Everyone's talking about Obama, when McCain's allied with John Hagie

[A_Wanderer]

Again, I wonder why?
[/B]

US troops in Saudi Arabia

The existence of Israel (there is no such thing as a two-state solution to the insanely devout - on both sides).

Occupation of Muslim lands including East Timor and Spain.

MoToons

Islamophobia

ad infinitum for any grievance that can justify violence against the kuffar. I would hope that you are a sincere progressive; believe in equal rights regardless of race, gender or religion, pro-peace perhaps even a pacifist but no matter how much you oppose US corporate capitalism, it's support for Israel, backing murderous regimes around the world and energy policy you should not make the mistake of claiming that your causes are the same of a bunch of religious fascists.

Religious groups with an agenda of creating a utopian society based on divine governance (that never really existed - it's a hollow model) are not progressive. The fact that even in civilised discourse the softer side of Islamic fundamentalism (advocacy groups like CAIR or MPAC) try to censor criticism of religion and promote a conservative social agenda should ring alarm bells.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Fundamentalist Muslims share more in common with fundamentalist Christians than social progressives and liberals (Hagee matches the Imam talking about the Boxing Day Tsunami as the act of a vengeful God quite well).

 

[deep]

Are you black, or just your avatar? If indeed you are, I've probably been able to catch more cabs than you. I'd be pretty pissed.

"cab catching"
why introduce that into the serious issue of race problems?

I know Wright included it, but Obama already repudiated and rejected Wright's outlandish remarks.

 

[Irvine511]

I still fail to see the parallels.

Did he say Damn America?

Did he twist the history of the country?

Did he imply 9/11 was justified?

Oh yeah - The AIDS conspiracy....

have you read all of the "chickens come home to roost" sermon?

i suggest you do. it's far more nuanced and compelling than the sensationalistic youtube clips that Fox plays ever hour.

i don't agree with him. but Wright is no Hagee, at least when it comes to pausing to think about things.

there's a reason why Fox won't air the whole thing.

[q] "Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.

There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord's song? If I forget the order ... The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]--these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.

Blessed are they who dash your baby’s brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.

Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote." [Voices: "Faith footnote"]

[Begin faith footnote]

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism--we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people --mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over." [Voices: "Footnote is over."]

[End Faith Footnote]

[Gentle voice] Now, now. C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral. And I asked God, "What should our response be?

I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone-- no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God-- personal relationship with God.

I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible]

But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?

This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.[/q]

 

[Irvine511]

Hillary knew what the rules for getting the nominations were. She didn't bother with most of the states, she employed a quasi-Giuliani approach, she had a shitty grassroots campaign, and on and on.

agreed.

the arguments that, "the only reason Obama is winning is because he's run a better campaign" kind of baffle me.

 

[Irvine511]

Most of the people I know, are descendants of immigrants from the last 100 years. I would not say they are responsible for it either. Forty Years since the Civil Rights, and because I and others find this man's comments disgusting, and spreading of the hatred that MLK opposed........I am somehow painted to be somehow wrong in my view.

this would be me. i knew the original immigrants on both sides of my family.

but i can't look at myself in the mirror and think that being born white hasn't had it's advantages, and that these advantages have historical roots.

it's not my fault, certainly not -- and it amazes me how personally some white people take criticism of a racist history -- but i'd be lying if i didn't acknowledge that the historical cards have played out in my favor.

i work my ass off. i studied my ass off. i've earned every cent i've made, and every A on my report card, and whatever else. but it's no secret that i was advantageously positioned to be in a place where working hard seemed, 1) worthwhile, and 2) was rewarded with advancement.

all i'm saying is that i understand how frustrated blacks must feel when the look at the structure of the system, and especially the history of the system.

 

[financeguy]

US troops in Saudi Arabia

The existence of Israel (there is no such thing as a two-state solution to the insanely devout - on both sides).

Occupation of Muslim lands including East Timor and Spain.

MoToons

Islamophobia

ad infinitum for any grievance that can justify violence against the kuffar. I would hope that you are a sincere progressive; believe in equal rights regardless of race, gender or religion, pro-peace perhaps even a pacifist but no matter how much you oppose US corporate capitalism, it's support for Israel, backing murderous regimes around the world and energy policy you should not make the mistake of claiming that your causes are the same of a bunch of religious fascists.

Religious groups with an agenda of creating a utopian society based on divine governance (that never really existed - it's a hollow model) are not progressive. The fact that even in civilised discourse the softer side of Islamic fundamentalism (advocacy groups like CAIR or MPAC) try to censor criticism of religion and promote a conservative social agenda should ring alarm bells.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Fundamentalist Muslims share more in common with fundamentalist Christians than social progressives and liberals (Hagee matches the Imam talking about the Boxing Day Tsunami as the act of a vengeful God quite well).

