angry and spiteful, much more harmful than you simply losing out to a black candidate).

I realize that your diary is your deeply felt hurt, and I have to respect you for posting it. It is a true and honest part of the dialogue on race that we all need to have, but more than anything else, it just makes me sad.

I really want a Democratic president, but I don't really care whether it is Clinton or Obama. I care a lot more about race and racial resentment than I do about the candidates. Seeing partisanship stirring up racial resentment just makes me miserable.

Unhinged is taking a comment and turning someone into a racist person who hates everyone who isn't their color.

It's extreme and just as extreme as anyone calling the Clinton's racist.

Sorry, it's true for both.  Neither Clinton nor Obama are RACISTS, it's just a hard topic to talk about for this exact reason!  

We'll have more than enough Deomocrats, including Hillary herself, as she has said.

Your comment is funny. I don't think you have a very good grasp of what racism is. Standing up to racism involves more than abstaining from using racial slurs and discouraging their use by others. It involves acknowledging how deeply racial issues are entwined in our culture. It means not freaking out at the suggestion that your cultural training might cause you to have an instant response, such as fear of a young black man walking towards you on the street, that requires a mental "stop" by your better reasoned conscious values.

If you can't acknowledge or recognize what Obama was talking about, I don't know that it makes you more or less racist, I just know it means you're probably missing a lot of opportunities to stand up to racism. That you've taken it to the extreme of thinking he's calling all white people active racists demonstrates how defensive and uncomfortable you are with the entire conversation. That defensiveness and discomfort is inconsistent with your claimed experiences. Hence, my belief that you have exagerrated details in your story.  

It would be helpful if you pointed out these racist comments to which you refer. I'm not aware of any.

obviously I didn't have enough coffee before I typed this.  Wow, too bad no edit button on comments, huh?  s/b want NO part of it.

linfar, you're too kind.  But my writing skills are not the best to warrant that. lol  Thank goodness we have-not just the support, but the talent in you and others.

"Will I vote against him and will I actively help those seeking his defeat should he be nominated?

Right now I'm leaning heavily to 'yes' and 'yes' on those questions, and I am one of many who feels similarly."

I'm in the 'yes' and 'yes" columns also, after what Obama has done. We are so on the same page on the reasons for that. I will pass on the short term reward, to fight to keep the integrity of our party. I hope it can be maintained. It is one of those things worth fighting for.

I have already started helping those who Obama has damaged so much, and there will be as much fallout generated as we can muster. I figured it would be better for everyone  to do it now, instead of later.  I can hardly believe the negative turn of this primary season.

Obama is a racist with troubling stance on democracy.

A true Martin Luther King type would oppose that.  The content of his Character is flawed.

What a ridiculous comment - he has talked at length about being biracial, that is half white.  You are beginning to sound unhinged.

You're being exposed as disingenuous with this one. It's pretty well-documented that he's half-white and was entirely raised by his white mother and white grandparents. To claim he is racist from a completely out-of-context phrase is beyond childish.

I think it is mostly about trolling. This is a pro-Clinton, anti-Obama blog, so the sort of Obama supporters interested in being here are mostly the trolls.

There was one comment by someone who seems to be a Clinton supporter...SoCalVet.  He seems particularly fond of the f-word.

I troll-rated it out of fairness.

Don't try to shame me, woman. What is the great risk of making up a bunch of BS in service of an attack on Obama and posting it on a website overrun by hysterical Clinton supporters?

Tons of racism still exists, and the legacy of racism is powerful and long lasting. It will take decades more to remove its effects. The fact that some of us have worked to become less racist does not make everything okay.

I won't give you the litany, as it wouldn't help. I'm sure you know it already.

Do the words typical white person really hurt that deeply? I really don't understand that.

Your use of out of context remarks by Obama supporters to try and paint him as a racist in the exact same way Obama bloggers have done the same to paint Hillary as a racist is troubling as well.  

You understand you're doing just what you accuse them of doing, right?

Moreover, you didn't even address the point I was making.

Not disavowing supporters who say that comments are racist is very very far away from calling Clinton supporters racists or saying that white people won't vote for Obama because they are racists. It is about on par with Clinton not disavowing supporters who accuse Obama and his supporters of making sexist comments. There is no reason she should. Some of them have (and I don't like Obama's "claws comment" or the "periodically" comment). There is also no reason he should.

