The Root had it spot on: Obama can't get mad because the last thing many white Americans want to see is an Angry Black Man running for president.

Mr. Hitchen, I have to say that you missed the analysis on this one. Probably because, like myself, we're looking at it as white men. But when I read The Root today it made sense: Obama has to keep his cool even if it makes him appear to be another Dukakis. If he shows his temper, then millions of white Americans are suddenly going to see Angry Black Man, and all sorts of racial bombs will go off. Yes, it would be nice to see Obama open up the big guns, but he cannot because he would scare away white supporters who don't perceive him as a threat.

Yes, this may cost him the election. But the alternative surely would. And at the risk of incurring trolls, I will say that he can punch below the belt with the best of him (see his Latino ads that came out after the Lipstick and Sex Ed ads by McCain - I'd argue that Obama's ads were more effective, because we white folk blew off the lipstick and sex ed ads while McCain's campaign was seriously hurt by the blow to their attempts to win the Hispanic vote).

Finally - yes, not showing his temper and his anger might cost him the election. But we have to look at the long term here: if Obama loses, and loses with grace and dignity, then the road has been cleared for minorities of all types and persuasions (yes, I'm thinking of conservative minorities too) to the Presidency. And we might just see the fears about the Angry Black Man (personified by the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam) put to rest.

If he does win, then we will know that we have a president in charge who remains cool and calm under pressure. Which is a character trait I'd very much like to see in our chief executive.

Since when do sharp, pointed words have to come in the form of appearing "angry"? No one is suggesting he should don camouflage and black-leather gloves. That the Root says he has to be a wimp to avoid being seen as a thug is more a sign of their perspective (victimized) than of reality. If any candidate, black or white or male or female, had a public outburst or show of emotion (see: Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton), it would damage them. Obama is not a vixtim destined to failure here. He is an intelligent man who could very easily couch hard, devastating language in warm tones...IF he wants it bad enough.

I nearly hate the Clintons, but they are the only Democrats IN MORE THAN 32 YEARS who have had the guts to do what it takes to get elected. Al Gore pussed out. Kerry folded to the Swiftboat veterans. Barack has to step up. If he doesn't take the chance that some might get visions of Huey Newton or whatever, if he doesn't give his electorate the chance to transcend the politics of hate and fear, we don't deserve a good president, and he would never have been one.

You are absolutely correct. Conservatives can put out a hundred "This black man took your job" ads (Jesse Helms) and all they have to do is go on FoxNews and say, "we're not racist" and they are absolved.

But, let one black man become angry and the entire media starts showing pictures of the 1960's Watts' riots.

And shame or our weak media rpeorters for letting themselves be manipulated so easily.

That is a good comment; I hadn't thought of the "angry black man" angle. But let me ask something else:

What could Obama have said about the mortgage crisis, or Russia/Georgia, that wouldn't have been falling into a trap? He is trying to get elected, and I have to say that being hesitant and vague on those things is probably the best thing to do in that instance. Nothing he, or anyone, could have said would have mollified anyone.

My guess is this: The Republicans showed their hand at the convention; Obama knows exactly how they are going to come at him. My hope is that he is preparing for this and ready to give McCain a sound thumping at the debates, and carry that energy to election day. After all, that is where Bill Clinton looked his strongest: turning GOP platitudes about "tax & spend liberals" on their ear to his opponents' face.

Bingo.You nailed it.

I'm with danaadamfu. I'm sure the 'angry black man' issue is a problem for Obama but he might at least try 'competent black man' or 'focussed black man'. I think Hitchens has a point when he mentions 2012 as Obama's original strategy. I don't think he wanted it this soon or was ready. He found himself in front and thought 'why not?' but has now either run out of steam or taken a look at the new economic situation, Georgia etc. and decided to sit this one out. How else does a delusional lump of wood like McCain remain in contention? Obama is treading water and for whatever reason; strategic, lack of nerve or plain incompetence, McCains the man. And may God have mercy on mankind.

Hitchens asks us what line we can remember from Obama's acceptance speech--then acts as if it proves something that "we" can't remember one.

What line does anyone remember from either of Bush's acceptance speeches? Or, before that, from Clinton's?

By pointing out that other politicians in American history have floated by on vapid sound-byting, you do nothing to detract from the argument he makes. In fact, you strengthen it by pointing out that Obama might be no better than the Bushes, Clinton, etc.

Xaedalus:

White America should get angry as this election is quickly degenerating into issues surrounding a black man in the White House, a mom running for VP, an old man running for president, Hispanics can not trust Blacks, etc. These are all nonissues and Hitchens promulgates them.

White America is prejuiced and for the time being, we are the majority in this country until the Hispanics replace us. Biden can run that gauntlet and point out our . . . White America's . . . hypocrisy. Look to the economy, the war in Iraq, the rise in poverty, the bailouts, taxes, the Gini ratio and the inequity, education, single female headed families, etc.

Those are the issues. Everything, everything else is garbage.