"ad infinitum for any grievance that can justify violence against the kuffar"- see, the problem here is that this level of extremism is equally evident in some statements of some of the more virulent neo-conservatives - I won't go for a cheap shot and cite Ann Coulter, but what about, for example, Michael Ledeen:

The talk about peace, and the endless "plans" that emerge from one capital or another, are no more and no less than stalling tactics by those who oppose the president's vision. Peace in this world only follows victory in war.

I see no way to avoid the conclusion that he's effecitively saying that peaceniks are cowards who don't have the stomach for war -and anti-American traitors to boot. (Can you say crypto-fascism? Actually, never mind the prefix.)

Another few choice words of wisdom from Mr Ledeen:

the only way to achieve peace is through total war

The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business

Anyway, no-one in the thread has said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as identifying their causes with those of a bunch of religious fascists.

For an intelligent person you seem to have fallen for this whole neo-con stuff hook line and sinker - I just wish you'd put down the Chris Hitchens lecture notes every once in while.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So would it be more proper to divorce the justifications for violent acts from the oft-cited "root causes". The justifications are ever shifting; the root causes (wherever they may lie) seem to stay the same.

 

[financeguy]

So would it be more proper to divorce the justifications for violent acts from the oft-cited "root causes". The justifications are ever shifting; the root causes (wherever they may lie) seem to stay the same.

Interestingly enough, the justifications for US imperialism also seem to shift - one year, it's removing Saddam's forces from Kuwait (granted, a worthwhile aim in itself), then, it's finding the WMD, then it's freeing the people of Iraq from a despot - and more recently we have seen the former head of the Federal Reserve admitting that it was largely about oil the whole time!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Different objectives at different times under different administrations - the only constant is the "national interest".

 

[Irvine511]

I don't either. This Hagee fellow wasn't his pastor or self-described mentor of 20 years. Apples and oranges.

this has been the line of thought tossed back whenever comparisons are made between Hagee and Wright, and while i do understand on one level -- you're right, Obama has a far closer relationship to Wright than McCain does to Hagee -- the lack of comparisons ends there.

there is much to compare between the Republican party's association and (if such white evangelical protestant pastors are to believed) governance with such white evangelical protestant pastors such as Hagee (or Falwell, or Robertson, or Dobson). one thing all these men have in common is that they all believe that the 9-11 attacks were *deserved*. that's where i split with these men, and that's where i think most Americans (and a good many non-Americans) would agree.

no one who went to work that morning *deserved* to die. no one *deserves* to have thousands of their citizens slaughtered because a small group of fanatics dislikes said country's foreign policy. i've consistently resisted and argued against knee-jerk anti-americanism in here, and i would take anyone to task who sought to assign blame on anyone other than the 16 hijackers and their financiers.

however, that's quite different from examining the *what* and the *why* some people are driven to kill. we can go on at length about a poisonous vision of religion, where this world doesn't matter and only the next one does, but we can't help but notice that the targets that were chosen were very specific, which has to lead us to believe that this wasn't an indiscriminate Columbine-style massacre. i think most adults can have a conversation about that without it resorting into blame.

what Wright didn't do, and what Robertson, Falwell, and, yes, Hagee, all don't do, is stop there. they continue to assign blame onto the shoulders of the American people and the government for 9-11. and this is a trend that continued with Katrina -- Hagee still believes that the hurricane was god's way of punishing the city, with it's liberal ways with alcohol, sex, and, shock, willingness to have a gay pride parade. heck, James Inhofe, a Republican Senator, blamed 9-11 on the US somehow wavering in it's support to Israel.

these men are just assuredly "America-haters," aren't they? or do they get a pass because they're white? should we not protect our children from their America-hating diatribes? they think that 3,000 people died in New York because God is punishing America for our wicked, sinful ways.

so what does this have to do with McCain? no, there's no close association between the man McCain and these people, but there is between the party which he now represents and these people, and the Republican Party has taken it one step further. the foreign policy championed by Bush, Cheney, and, yes, JOHN MCCAIN, is perfectly in line with the Rapture-obsessed America-must-destroy-Islam worldview.

contrast this with the quite obvious differences that Obama makes obvious every day between himself and his pastor -- Obama is calm, cool, collected, thoughtful, non-fiery -- and also the differences he's been forced to enumerate in speeches and in debates moderated by Tim Russert. why does Obama have to repudiate Farrakkhan, and disassociate himself with Harry Belefonte? i'll give you a hint -- it's for the same reason that Russert asked Colin Powell about Harry Belefonte.

