The Value, and Values, of Barack: Why He Gave That Speech On Race

As a part of PBS' Frontline piece "The Choice 2008" (which I hear is a good look at the candidates), they interviewed Obama's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod. At one point they asked him: "When the Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright comments came out and the whole hubbub happened, what were your thoughts? How did you decide to deal with it?" This is how he responded, and it blows me away to see the depth of value in Obama that it reflects:

"The Rev. Wright episode was one of those episodes in which I began to see a president in real stark terms, because the stories broke; it was a feeding frenzy in the media. He was in Washington voting until 1:00 in the morning. We had set up some editorial board interviews the next day in Chicago on a different, also challenging subject. So he flew back into the city in the middle of the day on Friday, and he issued a statement on Rev. Wright -- we had written one; he rewrote it. Went off to his editorial boards for three hours, went on television, sat for three or four different interviews on Rev. Wright, and then said that night, 'I want to do a speech on race; I want to put this in context.'

He had mentioned the desire to make a speech like this before, but this seemed like the right time. And he said, 'And I want to do it on Monday or Tuesday.' He said, 'But I have to write it.'

So he went off campaigning on Saturday and came home. At 9:30 Saturday night he dictated an outline to one of his speechwriters, who shot it back to him on Sunday. Sunday night at 10:00, he started working on it again, and worked until 3:00 in the morning. We took off at 8:00 in the morning the next day, on Monday. The speech was Tuesday. Campaigned all day in Pennsylvania, and then from 9:30 till 2:00 in the morning on Monday, he finished the speech.

Knowing his habits, I just went to sleep, thinking I'd wake up in the middle of the night because the speech would be there in the middle of the night. And that's what happened. And I read that speech, and I just e-mailed him back and said, "This is why you should be president," because it was so filled with wisdom and so profound in many ways that it just blew me away that a guy in the midst of all this chaos, with no sleep and in the middle of the night, could produce that kind of thought and that kind of work." (emphasis added)

Take a look at the speech he came up with, below, that offers a glimpse of the hopeful--yes hopeful--perspective that Obama has to offer our country on this issue (in addition to the undoubtedly important approaches he has to foreign policy, energy, civic engagement, health care, etc., etc.). By the way, I wrote a piece on this speech when he gave it back in March that highlights some of the parts that struck me the most. Here's the speech (with 5,056,568 views on You Tube so far, and that's only for this version of it):

Rev. Wright, Take Two: Maybe What Wright Needs is Some Empathy

Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, which I wrote about in my last post, was followed by a speech and in-depth question and answer session by Wright at the National Press Club yesterday. As I wrote in that last post of mine, Wright’s points in the Moyers interview seemed to be valid; Moyers also provided lengthy clips of Wright's sermons, offering a more complex view of some of his highly criticized comments. At the National Press Club however, mainly in the Q & A period, he talked a good deal more about the political side of things. I’ve been trying to sort through some of the videos of it all to make some sense of it, and while I may write more later, I have some more immediate thoughts here.

At first, after watching Wright's Q & A session and Obama's response (both of which I'll include video of below), I was a bit confused. Wright said a number of things that were slight digs against Obama, such as comments about how he (Obama) did not hear the hope in Wright's speeches, and did not go to church with great frequency. But the comment with the most potential for political damage was, appropriately, political in nature. Wright had mentioned on Moyers' show Friday night that, in distancing himself from Wright, Obama was "doing what politicians do," but left it at that. At the National Press Club however, he expressly said that Obama was doing what he had to do "to get elected."

That was, for me, plausible. As anyone whose candidate comes in the line of fire wants to think, my first reaction was that Wright's comments simply weren't true. But of course, thinking that doesn't make it so. So I asked myself whether the reasons Obama provided for distancing himself from Wright seemed valid to me, or not. My sense of the situation crystallized a bit when I looked back at part of the speech Obama gave when he first fully addressed the issue of Rev. Wright, along with the issue of race, in Pennsylvania last month.

Within that speech, Obama describes one of the key reasons he decided to distance himself from Wright:

"[T]he remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they professed a profoundly distorted view of this country. A view that sees white racism as endemic, that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America. A view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East primarily rooted in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive. Divisive at a time when we need unity..." (These comments start around the seventh minute in this video.)

