Saletan's black/white thing is odd. He says a black/white duality is evident the substance of Obama's speech. I guess the Harvard law part is white and the church rhythm is black. I think Saletan makes good observations as well as demonstrating how he is part of the problem.

All I can say is, "Umph." And shake my head.

I hate it when someone says another "isn't really" who they are. Because it makes me wonder (1) whether they're searching for labels or categories or ways of being that they feel comfy with so they could either deny or accept this person; or (2) calling someone out for supposedly being fake, so that they can read them out of the tribe.

You can apply this kind of expectation to both blacks and whites.

Another Saletan observation that bugs me:

"Two things about the speech trouble me. They bothered me yesterday, and in a way they've been nagging at me for months. Obama just happens to bring them to the fore by representing them in person as well as in words. One is the Democratic Party's exploitation of hostility to free trade. Obama, like other speakers at this convention, complains about "companies shipping jobs overseas" and workers "losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico." At the same time, Obama holds himself out as a symbol of a diverse, welcoming America. How can Democrats be the party of diversity at home but xenophobia abroad, the party that loves Mexican-Americans but hates Maytag plants in Mexico, the party that thinks Obama's mom deserves a job more than Obama's dad does? I understand the politics of it. But what about the morals?"

The moral is that this place IS crazy, period. And number two, if you really want to talk about recent history, blame NAFTA.

As a mixed race Londoner (with admittedly meagre knowledge of American party politics), I am somewhat confused by Saletan's response to Obama's part in the Democrat gig. His copy seemed to be a tad incoherent.

He starts by saying that Obama isn't president 'yet', follows this with saying he is a shoe-in for success ('he has a glide path to the senate'), but then contradicts himself by saying that the race to be (the 'next' - has there been one that I missed?) black American President is crowded. Hmmm.

The comment on Obama's 'blackness' indicates a certain strangeness in his viewpoint. Obama is half ethinic minority, he looks black, his wife and kids are black, racists treat him as black, and while we know that he is as much black as he is white, the world doesn't sit down to debate semantics when it is figuring out which form of prejudice to use on you! What is the point here - is he saying Obama gets special treatment (that he doesn't merit 'cos he's not black) because an undeserved ethnic label has been slapped on his forehead? He's lost me there!

Saletan then drops a reference to Bill Cosby with regard to an Obama statement that seems perfectly non-Cosby-like. Maybe it's just me, but the name Cosby evokes corny, crass, 'good-nigger' type sentiment. (My problem I guess!). So to me, this jab at Obama has a certain edge, an edge that is highlighted by further digs at Obama's speechifying technique. Seems to me that American politicos are always namechecking God, and acting the holy roller - even the ones that aren't southern (a tried and tested means of connecting with the masses, n'est ce pas?!), so why single Barack out for comment?

Finally (sorry about this long post, but Saletan's analysis just doesn't compute) Saletan has a go at the Democats for 'exploiting hostility to free trade', implying that Obama hypocrytically symbolises the welcoming attitude to diversity in a party that objects to exporting US jobs to cheap labour in foreign countries. May I point out that embracing diversity is not mutually exclusive to making sure immigrants and 'regular' Americans alike are not priced out of the labour market?

Still, thanks for writing the article William. I shall be following Obama's progress with renewed interest, thanks to you!