and the whites get a pass. why wasn't Fallwell described as an America-hater by Fox News? surely, if there's anything that upsets Fox more than Christian-bashing it's America-bashing? or, because he's white, and a Republican, and has obviously gotten fat on fried chicken and pecan pie, it's assumed that all of his criticisms are meant with love, whereas Wright's criticisms are meant to tear down and destroy, that Wright is speaking for some sort of mysterious fifth column of black radicals who are coming to get you?

what's going on here is that there's a HUGE double standard. angry white ministers are given a pass because they are deemed to be worthy of respect -- no matter how hateful or deranged -- and then we get this universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black minister.

no, there's no racism to get mad about, now is there?

and, at the end of the day, while Obama might have had a close relationship with Wright, he doesn't seem to be a political disciple of Wright. Wright is a nobody. Wright has no political influence beyond a few neighborhoods in Chicago. compare this with Hagee, with Robertson, with Fallwell, with Dobson who apparently chooses SCOTUS nominees. despite a lack of 20 years of close communication, McCain and his party are soldiers to their deranged, Rapture-obsessed policies in a way that the cool and calm Obama is not a soldier for Wright.

it's maddening.

 

[U2democrat]

Amen, brother!

 

[martha]

Nicely and accurately put, Irvine.

 

[yolland]

When I listen to people (particularly people who were or are considering voting for the Democrat in November) expressing revulsion at Wright's views, and deep discomfort with Obama's longtime pastor/congregant relationship to him, I'm not really hearing much in the way of fear that Obama might reflexively adopt Wright's policy preferences--whatever those might be--as his own. I don't think that's really what's bothering them. I think it's more the idea that (so they imagine) Obama must surely have heard comments exactly like the ones circulating on TV many times from the pew, yet wasn't bothered enough by them to leave Wright's church. I really do think there's a kind of cultural disconnect going on there; I already went into that in deep's thread, and won't repeat it here. But to be fair to Dread and others, I can understand where that discomfort comes from. No one wants to feel presumed guilty until proven innocent (an observation shot through with ironies, yes). As a white person, that is not how I feel about Wright's (selected) remarks...but, I can understand that for most this isn't really what you'd want your President to consider an uplifting way to spend a Sunday morning, either. Should Obama, the aspiring future President of the United States, move on altogether from that particular church for the foreseeable future...I'm inclined to agree that yes, he should. But I still take issue with the ease and intense indignation with which some say, Why didn't he do so years ago.

 

[Dreadsox]

this has been the line of thought tossed back whenever comparisons are made between Hagee and Wright, and while i do understand on one level -- you're right, Obama has a far closer relationship to Wright than McCain does to Hagee -- the lack of comparisons ends there.

there is much to compare between the Republican party's association and (if such white evangelical protestant pastors are to believed) governance with such white evangelical protestant pastors such as Hagee (or Falwell, or Robertson, or Dobson). one thing all these men have in common is that they all believe that the 9-11 attacks were *deserved*. that's where i split with these men, and that's where i think most Americans (and a good many non-Americans) would agree.

no one who went to work that morning *deserved* to die. no one *deserves* to have thousands of their citizens slaughtered because a small group of fanatics dislikes said country's foreign policy. i've consistently resisted and argued against knee-jerk anti-americanism in here, and i would take anyone to task who sought to assign blame on anyone other than the 16 hijackers and their financiers.

however, that's quite different from examining the *what* and the *why* some people are driven to kill. we can go on at length about a poisonous vision of religion, where this world doesn't matter and only the next one does, but we can't help but notice that the targets that were chosen were very specific, which has to lead us to believe that this wasn't an indiscriminate Columbine-style massacre. i think most adults can have a conversation about that without it resorting into blame.

what Wright didn't do, and what Robertson, Falwell, and, yes, Hagee, all don't do, is stop there. they continue to assign blame onto the shoulders of the American people and the government for 9-11. and this is a trend that continued with Katrina -- Hagee still believes that the hurricane was god's way of punishing the city, with it's liberal ways with alcohol, sex, and, shock, willingness to have a gay pride parade. heck, James Inhofe, a Republican Senator, blamed 9-11 on the US somehow wavering in it's support to Israel.

these men are just assuredly "America-haters," aren't they? or do they get a pass because they're white? should we not protect our children from their America-hating diatribes? they think that 3,000 people died in New York because God is punishing America for our wicked, sinful ways.

so what does this have to do with McCain? no, there's no close association between the man McCain and these people, but there is between the party which he now represents and these people, and the Republican Party has taken it one step further. the foreign policy championed by Bush, Cheney, and, yes, JOHN MCCAIN, is perfectly in line with the Rapture-obsessed America-must-destroy-Islam worldview.