But to return to our question about Wright's claim, is Obama just saying what's necessary to be elected? To claim that implies that Obama is lying, or at least intentionally misleading. Certainly what Obama has said about Wright has helped assuage the worries of many potential supporters, but does that mean he was lying, or being misleading?

Well, I haven’t heard the comments Wright made concerning Israel, but in terms of his thoughts on white racism, I do indeed think that some of those thoughts gave the impression that white racism is "endemic," as Obama put it. I looked up a short clip on a sermon of Wright's where he talks some about Hillary Clinton, along with whites in general. In watching it, I did get the sense that he was painting whites in a pessimistic, fatalistic fashion. He makes a number of comments about African Americans that are undoubtedly true, noting that whites do not know what it’s like for a taxi to pass them by because of their color, or to be pulled over by the police because of the way they look.

These points are ones that I think Obama was making in similar fashions in his speech, but the difference is that Obama clearly attempted to see things from both the black and white perspective. As I mentioned in my first post on Obama’s “race speech,” he accurately speaks about the black and the white perspective on race, without demonizing either. The above sermon of Wright’s that I watched, available here, does not attempt to see things from both sides, in my view, and therefore comes across as demonizing in ways. I don’t think that means Wright hates whites, or anything that extreme, I think it simply means that he, in some ways, was not attempting to see things from both sides; Obama even pointed this out during his Pennsylvania speech, noting that he never saw Wright treat a white person unkindly, etc.

To wrap my thoughts up here, I would say that the whole issue here may come down to empathy. Both Obama and Wright are looking at problems, not of race, but of races--that is, problems that involve both blacks and whites. In order to do so fairly and progressively, both sides need to be considered. Do not hear me wrong though, these problems began, and to the extent that they still exist, have in many ways been perpetuated, at the hands of whites. But of course many whites do not accept these problems, passionately wanting, along with blacks and others, to see things change. It seems Obama is looking hopefully (to use "his" word) at this reality, acknowledging the problems at hands, and saying, “let’s move onto solutions.” Wright, on the other hand, in some ways at least, appears to be focusing more on the problems. There may be more to this puzzle, but those are some initial thoughts. The key videos from Wright yesterday, and Obama today, are below.

Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 1 (again, he gave a speech that preceded the Q&A session, but from what I saw, he talked politics for the most part afterwards in response to questions):



Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 2:



Wright at the National Press Club for Q&A, part 3:



Obama's response to Wright's National Press Club comments:



Above photo credit: Chip Somodevilla for Getty images, all rights reserved.

Video of Jeremiah Wright's First Interview Post-Controversy

Bill Moyers of PBS got the chance to interview Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright last night for the first time since the controversy broke out a few months ago. The interview's well worth watching, as it's an in-depth discussion of the African American church in general, and Wright's church specifically. The short video clips that started the controversy are shown in their full context as well, offering a more complicated picture of what was said. Both parts of the video are below, together lasting about 45 minutes; the first part deals more with the historical issues, with the interview comprising most of the second.

Part 1:



Part 2:



Update: Please see my more recent post on this subject to read about my thoughts following Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club: "Rev. Wright, Take Two: Maybe What Wright Needs is Some Empathy."

Racism, as American as Apple Pie

Jena, Louisiana, site of the" Jena Six"-related racial issues in 2007.

"The 1968 Kerner Commission conclusion that racism is deeply embedded in the American society is still true. Racism is still as American as apple pie in this area. The existing huge disparities by race could not exist without racism."

-Detroit citizen, Karl Gregory, at recent hearing on race

As I wrote about previously, I was moved by Obama’s recent speech on racism. Did I think it would catalyze a national discussion of any substance though? Of that, I was less sure. What I realize now, is that I just wasn’t sure what we’d be talking about if there was such a “national discussion.” What I was lacking, I realize, is a framework—a framework of what exactly the racial problems of our day are, what they have been, and what solutions have been attempted over the years. If a national discussion is to happen—and I am convinced now that it should somehow—then surely we must have information with which to productively talk about race. Without such information, people will lack buy-in—they will know in their bones that something is wrong, but will lack the facts of both the problems and the potential solutions. This risks emotional starts to conversations—and initiatives—that will quickly fizzle out because of lack of facts.

What am I going on about? Education. This is what struck those who listened to Obama’s speech: he educated us, in ways, about specific problems related to skin color, teaching whites about black issues, and vice versa (something he is well equipped to do, given his mixed background and related experiences in the worlds of both blacks and whites). With his specifics, he set an example, I believe, for the type of substance that should characterize any “national discussions” that might occur.

