It is times of upheaval or great movements that produce great leaders. Not taking anything away from MLK who was a man of and for his time. He had the courage, determination, ambition and unique leadership talents to organize the civil rights movement and move it full steam ahead.

The mass civil rights movement died after the assassinations of the 1960s. People like Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, etc. tried to keep it alive by ‘institutionalizing’’ it. But it lost the vigor and forward-looking nature that had made it strong. The leadership became self-serving and narrow, reinforced by the media that constantly quoted out-dated civil rights ‘leaders’ for every story they ran on “Black America.” Meanwhile the black middle class grew, with a surge in blacks entering professions and reaching the CEO level of corporate America (Amex, Time, Merrill Lynch etc.)

In America today, the need is to bring together all the disparate factions of society. The US has problems now that transcend race but which all races are concerned about.

This is a period of upheaval. Obama never claims to be the inheritor of MLK. That would narrow what he is trying to do. He is building a coalition across race, gender and economic lines. He credits MLK and others for doing the hard labor that set the stage for him. But he is genuinely claiming leadership of the American people. He has broken through the box that would limit his influence to the black community alone.

Obama is no King. He doesn’t claim to be. He doesn’t want to be. He is responding to a vacuum of leadership needed for the times we live in now.

Obama is responding to his own political ambition. That is what has gotten his butt in so much trouble over his mentor's racist rants. I don't think Obama is even a racist. He joined Wright's church to establish a political base. However, it matters little: one who sacrifices his scruples for political gain is just as bad as a racist.

@ Squeek:

Very well put! Thank you.

Obama 08!

Obama is closer to a heir of Bull Connor than MLK. It was Connor who argued that people's votes shouldn't count because of "the rules," because "order" required it, because it was necessary to "avoid anarchy" and because the disenfranchised voters "deserved their disenfranchisement." It was King who marched to ensure that every American counted and counted equal to every other American.

These are all arguments Obama is using today. Clinton is no better--her circumstances are just different for the time-being,

To the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, the right to vote was the keystone to all other rights. With the vote, a minority can defend its others rights. Without the vote, citizens don't matter.

The 21st Century proof of that truth was demonstrated when the DNC stripped Florida's primary voters of delegates. Since they no longer mattered, all the Democratic candidates quickly agreed with demands from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina Democrats that the candidates go further and shun the voters of Florida. To pander to Americans whose primary votes would count, all the Democratic candidates agreed to shun those whose votes wouldn't.

Proof anew that without the vote, Americans are meaningless to the political process: No American should be meaningless in an American election.

Obama is no King, He's just a political opportunist untied to any basic principles that can stand in the way of winning. While King worked to "up turn and turn upright," Obama- "just follows the rules." in order to personally climb to the top of the political heap.

The so-called "Party of Civil Rights," including its first viable African-American candidate, believes in one and only one thing--winning; and winning at whatever cost can be paid by someone else.

We need laws to change the rules by which these self-interested combatants play. The political process should be based on counting votes. Candidates should not be choosing the voters, the voters are supposed to choose the candidates.

Barack Obama has openly admitted to hearing his pastor make harsh criticisms of America with which he disagrees. But Obama said he had not heard Wright make the particular comments the media have focused upon. There are those who say he must have heard, and therefore are calling Obama a liar! To them I say:

1) The media focused upon only a minute or two of Wright’s comments, out of 30 years of sermons.

2) How many Christians attend church every Sunday? The average person misses many sermons, as likely has Obama. It is quite possible that he missed hearing the particular offensive sentences focused upon by the media.

3) While campaigning for election to the Illinois state senate in 2002, Obama had the courage to risk his election effort by openly espousing the unpopular position at that time of opposing the invasion of Iraq – a strong indication of integrity (plus good judgment).

4) Of course Obama knew of Wright’s anger regarding race, which sometimes surfaced in sermons. He also knew of Wright’s positive qualities and his community service. If you and I disowned or rejected everyone who made statements with which we disagreed, we would have no friends or associates at all!

Check Obama’s record. Those who see him as dishonest have not studied him enough or are being irrational. They should look at their own honesty or biases. His actions radiate high ideals and integrity!

