[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Or do I misunderstand that comment? The rest of the OP also seems to ignore possible Black discord on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
No it doesn’t. “Possible Black discord” is not substantiated by a handful of opinions that don’t even support the contention that Obama isn’t “black enough”, which is what keeps getting harped upon in the media. There’s a difference between saying Obama technically is not black because of <insert whatever factor> and saying Obama is not black enough to score black votes.
Not even the snippets that Bricker posted add any evidence to support a significant “Black discord” wrt Obama.
This comment doesn’t say anything about Obama personally or his “blackness”. What it does suggest is that concerns may exist that Obama is not going to be much different than any liberal politician in terms of black representation. Why this has to be interpreted as a statement that black people reject Obama because he’s not black enough is beyond me. Much has been made about Obama being a black man. But in terms of having a political voice, that means nothing if the only people he is listening to are mainstreamers. That is Martin’s point.
(bolding mine)
This strikes me as being no different than any pre-election race grandstanding coming from a potential contender. The issue, once again, is political representation. It takes a special kind of something to read this as being a slam against Obama’s blackness. Urban =! black. Obama is not selling himself as a voice for the “urban agenda”, so Sharpton is correct in saying that he’s the only one (attempting) to do that. And notice how the passive voice figures in once again when the writer says the part in bold? It’s lazy and weasley because it comes across as rumor spreading while always leaving the writer an “out”.