contrast this with the quite obvious differences that Obama makes obvious every day between himself and his pastor -- Obama is calm, cool, collected, thoughtful, non-fiery -- and also the differences he's been forced to enumerate in speeches and in debates moderated by Tim Russert. why does Obama have to repudiate Farrakkhan, and disassociate himself with Harry Belefonte? i'll give you a hint -- it's for the same reason that Russert asked Colin Powell about Harry Belefonte.

and the whites get a pass. why wasn't Fallwell described as an America-hater by Fox News? surely, if there's anything that upsets Fox more than Christian-bashing it's America-bashing? or, because he's white, and a Republican, and has obviously gotten fat on fried chicken and pecan pie, it's assumed that all of his criticisms are meant with love, whereas Wright's criticisms are meant to tear down and destroy, that Wright is speaking for some sort of mysterious fifth column of black radicals who are coming to get you?

what's going on here is that there's a HUGE double standard. angry white ministers are given a pass because they are deemed to be worthy of respect -- no matter how hateful or deranged -- and then we get this universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black minister.

no, there's no racism to get mad about, now is there?

and, at the end of the day, while Obama might have had a close relationship with Wright, he doesn't seem to be a political disciple of Wright. Wright is a nobody. Wright has no political influence beyond a few neighborhoods in Chicago. compare this with Hagee, with Robertson, with Fallwell, with Dobson who apparently chooses SCOTUS nominees. despite a lack of 20 years of close communication, McCain and his party are soldiers to their deranged, Rapture-obsessed policies in a way that the cool and calm Obama is not a soldier for Wright.

it's maddening.

Thanks Irvine - Excellent Post.

 

[U2isthebest]

That was brilliant Irvine. I could not agree more completely.

 

[diamond]

At least Mitt stayed above the fray, no matter how much people attacked his belief system.

It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

dbs

 

[BVS]

It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

Care to explain?

 

[Utoo]

"cab catching"
why introduce that into the serious issue of race problems?

Seriously? It has everything to do with race. It's the same way I was never followed around in a convenience store unless I went in with my black friend. Or how in high school I could walk through the halls and chat with the principal, but my friend would consistently be asked for a hall pass.

The "serious issue of race" doesn't only have to do with outright hatred or abuse. In fact, it's the little things that, when piled on together throughout one's life, makes the effects of race even larger.

Never being able to catch a cab in DC because you're black (despite the fact that half of DC is black..) has as much to do with racism as an outright hate crime.

 

[martha]

It's funny to watch FYMers try and regulate 1st Amendment rights of Americans inadvertently turing themselves into liberal word police facists.

Where has anyone tried to regulate what anyone else has said here in this thread?

 

[diamond]

It's a mindset Martha.

Preachers may say what they want to say- but by trying to suppress their right to speak you only invigorate them.

Hence the title of this thread.

It would be best to simply turn a way from them and let others follow your example.

dbs

 

[martha]

Preachers may say what they want to say- but by trying to suppress their right to speak you only invigorate them.

But where as anyone here tried to suppress the preachers?

 

[diamond]

But where as anyone here tried to suppress the preachers?

Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

now you're getting all Confucius on us.

 

[diamond]

you have no idea of my action, boobie.

 

[martha]

Not directly suppress, but exercising time to post a thread and venting one's disgust works in a adverse manner.

dbs

What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

Or are these guys getting a pass from you because of the Reverend thing?

 

[anitram]

What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

We'd be better off spending our valuable time discusing demonic possessions.

 

[melon]

Thanks Irvine - Excellent Post.

Yes. He said it all before I could.

 

[melon]

What?? So we all just roll over when someone says something with which we disagree?

Or are these guys getting a pass from you because of the Reverend thing?

The current FUD over the last few years has been to paint "conservative Christians" as an "oppressed minority" on par with Jews and blacks. That is, those who question them are, thus, "denying them their rights." Interestingly, most of those arguments are just as poorly constructed as the rest of their worldviews, as we can see here.

What conservative Christians have completely forgotten is that "freedom of speech" does not mean a "freedom to be unopposed" or "freedom from rebuttal." Instead, it is just as much our right to use free speech to oppose them just as it is their free speech right to say whatever it is they want.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes. He said it all before I could.

:O)

I did not say I agreed with it.....

It was at least an intelligent response - and it made me think - which is good.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Seriously? It has everything to do with race. It's the same way I was never followed around in a convenience store unless I went in with my black friend. Or how in high school I could walk through the halls and chat with the principal, but my friend would consistently be asked for a hall pass.

The "serious issue of race" doesn't only have to do with outright hatred or abuse. In fact, it's the little things that, when piled on together throughout one's life, makes the effects of race even larger.

Never being able to catch a cab in DC because you're black (despite the fact that half of DC is black..) has as much to do with racism as an outright hate crime.

Not for an election it doesn't, putting race front and centre seems to be an issue that most people want nothing to do with, and you need most people to win an election.