For example, he shared some of the following (well-balanced) specifics:

“So when [whites are] 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.”

But he goes on, discussing specific actions that could be taken:

“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.”

The rest of this post focuses mainly on more specifics of race-related problems, as well as potential ways to approach solutions, but an important sidenote: I heard the author Susan Jacoby talk recently about how we need an “Educator in Chief” badly in the US, who will take the time to talk with the American people about issues, educating them about why something is a problem, and I think Obama’s speech is a good sign that he may just be such an Educator in Chief. The great video of Jacoby’s discussion on this can be watched here.

The reason I realized I was lacking the type of specific information I mentioned above, or a “framework” as I called it, is because last night's episode of what has become my favorite weekly show, “Bill Moyers Journal,” was on these issues. Bill Moyers has much to say about, well, a lot, so I would encourage any unacquainted readers to delve into some of his weekly shows, the archives of which are available in video form on his website, http://www.pbs.org/moyers. His show last night did something that we rarely do though, it considered history—where we were in the past with race-related issues, and the all-important question of whether we have advanced. The conclusion was grim, in large part.

The first part of the show focused on the race riots of 1967—primarily those in Detroit, Michigan and Newark, New Jersey, although apparently “126 cities were hit by racial violence [that year], with 75 incidents classified as major riots (emphasis added).” President Lyndon Johnson responded by forming the “Kerner Commission,” with the intent of understanding and dealing with the underlying problems. The Commission surprised many by finding that the riots were not planned (by those such as the Black Panthers or others), but grew in large part out of “white racism”: “[W]hat white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that the white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it. White institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” In the show, Moyers goes on to talk with one of the few members of the Commission still alive, highlighting how many of the recommendations of the Commission were not realized, and remain with us today.

To keep with the theme of forming a framework with which to consider race, I’ll review some quotes from the show that helped me realize how devastatingly real a factor race still is in our country. The following are a few of those quotes, all taken from a forum in Detroit on race-related issues (clips from the forum were included in the show):

DR. HERBERT SMITHERMAN: "In 1970, the infant mortality rate, that is our babies dying before age of one, was about 65 percent higher in the black community than in the white community. Currently, it's 205 percent higher in the black community than in the white community."

GEORGE GALSTER: "The City of Detroit constitutes 85 percent black residents, only nine percent white residents. The poverty rate—white, it's only 5.9 percent, blacks: 24 percent. The median family income—for whites, over $65,000, for blacks, only $37,000. We could go on and on, but, it's very clear that there are these measurable distinctions between blacks and whites in metro Detroit."

ROY LEVY WILLIAMS: "The one industry which has flourished [in Detroit] is the prison industry. And, yes, it has become an industry. During the last 15 years, this state has been averaging one brand new prison a year."

One other gentleman who spoke at the forum, Dr. Herbert Smitherman, discussed the question of what we can do about these issues:

“When we had 9/11, we were arguing about Social Security reform. Where are we gonna find the money for it? And within 48 hours after 9/11, we found $40 billion for New York City, a billion dollars an hour. When we want to do something as a country, we do it. This is not about can we do. This is about a will. This is about do we want to do. When you start saying I'm gonna have cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, cuts to housing in urban development, no subsidies to mass transit, eliminate funding for job training, cut school lunch programs for inner city children, eliminate school loan programs for minority students, repeal after-school programs. What I'm saying is this is about public policy. This is about resource implementation.”

Those numbers don't even take into account the $11 billion we find to fund the war in Iraq each month.

In the second-half of the show, Moyers has a discussion with the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Cory Booker. Booker, a 38-year old Yale Law graduate, comes across as an inspired pragmatist in his approach to questions of race in the city. At one point, he moved from the suburbs surrounding Newark, right into the projects for eight years. As mayor, he brought the murder rate down 70 percent, and implemented difficult, but important reforms and policies. What he said that really cut to the heart of matters though, was that the changes we need do not start with policy, but attitude. He talked about how we know past generations struggled to start this country, to move it past slavery, past a Civil War and much inequality, but that we falter with our current problems because we think the work is done—i.e., that there is not work for us to do in perfecting our union, as there was for our forefathers. Watch the show, and you will see that that just is not so and, hopefully, moved as I was to consider the very real ways we can be involved in sacrificing our comfort for the larger good.