Clinton did a lot of good work on civil rights and on racial reconciliation, but that doesn't mean that  he hasn't always been willing to pander to white people when necessary. "Sister Soulja" entered the political vocabulary on Bill Clinton's lips.

Then Obama used Donnie McClurkin to advance his image among evangelical African Americans even though McClurkin has called for war on GLBTI people. For someone who has been a beneficiary of the very civil rights that I worked for to turn around and deny me my basic human rights is a profound slap in the face.

Obama has explicitly tried to tie GLBT rights into the larger struggle for civil rights especially with Black people.  How many other presidential candidates have said that Gay rights are civil rights?  Human rights?  How many politicians have walked into a Black church and told a several thousand Black congregants that their homophobic attitudes are hypocritical given our communities historic struggles for our own civil rights?

How many times has Obama went into Black churches and Black crowds and confronted them directly on the issue of homophobia within our community?  How many times would be enough for you?  

He's done it over and over again in multiple churches and to multiple Black crowds during campaign stops/stump speeches.  I know it probably hasn't gotten much play around here, but it's been talked about all over the Black community and blogs.  

Panders?  He not only appologized for the McClurkin thing, he used that entire campaign swing to talk to Black crowds about the Black community's often homophobic attitudes.  Called those crowds out on it, called Black churches out on it.  Told them that they were hipocrites for wanting to deny the same basic civil rights to gays that Black people struggled so hard for.  Called these attitudes un-Christian.  

That's pandering?

JG, you are right and have raised another valid point and issue. Obama has played the gay card when it suited him. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome...

...and he sought the endorsement of the anti-gay preacher who backs Bush.

But that is just more of the way he operates. He panders to his audience and their prejeudices like a chameleon.

Race victim hood?  Seriously, I've never seen any Democrats using that kind of terminology except to deride right wing racism before.

I really wish you would respond to my post.  I was civil, I didn't attack you, I wasn't vulgar, I didn't dismiss you as a troll.  

and get your facts straight.  obama DID NOT SAY "typical of many white folks."  He said "typical white person."

there is a big difference between the two and it would be best if you could understand taht before making comments.

A lot of white people, like your father, bravely stood up. But who were they standing up against? Your father stood up against an overwhelming majority of white realtors who wanted to keep black people from being able to own homes. Those people were the majority of white people.

And Obama wasn't saying that his grandmother was a hood wearing hard core racist. He was saying that she was someone who struggled with stereotypes about black people. Can you honestly say that you have never struggled with stereotypes about black people? Maybe you can, I certainly can't, and I'm strongly anti-racist. We have to be able to talk openly about these things. You have bared your soul on feeling resentment towards black people for not having your back, for getting the journalism internship that you wanted and deserved, and that is admirable and important. Obama has bared his soul about his grandmother, and that is admirable and important. Obama talking about race makes you angry, but I don't think your anger comes purely from the evil of his being forced to talk about race. You have struggled with issues of race and, like all of us, you care anger over it.

Sorry if I'm engaging in arm chair psychoanalysis of you when I don't even know you. I admire your daring and honesty for posting this diary.

Bradley effect. Take a closer look at how the Obama campaign reacted to New Hampshire. Explain to me how introducing race in a Democratic primary was supposed to help Clinton, and then explain why if that was the case that Obama was the one pushing race into the media with talking point memos.

As for your comments above, you clearly have the ability to respond in a way that does not resemble Don Imus. Why don't you try to keep it to this level.

From the Washington Post, January 14, 2007

"Dr. King had been on the front lines. He had been leading a movement," Clinton said. "But Dr. King understood, which is why he made it very clear, that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That's why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That's why he was there when those great pieces of legislation were passed. Does he deserve the lion's share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system."

Being on the "front lines", "leading a movement" and "deserv(ing) the lions share of credit" hardly equates to "suggesting that MLK made nice speeches".

