1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along - same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

From Spiegel online:

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Advised correctly? Perhaps it would be fitting that a candidate for President who aspires to lead our nation out of the darkness and, grandiosely, to “heal our planet,” take a moment, for once, to do his own homework.

Senator Obama states:

Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet at the center of a Europe at peace.

It was a monument Hitler liked to gaze upon.

Andrea Schockenhoff of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said, “the Siegessäule in Berlin is dedicated to a victory over neighbors who are today European friends and allies. It is a problematic symbol.”

Obama also makes sure to include this statement in his opening remarks:

I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.

For a man who consistently presents himself as the post-racial candidate, Senator Obama is always bringing up race. Since that is once again the case here, let me offer a comparison that might make the insensitive location of his speech more clear to him.

Can you imagine if a white politician gave a speech while standing before a 30-foot rendering of the Confederate flag? How about a burning cross?

Let us put location aside for the moment. His speech, which contains positive and positively vague concepts for how we must work to tear all walls down as part of the global community, is the usual pablum; fine as far as it goes. No specifics are offered, just a photo op for Obama to enjoy adulation and applause of thousands for clearing his throat.

What is not fine is this statement:

People of the world – look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

“On the field of battle?” That sounds so honorable! Like two worthy adversaries fighting over a plot of land or a political principle. Look at Berlin, indeed.

His feel good moment designed to pander to his current audience, just as he seeks to pander to any audience for whom he performs, conveniently omits the harsh reality that we were not battling an honorable adversary. We were battling Nazi Germany. You remember: the people responsible for exterminating millions of Jews.

How nice of Senator Obama to leave out any mention of the holocaust so he wouldn’t make the German people gathered for “Obamafest” feel bad, while vendors were busy selling souvenir buttons depicting him in lederhosen holding a bunch of beer steins.

Instead he chooses to dwell on the Berlin Wall and raised the specter of the Cold War. He makes the Russian people the bad guys in this equation for splitting up Berlin and making half of it communist – suddenly the ‘Wall’ is the culprit. Yes, but surely, there were other culprits.

He fails to mention in his speech that the Russians were allied with the United States against the Germans – the true enemy in World War II.

Obviously, as the child of a holocaust survivor it is important to me that this fact not be forgotten. Although my father could never forgive the German people, even at the time of his death, I vowed I would never live a life carrying old hatred with me. I would not make his legacy mine. So let me be clear, it is certainly not hatred for the German people living today that prompts my statements; quite the contrary.

The present world will never be able to apologize for the past one.

Nevertheless, I will not excuse revisionist history for the convenience of Obama crafting a sound bite around the concept of “walls coming down.” He cannot omit the fact that the Soviets did fight by our side in this cause. The Soviet tanks he complains of in his speech were also used against the Nazis.

Senator Obama also conveniently forgets how many concentration camps were liberated by the Soviets, including the largest concentration camp of all, Auschwitz – the one that Obama falsely claimed his uncle helped to liberate when he was, again, pandering to a Jewish audience a couple of months ago.

Whatever Russia’s motives, the fact remains that they were very instrumental in breaking Hitler’s back and bringing a faster end to the war – a fact it is most inappropriate for Obama to forget simply because it does not coincide with the narrative of his pretty platitudes.

Once again, Obama works to make his current audience feel comfortable, forgiving them any past transgressions, much as Shelby Steele’s brilliant piece in the Wall St. Journal pointed out in this statement regarding Obama’s success with white voters:

“Mr. Obama’s great political ingenuity was very simple: to trade moral leverage for gratitude. Give up moral leverage over whites, refuse to shame them with America’s racist past, and the gratitude they show you will constitute a new form of black power. They will love you for the faith you show in them.”

Yes, Senator, reward those Americans that vote for you with your ‘approval.’ But those who criticize – they will enjoy a different fate altogether:

Senator Obama and his surrogates have shamelessly played the race card throughout this campaign to great advantage, even unjustly labeling President Clinton, of all people, a racist. Obama even has Governor Kathy Sebelius, in a shameless statement she surely knows to be false, proclaiming that citing Obama’s ‘inexperience’ is code for racism. The press is cowed for fear any criticism of Obama will label them racist. He enjoys a protective shield, if you will, the likes of which I have never seen.

