Yes, this was forced upon them in a way that really neither candidate could control or would even necessarily want.
I tend to think that Sen. Obama can do more for race relations in my country by becoming President and setting that precedent (although I voted for Sen. Clinton) than by making a speech. OTOH, it's hard to believe race wouldn't (and won't) come up after the Democratic convention in an ugly way if Sen. Obama wins.
It frustrates me that the only time the word "privilege" appears in the speech is to mention that white people don't think they have it. It frustrates me that it lets people off thinking that racism is the problem of "those other people" and not all-pervasive. (Told you there were people in America who thought that way.) I understand why--attacking everybody doesn't win votes--but I don't have to like it.
Did we need a speech like this? Absolutely. Did it not go far enough? Certainly. But I tend to feel that having someone who isn't a white male in the White House represents a more significant, visible, and meaningful change.
no subject
I tend to think that Sen. Obama can do more for race relations in my country by becoming President and setting that precedent (although I voted for Sen. Clinton) than by making a speech. OTOH, it's hard to believe race wouldn't (and won't) come up after the Democratic convention in an ugly way if Sen. Obama wins.
It frustrates me that the only time the word "privilege" appears in the speech is to mention that white people don't think they have it. It frustrates me that it lets people off thinking that racism is the problem of "those other people" and not all-pervasive. (Told you there were people in America who thought that way.) I understand why--attacking everybody doesn't win votes--but I don't have to like it.
Did we need a speech like this? Absolutely. Did it not go far enough? Certainly. But I tend to feel that having someone who isn't a white male in the White House represents a more significant, visible, and meaningful change.