Nice try at spin.  Too bad the facts expose it so well.

rfahey, reread what you have said.  nobody here is denying that racism doesn't continue to exist.  of course it does.  what we are saying is that is is wrong to blame all whites for this.  many whites have given their lives up to stop racism and this is spitting on their graves and disrespecting all their hard work.  obama is tied very closely to wright, who is clearly racist.  he blames all whites for the black communities problems and that is both wrong and racist.

we need a unifier to end racism in this country.  not someone like obama who teams up with the likes or wright to blame and alienate whites.

sorry, but that is just adding to the racism problem in this country, not helping it.

wish obama supporters could understand this.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think most of us are racists. What percentage of the Democratic party do you think is racist?

if it had come from a white person speaking about any other race, would be leapt upon (justifiably, IMO) as evidence of the person's TRUE underlying racism.  Slips of the tongue are not supposed to be allowed in this country, whether it's coming from Don Imus, Strom Thurmond, or Bill Clinton.

Oh it's just fine to jump on these people for real and imagined racial slights, but we're supposed to ignore it when it slips from the chosen one's lips?

Sorry, some of us still believe in fairness and living according to principles.

Ya, if CHRIS WALLACE of FOX NEWS understood that its being taken out of context and blown out of proportion..you'd think that supposed DEMOCRATS would be able to aswell.

Well, to actually give him the benefit of the doubt would be fair-minded, and to listen to the whole context would not suit the agenda that's really going on here. This is all about stirring the pot and giving white people an excuse to feign woundededness and hurl reverse racism charges a la Fox.

(I say this as a white guy)

that has since been expunged/redacted from almost all second-hand accounts.  

He used the phrase "bred in" to describe his white grandmother's tendency to fear black men.   Saying that something is bred in?  That's about as racist as it gets.

For vulgar language and personal attacks.

Why is it that the diarist refrained from using any such language in 1500 words, but you have to use it in 15?

Why not back up all of your assertions with evidence?  I don't really think that Hillary Clinton  is personally a racist, but given what is at stake in this primary, are she and her surrogates above using it as a wedge?  Certainly not.  Politics as usual.

One of the problems I have with Obama (and his supporters) on race issues is that we have suddenly become a nation of Black vs White AGAIN, while most of us have realized and already 'transcended' the fact that we are very mixed culture of ALL races and every person has experienced some type of prejudice no matter the color of their skin. You just have to walk in someone elses shoes.

We are an uncivilized society trying to be civilized but not accomplishing that goal very well. In the real world people have all kinds of prejudices no matter what color their skin is. To put ones skin in perspective imagine being a burn victim so scarred that people are too uncomfortable to even look at you.

Even those of us who are sensitive and enlightened will find if you look in your heart you have a predjudge against someone for something and things that are of no fault of theirs are deemed guilty of some character flaw (or luck). There are the 'stereotypical' poor, disabled,  rich, stupid, smart, fat, skinny, working class, upper class, mentally ill, sick, healthy. Put a vs in between each opposite, or 'typical' in front of each and you will find a predjudice somewhere against any group of people not relegated to the color of their skin.

I have evolved too far to go back to Black vs White and as the diarist pointed out in doing so some of us didn't have dialogue for predjudices against us we were experiencing in our own lives while we were out fighting the injustices to Blacks. Affirmative action was not the problem for most of us. It never was for me. I neither gained or lost anything because of it.

Corporations employ a lot of people....not perfectly...not without a profit...not without some negatives but they aren't ALL the enemy either.

We have to quit living in the world of it's us against them on all levels.

keep believing in the tooth fairy too.

the Hillary spin room....it's springtime and the weather is fine.

He didn't call "us" typical in the way you're thinking he did, I believe.  Here is his remark:

The point I was making was not that grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't.

   We have to break through it, and what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little less like that, and that's powerful stuff.

Can you deny this is an extremely common phenomenon that isn't exactly a conscious decision that we make?  I certainly can't!  I wish I didn't know the rather embarrassing feeling of being more afraid of the darker figure walking alone at night than I am of the lighter one.  Acknowledging that this sort of unconscious reactions take place between blacks and whites is the first step we need to take to train ourselves out of it.  Malcolm Gladwell's Blink really does a great job explaining this type of sentiment and how it can really mess with interactions between people of different races.

"typical" is now offensive?

Is this the outcome of "everyone is so special" infantile grade school malarky? :-)

You should watch the SPEECH

Or you can stay focused on an 'out of context' sound bite...your choice.

Actually no, he explicitly said it wasn't just African Americans. Does that allay your concern?

such thing though your fabrication of his motive and actions fit well into a study of jurors who exhibited high IRB. They made up facts about hypothetical black defendants, but not hypothetical white defendants, that didn't happen at all.