You must have attached your reply to my comment by mistake.

My problem with Obama is his consent to vote voiding.

I may be the only old white male in America to feel this way, but I don't see the minister's reaction as too out-of-line given history.

Other ethnic boosters aren't considered racists. Only because race was used to victimize blacks is it impermissible for African Americans to booster for one another the way every other ethnic group does.

Put the minister's words in the mouth of a Rabbi or a poor white hill dweller on behalf of their constituency and it is a yawn.

If he's angry it might be because race discrimination the only area of federal intervention to undo past injustices where the relevant characteristic of the victims can't be considered--under a brand new court created law. If age discrimination occurs, the government can consider age in fashioning solutions. If discrimination based on religion or national origin occur, the government can consider religion or national origin in fashioning solutions. But if its blacks who are the victims, the solutions cannot consider skin color.

Gee, once again, the blacks are singled out for special disadvantages.

Under Chief Justice Robert's new amendment to Brown v. School Board, only in the area or racial discrimination must the government ignore the relevant characteristic of the victim when fashioning a solution.

This isn't forty years ago. It's happening today: legally treating blacks differently from every other class of citizen.

I'd be mad if I were black. Hell, I'm not black and I am mad.

Obama and his minister shouldn't be criticized for not posing like they've always been happilly accepted members of the Chamber of Commerce. White Americans shouldn't insist that black candidates be just like them anymore than the rest of us insist Texans not be obnoxious.

The day color blindness is a reality, then I'll start holding blacks to a color-blind standard. Until then, I think they'd better keep their edge-on because the reactionaries are sitting on the Supreme Court and swinging the pendulum back.

My advise to Obama and his minister: Get tough to the former and stay tough to the latter. Otherwise, what happened between 1876 and 1905 will repeat itself--all the gains of the Civil War years including three civil rights amendments to the Constitution were undermined by judges sitting on the Supreme Court.

But, of course, if he voids votes, he ain't my kind of guy or gal no matter what color. Color ain't an excuse for going along with voiding votes.

Re-reading your post: I'm not saying he's dishonest. I'm saying he went along with the voiding of millions of votes--the very thing the civil rights movement most cared about.

How do you square his vote voiding behavior with leadership?

How do you square Clinton's agreement on Michigan and Florida with her crocodile tears of disenfranchising those same voters today?

I don't square it. She's as deplorable as him. I'd like to have seen one Democrat say that vote voiding was a bad idea as soon as it came up. They all played it for whatever advantage they personally could get and, in the case of Clinton and Obama, are still playing it so.

My point is the fundamental lack of conviction that might stand in the way of personal advantage. If votes are dispensable, what ain't?

Charismatics is a pain in the ass. We are not in an upheaval. Part of our problem is that we as citizens are pretty much going about our business and being passive readers of the news while our economy tanks and the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan get worse.

We have many domestic and foreign problems that are growing worse day by day and will eventually become huge and terrible in nature, but we are not there yet. Most citizens would say that aside from worries about the economy most things are just fine. We are not in an upheavel, but we should be.

There is no need to bring together all the disparate factions. Do you honestly think that the average far Left liberal and Far right conservative citizen have any interest in anything other than beating the other in the head with a shovel. At least that is the fond desire of the average arch conservative. Who the hell knows what the average wing-ding of a far Left liberal wants?

Obama cannot even unite the Democratic Party and for damn sure he is not going to tame the Republican Party or domesticate; i.e., civilize, its membership.

What is needed is a methodical and no-nonsense problems fixer. Obama is not that person. He is a speech maker and a 'feel good' purveyor, but he is not a problems fixer.

Now you may return to your wild-eyed worship of ,and membership in, the Cult of Obama.

Gatewood wrote:

"What is needed is a methodical and no-nonsense problems fixer. Obama is not that person. He is a speech maker and a 'feel good' purveyor, but he is not a problems fixer."

Do you mean like Newt Gingrich? He promoted the Republicans-must-win-by-any-me­­ans mentality, which led to unprecedented partisan politics, which continues today. This approach has led to Republicans following the lead of a dishonest and foolish president on virtually every issue for years.

