Oh come on. Is everyone who has an opinion that differs from yours lying?

bullshit. you have no idea what you are talking about and are a sychophantic supporter of a candidate. please stop wasting my time with your ignorance. you can post a million times, and you will get teh same response.

Oh, I know.  I think that aspect of Obama's candidacy (and we can debate how big a factor it ever was) is kinda dead after the recent race controversies, though.

Right, impossible to consider that White people may just be able to see beyond race, that they could truly think this man is best able to do the job well and be effective, that they could actually be inspired, that they could see how his personal story of that is both an immigrant's story and a racial one could go a long way in interjecting a much needed dose of hope in the inner city and integrity into our world image.  But no, since I am white there must be a hidden reason to support him.   It is apparent to me that it is you who are afraid to actually talk about race in anything close to personal terms.  It is you who actually is incapable of speaking honestly with a white man who challenges you and your opinions.  

I remember reading that LA Times article way back and dismissed it.  I remember thinking that the author was far more fixated on the "personality cult" of Obama than the person of Obama.  I admit the "cult" aspects bother me too.  This article had some good points.  But I'm not so sure that Sen. Obama's supporters have a significantly higher percentage of cult like followers than other candidates.

So I remember the author criticism of Obama's image along with other stereotypical images of African-American men, but what I don't remember is him giving us an example of an image he could admire or better yet of getting past images altogether and accepting people as they are without trying to find a catagory for them.

But in the end I think the author totally missed the substance that Sen. Obama brings to the campaign.  Part of this has to do with Obama's style.  As advocates for change, John Edwards is more the advocate style: out front, leading, confrontational, even inflammatory.  Sen. Obama is more the organizer style: identify targets, organize citizens, let citizens take leader roles, grow power by consolidating common interests.

I think that Sen. Obama's "dominant style" is more subtle and harder to see.  John Edwards style is much more obvious - witness his wonderful:

"I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," Edwards said. "Every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack -- every single time."

Neither person is purely one style and both styles are needed in a President.  At this point, I happen to think the organizer style is stronger for our country and the Democratic party.

With regard to the author's statement, "If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him. ",

I think the author is completely missing the fact that a lot of people including white Americans are supporting Sen. Obama on his positions, experience, record and skills.

Hope this made some sense.

Bruh,

Are you familiar with Matt Ygelsias' take on Obama?  Do you think that coincidences at all with the pop cultural image you refer to?  Is he swept away by Obama, or does he actually see Obama's tactics forming the best strategy to move the country in a more progressive direction? As a white Obama supporter, I think it's hard to make the case that people like myself and Matt are swept away by Barack.  We're chiefly interested in his policy talk and view his rhetoric mainly as a useful tool and reflective of a good strategy to get a progressive agenda passed.  If Obama was getting to Hillary's right on the war, I wouldn't be a supporter.  I agree with you that some of the Obama fandom and hero worship has an odd, racial happytalk quality to it, and it's not surprising that the D.C. Media Villagers pick that up and run with it, but you shouldn't paint the candidate or the bulk of the supporters with that brush.  

The biggest flaw in your analogy here is that Obama's the main character.  He's not someone else's helper, he's the man, the star of the show.  You really think that if we had a black President, we would be able to go four or eight years just ignoring race?  You think there's been less attention to race this cycle than four years ago or really any election cycle since the sixties, (including and especially 1992, by the way, as long as we're weighing him against the other option)?  I'm pretty damn confident that an Obama presidency would do more about the racial disparity you cite in the ERs than a Clinton presidency.  So what's this all about?

I mean, this is a guy who walked away from banking jobs and big law firms to help poor black folk and do civil rights work.  This guy, the star of the show.  He's not going to challenge white folks and white privilege?  You're telling me he's Bagger Vance? Was MLK Bagger Vance too?  After all, he did inspire a lot of white folks to change.  

By the way, (and this is silly, but there's a serious point to it) how does Obama girl square with the eunuch magic negro?  That's pretty darn sexualied, as was the whole shirtless beach episode.  In this movie, he's the star, he gets the girl and saves the day in the end.  I mean, by the standards of looks and charm across the spectrum of U.S. politics today, I think Obama's more like John Shaft.  

I don't ask to try to start an argument or be disagreeable; I'm genuinely interested.  I'll give you my take, though: Part of me is sympathetic to what you're saying, but another part of me feels like it's a device for a "crabs in the bucket" dynamic (please pardon the expression), where anyone black who validates white interest in racial reconciliation is a traitor to the very justified feelings of racial anger and discomfort among balcks.  The end result being that rather than try to make a positive change, black folks cling to their very understandable anger and sense of injustice and refuse any course of action that would not begin its analysis with those feelings in the hope that more white folks would be open to changing things (which is what I see Obama doing, and based on his career and background, I trust him to try this approach).  I totally agree with your view of Obama's debate comments that it was not especially statesman-like, even if they were well put.  It was a strategic move to take race back off the table, and appeal to white in NV and the Feb. 5th states (after the week had served its purpose of getting the black folk in the southern states' attention).  But politics are messy.  You don't get to have all your feelings validated.  I agree that sayuing nothing abot race is a problem, but it's just inaccurate to make that claim.  Obama's taken heat from the D.C. press through out the campaign for talking about incarceration rates and sentencing, and he's pulled the field toward a discussion of black issues with his presence.  So I get your point, but step back and look at the bigger picture.  You're looking a gifthorse in the mouth and potentially shooting down the best chance to change things that this country's had in two generations.

what's most interesting is that you think this is a response to the overall point I am making.