What you fail to understand is that IRB isn't bigotry. It's a conditioned response to hundreds of years of being told that African-Americans are inferior so that the majority population would be more comfortable with their subjugation.

NCDemAmy, I completely understand where you're coming from with that opinion of this situation.  When we look at it from a historical and all-encompassing view of race in America, there really can't be any doubt that as an aggregate, it has been much more advantageous to be white than black in this country.

However, the opinions and hurt feelings of resentment that the author of this diary holds are not those of some monolithic White America.  No, the author's feelings are the direct result of his or her own experiences as an individual (and those of his/her father), and how can we tell someone that what they're feeling is invalid?  The author isn't thinking "well I should just be happy that my people had it well for so long even if my dad couldn't enjoy it".

That being said, it is a mentality that we should work to change.  I heard Obama saying that we need to be more understanding of the fact that there are hurt feelings and resentment on both sides.  Once we understand these feelings, we can realize that we all want the same things for our families, black and white (and everything else): not handouts, not an advantage over anyone, but a fair shake at the perhaps mythical American Dream, a Dream that is not under attack by the black family down the street or the white family up it, but by corporate corruption and greed.

No one is interested in context or fairness.  They're just trying to score points.

Works fine for me, though prima facia "typical black person" is one of those phrases that scream stereotyping. But if one wishes to stereotype me as being not a racist, not a bigot, someone who only gets things wrong with respect to black people due to my considerable ignorance of white culture -- more power to them!

And if someone wants to stereotype AA's as people who don't hate whites, don't resent them, aren't bigoted against them, who believe that it's their own lack of knowledge that makes some things come out wrong, then I can't imagine why someone would find that offensive. Perhaps the form of it would be questionable, but not the meaning, and the meaning is after all what we're talking about.

I wear my typical white guy tag with pride, thank you very much.

Damn.  Well that sort of puts this into perspective a bit, hm?

David Duke is linfar and Universal's soul mate? How about me? How about Hillary Clinton? How about Bill Clinton? Geraldine Ferraro? Andrew Cuomo? Billy Shaheen? Bob Johnson? Are we all David Duke soul-mates by your lights?

Is that really the direction you want to take this?

It's FUBAR.  The Clintons are not racists and the Obamas are not racist but everyone is trying to find a reason to paint the other's candidate in the most distasteful and heinous light.

I'm sick of it all.

That is a perfectly understandable attitude.  I was once held up at knife point in downtown DC by someone of a different race (I am white, he was AA).  I would like to think that that has not had a permanent effect on the way that I myself "size up" people, but perhaps it has on a subconscious level, and it is somewhat disconcerting to walk down an empty street, late at night, with no one else around but a stranger walking in the opposite direction.  Unfortunately, it is much easier around here to react instantaneously to whatever a candidate says than to actually consider the meaning behind the words, or whether they contain some relative degree of truth.

You still believe the Axelrod talking point that Clinton is a racist?  Is your head in the sand?  That has been so thoroughly discreditted at this point.

I hope your candidate enjoy playing with the fire of racial politics, though, while it lasts.  He will find himself badly burnt for using these divisive tactics, in the end.

Actually I don't don't the sincerity, as I noted above I've heard the same story quite a few times. If only black men were a bit more faithful to their wives and girlfriends, we might've had a black President a long time ago!!!

Actually I don't doubt the sincerity, as I noted above I've heard the same story quite a few times. If only black men were a bit more faithful to their wives and girlfriends, we might've had a black President a long time ago!!!

No, the takeaway is that many people here prefer to deal with this issue on an extremely superficial level, seeing a divide between "racists" and "non-racists."  They either fail to understand, or purposefully ignore, the possibility that conceptions of race can affect us on a subconscious level which we do not allow to manifest in most of our outward actions.  One can be in favor of equality for all and still be anxious about the stranger of a different race who approaches from across an empty street.

I'm over at Daily Kos in danger of getting troll ratings there because, even though I voted for Obama, I was an Obama-HRC primary swing voter and find unthinking HRC hatred to be appalling.

But now I guess I'll come here and risk troll ratings here to fume about anti-Obama-ism.