Obama possesses a rare combination of high intelligence, honesty, and respect for others. He has already demonstrated his ability to work across the aisle, including while in Illinois politics.

Governor Richardson was expected to put his support behind Clinton, but he it was not for nothing that he changed his mind and endorsed Obama. As he said, "There's something special about this guy." What's special is the combination of qualities I mentioned above.

"Now you may return to your wild-eyed worship of ,and membership in, the Cult of Obama."

I'm 66, an independent, and not inclined to "wild-eyed worship." Objectively Obama is our best hope at this time. He represents the opposite of the dishonesty and incompetence of the Bush administration.

"Obama possesses a rare combination of high intelligence, honesty, and respect for others."

"There's something special about this guy."

"He represents the opposite of . . . "

Yeah, yeah, and in his spare time this newbie senator walks on water and heals the blind. Every one of those quote segments represents a child's political level of gormless wishful thinking. So your 66 years of life don't precisely impress me. Perhaps you should have worked at becoming wise as well as older.

The Republican Party has morphed into the Conservative Party and it is not going to regress into civilized actions and thought patterns just because Obama gives good speeches. As for him extending his hand in friendship, the wise old republican heads in the House and Senate will nod and smile and then rip is arm off his shoulder and beat him half to death with it.

I don't have time for 66 year old political infants. Reality is not subject to your 'feelings' and does not alter because millions of fools choose to ignore reality and worship at the altar of Obama.

He may indeed become president, and if that happens then all of us had better hope that the man has a vast amount of heretofore hidden experience and earned political gravitas, because what he has revealed to this point is nothing but clever speeches.

Issywise wrote:

"You must have attached your reply to my comment by mistake."

Yes. (Sorry, new to this forum format.)

"I may be the only old white male in America to feel this way, but I don't see the minister's reaction as too out-of-line given history."

I agree, up to a point. Wright's strong emotions about the injustices that he witnessed in his youngter days are quite understandable. But damning America is going a too far. It is white America that is responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation, although it took over another century before black people were really freed.

"My problem with Obama is his consent to vote voiding."

It is my understanding that basically Obama said he is leaving the Florida and Michigan situation up to the DNC as to what to do about it. That is not the same as advocating voiding votes. For him to have done otherwise would be to commit the same disrespect for the Democratic leadership that Florida and Michigan comitted. What gave those states the right to ignore the rules set by the DNC? If the DNC had let those states get away with it, that would be tantamount to inviting further breaches of the rules by others -- in other words, inviting anarchistic behavior.

Under the circumstances I think Obama took the best stance possible.

In exactly what fashion is Obama poised to be a civil rights leader? What is he doing, or has done to form any coalitions across race, gender and economic lines? What are his plans to achieve these things?

"You say Obama is no King." Obama says he's no Pastor Wright (when that needed saying). Obama says we must "heal racial wounds" like that was not already obvious and then gives us no treatment plan. Obama's wife is most decidedly for sponsoring any and all avenues to help just the black race. She is apparently is not at all concerned about Amerindians, hispanics, Vietnamese or any other ethnic minorities. How is this bridging any racial divides? Does Barack think his wife is wrong?

More accurately I think you WANT Obama to be the next civil rights leader. You THINK Obama can forge a new coalition across race, gender and economic lines. But, from what Obama has shown and lived for 20 plus years he does not appear to be what you WANT or THINK he can be.

To be fair please tell us exactly what Obama has done to help race relations, or of any specific plans he has to do so. Because as far as anyone else knows Obama is 100% rhetoric and most of that is pie in the sky and wishy washy. He promises "change" but a change to what?

It's too bad that you have to resort to insults instead of something of intelligent substance.

"He may indeed become president, and if that happens then all of us had better hope that the man has a vast amount of heretofore hidden experience and earned political gravitas, because what he has revealed to this point is nothing but clever speeches."

Political experience does not equate to a good president. James Buchanan had more experience than most presidents, yet historians consider him to have been one of our worst presidents.

Good speeches require intelligence. Another president who gave unusually good speeches is Abe Lincoln - who turned out to be one of our best presidents.

I agree that age does not necessarily yeild good judgement. Nor does hostile emotional insults. Do you have anything factual to support your views?