How fortunate for Germany, not having criticized Obama as some of us have here in the U.S., that they likewise get feel good rhetoric and a poster to take home.

Certainly, slavery is a horrible stain on our flag that cannot be erased. Likewise, no matter how much forgiveness we may feel and show now towards Germany and her allies, the fact remains that these atrocities happened a mere 63 years ago. They deserve a mention, don’t you think?

Obviously, the United States does not get a pass on slavery. But the Germans, and by extension all those who stood by and did nothing, get a pass on the extermination of millions? That is a frightening double standard and I am not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

If there are any honest journalists left, perhaps someone will be forthright and decent enough to hold Senator Obama accountable. I won’t hold my breath.

I seem to recall that eight years ago, another man, a self-proclaimed “uniter,” with generalized, compassionate rhetoric, similarly got a sweetheart ride in the press and turned out to be no more than a snake oil salesman. We were then saddled with eight years of the worst leadership imaginable.

They say those who pay no attention to history are doomed to repeat it. Senator Obama is obviously very comfortable turning his back on history lessons. Let’s hope the same is not true of us.

(1) DOBBS: I want to begin, if I may, by asking what your reaction is to what Senator Obama said on that radio show in Philadelphia this morning.

STEELE: Well, he showed how easy it is to slip up, among other things because actually Jesse Jackson, interestingly, has confessed to walking to the other side of the street when he sees young black men as well. It’s not a response that’s exclusive to whites … [Readers' background article: "Breaking: My grandmother is 'typical' white person"]

(2) STEELE: Yes, Senator Obama is what I call a bargainer. Bargainers are blacks who enter the mainstream and give whites the benefit of the doubt, trust them, not to be racists. Whites respond to bargainers very warmly with a lot of gratitude.

Challengers are people like Reverend Wright who never give whites the benefit of the doubt, who want to hold their feet to the fire, see that as black power. Well, America likes Barack Obama because he is a bargainer, precisely because he is not an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson or a Reverend Wright, so when they see that he has fellow traveled with someone like that, gone to his church for over 20 years, it confuses most Americans.

Are you a bargainer or are you a challenger? Do you trust us or don’t you trust us? And so it’s worrisome. It bothers people to see that kind of connection. [Readers' background articles at No Quarter: See Rev. Jeremiah Wright]

Now, the full interview — including Lou Dobbs’ interestingly phrased and thought-out questions:

(I won’t indent the rest of this, for ease of reading.)

I’m joined now by Shelby Steele. Shelby Steele is senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He’s written a number of very important books on race on our society, a provocative book on Senator Obama “A Bound Man: Why we are excited about Obama and why he can’t win.”

Shelby Steele joins us live from Monterey, California tonight — Shelby, good to have you with us.

SHELBY STEELE, AUTHOR, “A BOUND MAN: WHY WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT OBAMA AND WHY HE CAN’T WIN”: Good to be here.

DOBBS: You wrote a fascinating piece in the op-ed section in “The Wall Street Journal”. Your observations are provocative. I want to begin, if I may, by asking what your reaction is to what Senator Obama said on that radio show in Philadelphia this morning.

STEELE: Well, he showed how easy it is to slip up, among other things because actually Jesse Jackson, interestingly, has confessed to walking to the other side of the street when he sees young black men as well. It’s not a response that’s exclusive to whites.

DOBBS: Right. And the idea of talking about this typical white person, that kind of language, I have to tell you I am struck by some of the missteps and what I consider to be missteps and misstatements of this senator. I honestly am not sure how fully formed and how mature Senator Obama’s views and thinking and emotions are on the issue of race himself, as he challenges the entire nation on the issue. What’s your reaction?

STEELE: Right. Well, he stayed away from race throughout his — I mean scrupulously throughout his entire campaign, but now he’s gotten into trouble with Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, so now we’re going to have a national discussion of race. And that may not be a good thing. It — you know President Clinton had a national discussion on race that went nowhere. So one wonders if this is sincere or just a way to sort of change the subject from his minister.