The video of the show is below, and I would implore any who wonder about the depth of this issue, and the seemingly abstract question of how to address it, to take 60 minutes to watch. We have time for many things in America, but somehow have been confused into thinking that our time is best spent serving ourselves. I find this to be a damning truth that grows out of what I mentioned above, that sense that there is not work left to be done. I mention it again because I don’t think it simply describes a handful of us, but so many in America—myself included. This is some of what I believe Obama speaks to when he encourages us to think of ourselves as our “brother’s or sister’s keeper.” And this is what Moyers’ show last night cut to the heart of, asking, as Smitherman did above, do we have the will to reach outside of ourselves, again and again, working to change these problems that plague our country (and our world, for that matter)?

Part 1, on the Kerner Commission, with former Senator Fred Harris:



Part 2, on racism today, and solutions for today, with Newark Mayor Cory Booker:




Update: As the 40th remembrance of Martin Luther King's assassination comes and goes (April 4th), here's a great piece describing his final days, along with his measured, peaceful approach to change. In it, David Brooks of the New York Times, an admitted conservative, makes an interesting observation: "If Barack Obama’s presidential campaign represents anything, it is the triumph of King’s early-60s style of activism over the angry and reckless late-60s style." It's a brief piece, and worth the read.

Update 2: Good piece in Congressional Quarterly on what they call the "generation gap on racial politics."

Update 3: A helpful reminder in a recent Washington Post piece of how some are still blatantly rejecting Obama because of race.

The Value, and Values, of Barack: Racial Acuity

Obama spoke today, and it was indeed unique. The topic was race, and his honesty was encouraging. I will not say much before pasting an excerpt of his speech and a link to the video of it, but will note that what stood out most was his ability and authority, as a man of mixed race, to speak to both the black and white community--and with a candor and conviction that was heartening, and so necessary in our country, divided racially and otherwise as we are under the surface. To hear a leader so moved by issues that politicians seem alternately blind and powerless towards, was in itself moving; and it was not simply moving because inspiration is nice, but because people need to be moved in order to move (i.e., to progress)--and clearly, with race, there is much need for progress still; or, as he put it in his speech, there is much need for us to continue the work of perfecting our union.

Lastly, I would note that this is the first of what I intend to be a series of pieces on the values of Obama. The word itself--values--has been too commonly reserved for the political right, and in a way that limits the meaning of the word to a single religious community's singular, narrow interpretation. The Religious Right's use of the word, in fact, has not only cheapened it for those outside of the Religious Right, it has gone so far as to strip the value for those within, removing phrases such as income equality, disease reduction, and shared humanity from the idea of "values."

Below, I pasted an excerpt from the text of Obama's speech, wherein he speaks directly to the black and white communities in the ways I mentioned above. I would urge you to read and consider the capacity such thinking has to propel our country in correcting directions. The link to the video follows the speech, and is worth watching in its entirety, as it is filled with concepts that I personally have not heard many politicians delve into in near this depth, with near this focus.

"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 naive 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 the 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.

In 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."

The speech in full (around 20-30 (worthwhile) minutes):

Hillary's Earned Opposition: "Obama is a Reaganite"

I believe the Clintons have, in many ways, been earning the negative opposition they are facing. As I noted here, this opposition, and the inseparable sentiments about her husband, are enough to bring into question: 1. her ability to win the election in Nov., if nominated over Obama; 2. her ability to build support for the Democratic party and not quickly lose the opportunity for the party to move forward a progressive agenda over some number of years; and 3. perhaps most importantly, her desirability as a President, given the nature of the negative and disingenuous statements by her and Bill of recent (and this does not even touch on the myriad incidents and sordid history of their past years).

The example I'll discuss here is again, just one of the reasons why the Clintons have earned this opposition, and centers on an attack about two weeks ago, leveled by the Clintons on Obama for his "Reagan statement." In the South Carolina debate, as well as in paid advertisements, the Clintons denigrated Obama for his comments about Ronald Reagan. The terrible irony is that Bill Clinton, as detailed in this Washington Post article, praised Reagan in numerous ways during his run for the White House in 1991-1992. He said things praising Reagan's work on the Cold War, esteeming his "rhetoric in defense of freedom," and his work in "advancing the idea that communism could be rolled back." The Post article notes that during that time, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said that Bill "set himself apart from the pack of contenders for the Democratic nomination by saying something nice about Ronald Reagan," revealing his "readiness to defy his party's prevailing Reaganphobia."

