I've said this elsewhere, but since the author of this essay fancies himself setting things straight:

In socio-economic terms, Sen. Obama is white and that's why he succeeds.

See Wikipedia definition for basic discussion of white privilege. It's a phenomenon not limited to those whose skin happens to be white.

If you prefer, substitute the word "elite" for white. It's the same thing in a culture dominated by white folks no matter how allegedly diverse the culture is.

Sen. Obama e was brought up to be a white man. He had access to the kind of socio-economic power most black kids could only dream about.

He chose to identify with the black community as an adult. Fine. It's like a religious conversion, and I won't question it. People can make themselves into whatever they choose.

But prior to this, there is nothing "black" about his background. You may move beyond your background (that's what makes it background, otherwise it's foreground), but it doesn't go away.

Sen. Obama plays black when he wants. He plays white when he wants. If he acknowledged this, we could admire his flexibility.

But he does not acknowledge it, and his surrogates attack anyone who brings it up. This makes him a phony.

Sen. Obama is a beneficiary of white privilege as surely as his mother was, and George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton are, for that matter.

So Rep. Ferraro is wrong. But she's also right. And it's not racist for her to point out Sen. Obama's advantages.

Every comp lit, philosophy, sociology, etc., department in the US goes in for this kind of "white privilege" (or "power")analysis.

When it results in taking the WASP establishment down a few pegs (as it should), no one barks (as they should not).

When it results in helping us get a clearer picture of Sen. Obama and his advantages, the critic is attacked as a racist.

You're right about Obama's white privilege. However you're wrong to say that Ferraro's right about addressing his privilege, because she has it bass ackwards: his privilege for her is couched in black identity politics, not his white privilege in terms of class, culture, access, etc.

One the whole, though, good points.

"White privilege" is NOT the same thing as "socio-economic privilege". Obama has had advantages because of his education, his family's middle class status, and now his own upper-middle-class economic state, but his biraciality does not equal whiteness. As I remember, a law written back in the day would have settled his identity thus: anyone who was at least 1/8 black was considered "black", not "half-white".

Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

"White privilege is a sociological concept describing advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice by the fact that a person benefiting from white privilege need not hold racist beliefs themselves."

So whatever advantages Obama has had because of his racial identity, they don't happen because people think he's white.

Uh. No. In our culture, sadly, the standard of socio-economic privilege is set by white people according to their tastes, values, etc.

This may be changing, which is good, but it was certainly this way in the 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s when Obama was growing up.

If you were raised with any kind of socio-economic privilege in these years, you were necessarily raised white no matter the color of your skin.

(It's bizarre that white racists didn't recognize this.)

What separates someone like Obama from Condi Rice or Deval Patrick, say, is the degree of socio-economic privilege you enjoyed.

Obama enjoyed a great deal. Rice less than Obama. Deval Patrick less than Rice. Others even less than Patrick, etc.

Obama was raised as a white boy by white grandparents. By his own admission, the fact that he is 1/2 black meant nothing to him until he was into his 20s.

Only a socio-economically white black man could possibly say this about himself.

The problem isn't what we think of Obama being black. It's what we think of his being white. He hides his being white and the many privileges it offered him.

White liberals love this shtick: it allows them to support a black man who does not threaten their status as cultural superiors. He's a guilt-free vote. The Sidney Poitier of politics.

(I won't comment on what black folks see in him. I understand and respect it. I'm white. I can tell you what white people see, even if they won't admit it.)

He's a phony. Not a phony white man. Not a phony black man. Just a phony. Phony is an equal opportunity status.

Uh. No. In our culture, sadly, the standard of socio-economic privilege is set by white people according to their tastes, values, etc.

This may be changing, which is good, but it was certainly this way in the 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s when Obama was growing up.

If you were raised with any kind of socio-economic privilege in these years, you were necessarily raised white no matter the color of your skin.

(It's bizarre that white racists didn't recognize this.)

What separates someone like Obama from Condi Rice or Deval Patrick, say, is the degree of socio-economic privilege you enjoyed.

Obama enjoyed a great deal. Rice less than Obama. Deval Patrick less than Rice. Others even less than Patrick, etc.

Obama was raised as a white boy by white grandparents. By his own admission, the fact that he is 1/2 black meant nothing to him until he was into his 20s.

Only a socio-economically white black man could possibly say this about himself.

The problem isn't what we think of Obama being black. It's what we think of his being white. He hides his being white and the many privileges it offered him.

White liberals love this shtick: it allows them to support a black man who does not threaten their status as cultural superiors. He's a guilt-free vote. The Sidney Poitier of politics.

(I won't comment on what black folks see in him. I understand and respect it. I'm white. I can tell you what white people see, even if they won't admit it.)

He's a phony. Not a phony white man. Not a phony black man. Just a phony. Phony is an equal opportunity status.

Uh. No. In our culture, sadly, the standard of socio-economic privilege is set by white people according to their tastes, values, etc.

This may be changing, which is good, but it was certainly this way in the 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s when Obama was growing up.

If you were raised with any kind of socio-economic privilege in these years, you were necessarily raised white no matter the color of your skin.

(It's bizarre that white racists didn't recognize this.)

What separates someone like Obama from Condi Rice or Deval Patrick, say, is the degree of socio-economic privilege you enjoyed.

Obama enjoyed a great deal. Rice less than Obama. Deval Patrick less than Rice. Others even less than Patrick, etc.

Obama was raised as a white boy by white grandparents. By his own admission, the fact that he is 1/2 black meant nothing to him until he was into his 20s.

Only a socio-economically white black man could possibly say this about himself.

The problem isn't what we think of Obama being black. It's what we think of his being white. He hides his being white and the many privileges it offered him.

White liberals love this shtick: it allows them to support a black man who does not threaten their status as cultural superiors. He's a guilt-free vote. The Sidney Poitier of politics.

(I won't comment on what black folks see in him. I understand and respect it. I'm white. I can tell you what white people see, even if they won't admit it.)

He's a phony. Not a phony white man. Not a phony black man. Just a phony. Phony is an equal opportunity status.

Uh. No. In our culture, sadly, the standard of socio-economic privilege is set by white people according to their tastes, values, etc.

This may be changing, which is good, but it was certainly this way in the 1960s and 1970s and into the 1980s when Obama was growing up.

If you were raised with any kind of socio-economic privilege in these years, you were necessarily raised white no matter the color of your skin.

Uh, no. access to "majority white institutions" and "stuff that white people can afford in more consistent numbers than people of color" does not make a person "white".

I really don't understand this correlation that you're making.

Howard University is an elite historically black university. Does that make the people who attend it "white" because it's an expensive private school?

Also, just curious: in terms of "taste", a lot of young white people these days luuurrve them some hip hop. Does that make hip hop "white" in your eyes? In terms of "values": what specifically "white" values are you talking about? And how is it differentiated from "black" values or "Latino" values or "Asian American" values", etc.

Do you have some kind of personal anecdote about growing up as a person of "color" but "becoming" white when you got more money/a better education?