Not one of his better efforts...Hitch rarely uses the straw man technique to make his arguments. Who, exactly, is "obsessed" with Obama's race? Sadly, Hitch never tells us... I confess to having joined the movement. As a 60 year old lawyer,Republican, Ivy league educated, white, I find it remarkable that senator Obama's race has so little to do with his appeal. We'll find out soon enough what it may have to do with his electability.

It is solely because he is black that Obama is even known outside Illinois, let alone a viable presidential candidate---well, that and the happenstance of a sex scandal which forced his incumbent opponent to leave a campaign which Obama would otherwise have lost by double digits. Meanwhile, Obama's in his first term in national office---a comparable white Senator, charisma and all, would go the way of Mike Gravel.

Who's "obsessed" with Obama's race? Well, the Reverend Wright, for one, the leader of Obama's church, whose website trumpets sometyhing called the "Black Value System" and "Black Ethics". As you may recall, that kind of idiocy was the subject of the Hitchens article....

...and you, don't forget yourself! You are obsessed with race in general.

Inkberrow:

It is solely because he is black that Obama is even known outside Illinois, ....

On the contrary his dynamic speech at the DNC in 2004 gave him national exposure and his appearences and speeches around the country in support of the Democratic candidates left a huge impression. I attended one of the rally's at a black civic center in the middle of the black neighborhood and I was one of many, many white faces in the crowd. I knew he was going to be a contender then. You evidently weren't paying attention.

"obsessed". My point, and Hitchens' also, I believe, is that certain race-demagogues and their cringing enablers are too hypocritical to admit they live by the self-same "obsession". Afro-centric demagogues like the Reverend Wright and "Professor" Cornel West don't want equal rights and a color-blind society---they never did. They simply want their turn with the whip-hand, and to characterize those not of their Tribe as pathological and inferior. Just like the white racists they wish to supplant....

charisma and ability, as I noted. Quick question, though---would Obama have been proffered that keynote opportunity had he been a white progressive with equal charisma and ability? Take your time answering.....

Wow! Your comment about exhanging the whip indicates that you actually understand that racism lies in thinking that your race is superior to the others! Lots of people miss this point, thinking that any mention of race is inherently racist.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to support your contention of "reverse racism." Cornel(l) West's philosophical works, and the "black values system" has nothing to do with racial superiority. It has to do with empowering an overpowered group of people. If you can find any contention that the black race is somehow superior to the white race, then you are on your way to supporting your claims of racism.

"Lots of people miss this point, thinking that any mention of race is inherently racist."

Any mention of race is inherently racist, because it upholds essentializing categories of difference that are by definition exclusive. Racial identity presume the superior understanding (not to mention mystic kinship and a set of ethical obligation to live up to that identity compelled by something like natural law) of those with whom one happens to identify, implying further that this belonging has actual biological, rather than merely cultural (and thus largely imagined) roots. Race is a function of racism, not the other way around. The chief and most lasting tool of the suppression of African Americans is the very concept of blackness. Increasingly fewer whites anymore give that concept anymore credence than they do their own (empty) categorization as whites, but it's alive and well among those on whom it was formerly imposed. You don't beat the game by winning it.

Inkberrow:

charisma and ability, as I noted. Quick question, though---would Obama have been proffered that keynote opportunity had he been a white progressive with equal charisma and ability? Take your time answering.....

You mean the way William Jefferson Clinton did many many years ago? Yes.

if a white progressive analagous to Obama would have been given the opportunity, i.e., a hitherto unknown pol barely into his first term in any meaningful political office---as opposed to a two-term governor with already-announced presidential aspirations....

scottyhope:

Wow! Your comment about exhanging the whip indicates that you actually understand that racism lies in thinking that your race is superior to the others! Lots of people miss this point, thinking that any mention of race is inherently racist.

No such implication lies in my posts. People fight and try to dominate those different, as a function of tribalism. "Inherent" superiority is a seperate question, and not founded in my view, any more so than if I or another posited that the Cowboys are inherently superior as a franchise to the Giants, as opposed to cheering it up if my team wins this weekend. And all the teams win over time.

Any mention of race is not racist, I agree, but it is racialist, by definition. Lots of people miss this point---and unduly conflate racialism with racism. Naming, identifying, and owning race as socio-political dentity is not necessarily invidious racism, and some people want it both ways, positive or negative---it's not racism to have a Black History Month; and it's also not racism to decry "Black Values" as a platform.

I already did. Yes. Nobody knew who Bill Clinton was until he spoke at the DNC, just like Obama. Yes, I think so.

Perhaps what you meant was that Clinton was not considered a viable presidential candidate until the convention speech, though his aspirations had long been known. He had, after all, been a governor for eight years. Obama, on the other hand, sprang fully-formed from his convention speech, which was handed him because of the color of his skin.

I'm more apt to believe that his fellow democrats in the Senate have observed his oratory on more than one occasion and found themselves as impressed as many registered voters are now; and recruited him to speak at the DNC. His skin color has nothing to do with the force of his presence and his command of leadership. Your opinion is noted of course, but very narrow and without merit.

Well, OK. But what, exactly, is your justification for opposing the Black Values uystem. You said that the preacher is a demagogue and wants to exchange the whiphand. This seems to indicate you think the black values system is an advocation of black supremacy, and I don't really see it that way.

So either I missed the point, or you have an argument for why it is black supremacy. Either way, I'd be interested.