Now, turning to Obama. The part of Obama's statement in question, which can be found in video and text form here, was as follows:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing...I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

In response to these statements, as noted in the link from above, Hillary stated: "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years." Her husband said, "[My wife's] principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks." Nowhere in Obama's statement does he say the Republicans had good ideas--nowhere. Rather, he says they had ideas that mobilized people, shook things up from the regular approach to things. As it says on this Chicago Tribune blog, "When the Clintons used "better" and "good" in alluding the Obama's remarks, they weren't paraphrasing, they weren't misremembering, they weren't distorting. They were simply lying."

Hillary went on to attempt to "call Obama out" on this in the SC debate two weeks ago; her statement and his reply can be found in the video below. In it, Obama points out that he has "spent a lifetime working against [Reagan's] policies," and that nowhere in his statement does he say Reagan's ideas were good or what was needed.



Hillary also paid for advertising, such as the radio ad below, that again seeks to paint Obama as one who accepts and endorses the ideas of Reagan (the ad was soon pulled from the air by the campaign):



I will not willingly accept these thin ethics again in a President, I just can't, it's not good for anyone involved. This is one reason, among others, that Obama has my vote. As noted in the wonderful thoughts of 90-year old NPR commentator Daniel Schorr, who won three Emmys in 1972 for his coverage of the Nixon Watergate lies, lying has become a shamefully acceptable practice. That short radio piece can be found here, with another short piece on lying in government here. Answer the poll below and/or write in a comment if you have any thoughts on this.

more at twiigs.com...

Update: Frank Rich of the New York Times noted another instance of what he calls not just a lie, but a "bigoted lie" by the Clintons: "Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have 'not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.' Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was 'making a historical statement.'It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to 'undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.' "

Update 2: Robert Reich, who I've mentioned previously was Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, explains some of the unethical breeches he has noticed in the Clintons' campaign: "I write this more out of sadness than anger...While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point..." Read more here...

Candidates Asked About Crime & Punishment, Economic Disparity, Darfur, AIDS

"This week billionaire Warren Buffet said that the very wealthy aren't taxed nearly enough. In fact he noted that he's taxed at a lower rate than some of his employees that earn much less. Do you agree that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and what would you do about it?"

So begins the "economic disparity" section of the Democratic portion of the "All American Presidential Forums on PBS." On the website, the forum was described in this way:

"Inspired by the book the Covenant with Black America, The All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color is represented in primetime. Many of the questions asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book."

The forum was held for Democratic candidates on June 28th, and Republicans on Sept. 27th. I just discovered this today, and really appreciate the pressing subjects that were covered in both forums, along with the effort this represents to consider issues particularly affecting the African American community. The length of the primary race--running over a year as it has--makes a forum held seven months ago feel irrelevant, but that's simply not so when you are a voter considering where to place your support; what the candidates who are still in the race said in this debate is key, and offers insight into who they are and where they stand (and there's of course importance in understanding issues holistically by listening to those candidates who have dropped out if possible; if you are looking for a particular candidate's responses though, the video screen is setup a little differently than most online videos, and you have to use the fast forward button on there to do so). The uniqueness of the subjects covered in this debate really do make for a standout forum though, and although the amount of time given to candidates is fairly quick in some parts, this does allow for short, to the point clips on each topic. Here is a link to the page with a video screen and a list of all of the topics for the Democrats' section, or you can just click on any of the links below to go a video on a specific topic:

• Race in 21st Century America
• Poverty in America
• AIDS Epidemic
• Economic Disparity
• Crime & Punishment
• Katrina: Right to Return
• Outsourcing Jobs
• Crisis in Darfur

And the same for Republicans, with a link to the video page of all the sections here, and a list of the topics covered below, each with a link to a video on that section:

• Candidate Participation (regards Giuliani, Romney and McCain not attending)
• Your Legacy on Race
• Employment Disparity
• Immigration: Path to Citizenship
• Jena 6 & Racial Justice
• Voting Rights
• Access to Healthcare
• Iraq: Bearing the Burden
• Crisis in Darfur
• Capital Punishment
• Affirmative Action