Disclaimer: It's just a title (referring to the smear of black separatism that will be made). I do think Obama will take the nomination and hope to God he wins, but I
recognize that this is a political campaign that entails
the frenzied unpacking of baggage and inevitably focuses on dirty
laundry.
Note: I do not think Obama espouses a separatist or any other radical
ideology and I’m not a Clinton troll or a concern troll just out to
rain on the parade. But it is still raining.

Today, he gave The
Speech on race that some believed would transcend and heal divisions.
It was an excellent speech, especially when he spoke of the hurt that
lay behind our divisions over race and the need to understand others’
POV (note: I could not watch his speech live and have only watched
clips and read the transcript). Senator Obama provides great analysis
and is inspiring when he speaks but outdid himself today when framing the issue of race. He is a
remarkable speaker, but, in the end, this was a political speech attempting damage control of a political problem. But, it must be asked: if this poignant speech about
this salient issue was so important and needed, why was it only given
now, to cover some tawdry political accusations? Is race really the
overwhelming problem in America right now to the detriment of other pressing issues, or is it just the most
pressing political problem?
Race is always an issue, but if Obama were not a
presidential candidate would it be the crisis implied by this speech? As a meta-discourse on race relations, it was superb. As a political
gambit, it fell short.

The premise of Obama’s story is that he is in a unique
position to inspire the country to transcend race problems and partisan
politics because he was raised in the different worlds long divided in
America. Obama’s story is arguably the centerpiece of his campaign. But
if it is presented as his core, he will continue to have to answer
questions about his past. He grew up in a white household and went on
to excel at Harvard. He then moved to Chicago’s South Side, put down
roots in the AA community there and worked as a community activist. He
joined Trinity, which under Wright preached the tenets of James Cone’s
black liberation theology derived from the Black Power movement of the Black Panthers in the '60s. One reason this
issue is charged is that BLT integrates religion and politics. Wright became Obama’s mentor and it strains
belief to think that Obama totally opposed the sometimes radical tenets of the
church he enthusiastically joined all those years ago.


After a lofty and moving introduction, Obama eloquently made
the case for evolving past the racial divisions of the recent past. He repeats the bromide that problems in America belong to all of us and will take all of us to
solve, but he does it with a reality-based comprehensive straightforwardness. He is perhaps the best in this country at speaking to these
issues. But politically, he is playing duck and cover. His
attempt to cast aside the issue prompting this speech was lacking. his answers over the last week have produced a kind of hemming and
hawing, “I never heard any of that or, if I did, I rejected it as that
old school anger or, if I was part of that movement, we need to rise
above our racial divisions now.” He admitted today that he had heard
those sermons and he condemned the statements forcefully, but limited
his disassociation strictly to the statements. That means other
questions will keep popping up.

He stood by Wright but no one expects him to denounce the
Reverend as a man or as his friend. It's a sidestep.He has stopped short of giving the whole story
and that will always feed suspicion (sort of like not releasing income
tax returns). The problem here is the convenient redefining of the
views of his church and spiritual adviser as strictly religious or
communal and diminishing the political values tied up in it. In a long
speech about race and his ties to Wright and Trinity, he doesn’t even
mention black liberation theology, afro-centric Christianity or the
creed of the church except to portray the church as a typical AA
Baptist church. Is it?


A mention of seeing “racial tensions bubble to the surface”
before S.C. pointed to Clinton and one of Obama’s aims in this speech
became clearer when he said, in reference to Ferraro, “it has only been
in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this
campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.” Really? Besides
equating Ferrraro’s comment with Wright’s theology, that’s certainly
redefining the issue. He all but ignored race as a political question
in the campaign other than to decry the media labeling him “too
black” or “not black enough” or scouring “every exit poll for the
latest evidence of racial polarization…” though it is race as a political question that gives rise to this speech. And he let stand the
accusations of a race-baiting strategy by the Clinton campaign when it
is that staining of them as race-baiting that has been the divisive
issue in the primary race. The turn in Obama’s political fortunes and momentum came
after NH as he convinced Democrats that HRC was using his race against him, and
despite the fact that he spoke cautiously and didn’t personally accuse
anyone, that was the campaign he benefited from.


Obama mentioned Ferraro’s little political comments a couple
of times insinuating they were racist (an accepted fact now) and
equivalent to Wright’s decades of sermons preaching a philosophy. And
she conveniently plays into the concept of an old timer, has-been
method of race struggle. He seems to be saying, 'Bill and Hillary and
Gerry come from a different time and when they talk race, it’s angry
and offensive and an attack, but when I talk race, it’s raw and honest
and transcendent and post-racial. And you must excuse the Reverend
because he’s caught in that ‘60s DFH paradigm, too. But he’s a black
man who experienced racial inequity, so it’s excusable for him to
preach inequity.' Of course, generational differences and redefinitions always need to be explored, but pitting old against young is as misguided as using race as a wedge.

I don’t think the Trinity church is racist
in any way, but without doubt, many will believe it is. the silent majority lives. Trinity's foundational ideology is, or at least was, radical and Obama’s association with it
will have to be addressed head on at some point. The RW machine will
keep asking questions like: "If a white supremacist organization (and
many are Christian) preached the same tenets of separatism, would
anyone hesitate to condemn it?" It matters not whether it is the
Christian Right or any of the talking heads asking the question. How
can it be answered? Politics is perception. He gave a beautiful speech
today but exhortations to “move beyond" race will not put these
questions to rest.