DOBBS: Well, I’ll tell you one thing. Shelby, I don’t know how you feel about it, but on this — on my broadcast, we’re going to be talking about race. We’re going to do so because I think it’s important. I mean, there are all sorts of issues to take up, but amongst them, whether it’s the war on drugs, whether it’s the fact that one in nine young black men in this country are in prison, whether it is the discrepancy between incomes amongst racial groups in this society. And certainly, the impact of that disparity in income, and the influence it has on opportunity within this society of ours. It’s a fundamental it seems to me to the American dream for all Americans.

STEELE: I absolutely agree. I just — I hope it will be a — there is no issue around which political correctness is more oppressive than the issue of race.

DOBBS: Right.

STEELE: And so I’m all for dialogue, but I hope we’ll be — I hope we’ll all say politely, but say what we really think and feel about it.

DOBBS: Well, let me ask you, what do you think and feel about the relationship between black Americans, white Americans and other races in 2008 America?

STEELE: I think it’s never been better. I grew up in segregation. I can remember a drastically different America than the one I live in today. Today, my experience is that most whites are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And I’ve just found an enormous amount of openness, a willingness to look at this thing, this issue in an honest way. That’s been my actual experience.

DOBBS: I want to ask you, also, before I go to the next question, and that is Jeremiah Wright and his — the bile that he was spewing, whatever the reason, whatever the context, whatever else he did say, whatever else his words, that kind of language, a number of people on this broadcast, in fact, have said that some of his comments, some of the more hateful comments, in fact, are typical of the traditional black church in this country.

And I’ve got black friends who are saying that is absolutely untrue. There’s a contest over that. What role does a black church play in both resolving and perpetuating racial tension in this society of ours?

STEELE: Well, the black church has always been an extremely important institution in black America. Certainly, the civil rights movement evolved out of the black church. But that’s a long way from Reverend Wright who it seems to me is rather demagogic and actually preaches hate almost as a kind of consolation for his flock. And that is not normal in a black American church today. That’s not the norm.

DOBBS: And that being the case, this is going to be, I would assume, you think a problem that’s going to continue for some time for Senator Obama then to explain that relationship?

STEELE: Yes, Senator Obama is what I call a bargainer. Bargainers are blacks who enter the mainstream and give whites the benefit of the doubt, trust them, not to be racists. Whites respond to bargainers very warmly with a lot of gratitude.

Challenges are people like Reverend Wright who never give whites the benefit of the doubt, who want to hold their feet to the fire, see that as black power. Well, America likes Barack Obama because he is a bargainer, precisely because he is not an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson or a Reverend Wright, so when they see that he has fellow traveled with someone like that, gone to his church for over 20 years, it confuses most Americans.

Are you a bargainer or are you a challenger? Do you trust us or don’t you trust us? And so it’s worrisome. It bothers people to see that kind of connection.

DOBBS: And we’re running out of time. I hope, Shelby, you’ll come back here as we continue this discussion on this broadcast. It just seems at a time when Americans have less trust than ever in their elected officials and government, it’s more critical than ever for us to start in this society, irrespective of race or religion, whatever, start giving one another, as you put it and I love the expression, the benefit of the doubt.

If we can start trusting each other, maybe we can get this government back to where we need it so that we can start delivering on the promise made to everybody, all Americans, some 200 years ago. Shelby Steele, it’s great to read your books.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: It’s great to talk to you. I hope you’ll come back soon.

STEELE: I’d be happy to anytime.

DOBBS: Time now for our poll question: Do you believe that Senator Kerry’s and Senator Obama’s remarks today on race damaged the Obama campaign? We’d like to hear from you on that. Yes or no. Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We’ll have the results here later in the broadcast. And we’ll be talking a lot more about race and politics ahead here.

Steele’s WSJ column continued throughout:

Shelby’s column continued …

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America’s very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton’s or Jesse Jackson’s. … [...]

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . .” And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama’s Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a “blank screen.”

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama’s political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (”God damn America”).

How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred. …

Read all: “The Obama Bargain”

Explore Bill Moyers’ Journal interview, video, and transcript of Shelby Steele’s appearance on January 11, 2008.

AND THANK YOU, C.S., FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DO FOR US AT NO QUARTER. Your video contributions mean so much to all of us.