Reply #34: though i am tired of this topic i will say

[damndude]

that i was reading this snippet with interest since in do consider only on one occurrence so far where the Clinton's were unfairly accused of race baiting by obama supporter, namely when president clinton referred not to obama's candidacy as a fairy tale but his position on iraq as a fairy tale but was interpreted as implying that him being a viable candidate was a fairy tale just because he is black. that is the only time i can say that i know the obama campaign was wrong with certainty if you listen to the entire quote.
toward the end of this article i will say that the historian is going to extra length to support his point of view. what kerry and mccaskill said happens to be true fundamentally. the fact that barack obama is black and worldly traveled will send a message to the entire world that has been a changing of the guard in washington and thus the policy that affects their countries may change as well. rather that view america as the enemy because a endless line of the same mold of leader they will have to reconfigure their impressions and maybe step back from a combative stance to more of a lets see what america is about now posture which gives diplomacy a greater chance of success.
and he is the first black leader to emerge that is not running as a victim, and by this i am not referring to the claims racism during this primary season but as a whole person prodding white guilt and building a solitary base of black support speaking primarily on issues distinct to the black community rather than the broader nation as a whole. he has not fallen into the expected stereotype raising the issues of slavery, reparations, the confederate flag, and the civil rights abuses of the last century. he has run as a benefiter of the work of marting luther king not a disciple. there's a difference.
as well i would not label keith olbermann as a pro-obama commentator. for the longest time he gave very positive coverage to the clintons and defended them against what he saw as the unfair attacks on their marriage and his presidency. he got his start at msnbc after all covering the impeachment. even now you can hear his disdain for the political atrocity that event was. he only here recently began calling the clinton's on their shtick when the campaign began the negative ads, the wobbly claims of more experience and the hyperbole surrounding the 3am phone calls, the praising of mccain, the bush war resolution, geraldine ferraro, and the bosnia trip. he even did a spacial when in denouncing her campaign tactics he would not even hold her personally responsible but only those representing her name.
i would not put him the pro-obama camp but i would label him a 'can you all get your crap together so we can take this government back form th neocons!' type of liberal. that my kind of news there. i would say he is in the vein of murrow in being the little guy trying to speak truth to power and those who have it who would abuse it.
and though Sean Wilentz wrote that spectacular article in rolling stone eviscerating bush, i read this with a grain of salt as i do all material concerning democrats in election cycles. everyone has agendas, we as voters must be more discerning.