I'm certain, without knowing all of the details, that neither Obama nor HRC is a saint. They're part of our society, they've breathed in racism and many other -isms since they were infants, and I'm sure both of them are capable of being classist, fattist, Democratist, etc.

I haven't read all of the comments, and if anyone here is accusing the author of the article in the diary of being racist, just because he's exploring his thoughts about this complicated topic, I think that's unfair. If we're ever going to get anywhere with dealing with racism and other -isms, we have to be free to think out loud sometimes, and risk the occasional "typical white woman" or "I don't know if I can vote for Obama" phrase without getting accused of being just one step up from a KKK grand wizard.

I live, to my joy, in a neighborhood where there are a ton of African American professionals who are smarter, better-paid, better-educated, and better-dressed than I (a sallow person) can ever hope to be, so I can respect the idea that "class" and "race" are very different things.

And I know that Obama could end up sticking his foot deep in his mouth in the future, and may have wedged it there in the past.

But . . . I think what's seriously, seriously unfair here is the idea of refusing to vote for Obama, apparently, just because he has roughly the same skin color as the girl who beat the essay author out for the internship and some other people who turned out to be jerks.

First, I've been in exactly that same position, and, really, so what? I lost one opportunity because I was white, but I got other opportunities because of equally bizarre things that had nothing to do with race. At least until the Republicans finish destroying the economy, good people will eventually find some honorable way to earn a living.

Second, OBAMA IS HALF-WHITE. Culturally, OBAMA IS AS WHITE AS HILLARY!!!! He was raised by a white mother from Kansas, then white grandparents in Hawaii, and it sounds as if he barely saw black people till he was in college. It seems, as far as I can tell, as if his mom's grandparents and grandparents were at least partly just as much as part of the demographic group made up of struggling white folks as the author's family.

And Obama in the Wright response speech did his best to emphasize the fact that he understands that white people, especially poor white people, have their problems, too, and that everybody has to work together to solve the problems.

So, OK, I want to know more about why Obama hasn't scheduled hearings on Afghanistan. And maybe there's more to the Chicago corruption stuff. And HRC is a great woman, and there's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with voting for her simply because you think she personally is terrific.

But I think it would be as unfair to vote against him because he shares the same skin tone as some discriminatory creeps as it would be to vote for David Duke simply because David Duke shares the same skin tone as Albert Einstein.

Linfar, in the same line as "typical white person" he goes out of his way to say that his grandmother was NOT racist.  Please, put the whole quote down.

"Typical anything is not ok."

So none of these statements are ok??

"a typical American girl"; "a typical suburban community"; "the typical car owner drives 10,000 miles a year"; "a painting typical of the Impressionist school"; "a typical romantic poem"; "a typical case of arteritis"

It is a trait that is associated with a group or category.

I am a typical white person who does become more afraid when I see an African American walk down the street as opposed to a white person.

I agree it was poorly phrased, but the point he made is true for most people, white or otherwise.  I can understand how you feel about it.  I felt the same way about Clinton's SC statement and Hillary's MLK/LBJ comparison.  What they both said were true, but it was hurtful to me in more ways than one.  However, I don't think the Clinton's are racist.  I think Hillary made an off the cuff remark that she later clarified.  I'm still not sure what to make of Bill's statement.  I don't think Obama is racist, and though poorly worded, what he said was off the cuff and the point of the statement was true.

saying his grandmother who was afraid of a mugger was just as bad as Reverend Wright because she was a "typical white person" the longer quote includes how that fear (of a mugger) was "bred into her" makes it uglier.

His Reverend Wright is not a typical anything.  I'm so offended by Obama's apologists making excuses for Reverend Wright as well so I hope you won't be doing that.

But, Linfar explains why she's no longer going to be vilified.  These Archie Bunker and "typical white woman" comments ARE offensive.  

In the context of Reverend Wright the bigotry, hatred, disgusting things he said about white people, the shouting of N word from the pulpit, everything.  It's too much.  It's not normal in a black church either.

Not even Republican candidates actually sit in the pews of their Pat Robertson's for 20 years, name books after him, have him marry them, take a pledge to honor their crazy code, etc.

I think the feelings in this diary are heartfelt, beautifully put, and justified.

There is a difference between voting to authorize a war and voting to fund troops while they are in harm's way.  It's an easy distinction when one is not scrambling to explain the blood on their candidate's hands.