I totally agree with this article. People get mad when there is "nothing in it for them" Every single person you named that has attacked Obama is angry because gone are the day of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' Politics and they are fuming... The days of riding the victim and entitlement train are over Mr. Jessie Jackson...It's time for all of us to stand on our own two feet and take responsiblity for our situation..which is what Obama wants...He is so much more qualified than any of the people you named that is why he is where he is and the others are vaguely remembered or seen as a joke...

Can someone please tell me exactly what Jessie Jackson is famous for...besides riding the coattails of another legend..MLK...People like him like to take credit for events but really did nothing to add to them or make a difference. Obama doesn't need him..he has a million people behind him already...he can go right back into his hole he crawled out of...

Sent by Rebecca Yzquierdo | 2:24 PM ET | 07-11-2008

What and excellent analyst you are !! You have spoken my mind in this brilliant article. Thank you for articulating this point so well. Jesse and his group MUST get use to CHANGE because it here and yes, America is progressing in race relations with lightning speed. Obama is proof.

Sent by Akosa Ozobia | 2:50 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Hello Mr. Ridley

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I am consistently shocked at the words of public persons whom one would think would be intelligent enough to have examined their conduct and come to the same conclusion we have: that they are racist. What is peculiar about this brand of racism is that it is coded and not easily identified by ugly words and pejoratives. What is scarier is the indication of a way of thinking that has taken root and become part of that person's world view. "talking white", indeed.

Thanks for the cogent, non-sensational (is that a word) words.

Sent by Aaron Williams | 3:04 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Dear Mr. Ridley,
All I gotta say is Amen!
Well written, well analyzed.
Seems like we will have a black president despite liberal fears, I for one am ecstatic!

Sent by david | 3:13 PM ET | 07-11-2008

I couldn't agree more, John. As a liberal, I've been waiting a long time for us to get past the tired politics of guilt and blame which have for so long given the party, which should be the party of hope and optimism, a reputation as shrill naysayers.

Maybe this is an oversimplification, but would jealousy be too strong a term to use to describe Jesse Jackson's reaction to Obama? Remember, Jackson is himself a failed former presidential candidate. I'd imagine he may feel that being lucky enough to campaign twenty years later is the only difference between Obama and himself (though he'd be wrong). After all, Jackson has (unfortunately, in my opinion) been a very visible presence in Democratic politics for decades, and suddenly this upstart comes out of the woodwork and WHAM! has a real shot at the Oval Office. That surely must sting. Perhaps Jackson just let a sense of bitterness get to him.

I've long felt that Jackson was a fundamentally good man who just never learned how to control his mouth. This is only more proof of that.

Sent by Kasreyn | 3:15 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Amen to that.

Sent by Jess K | 3:59 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Jackson will still have his 15 minutes on stage at the Convention. He always does.

Sent by Urb | 4:17 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Obama reminds them of their failures to grasp that the way up for African Americans is to aspire to greatness and not to require payments, reparations and apologies. Jackson has become a caricature of his own hope, a grandstander looking for attention and a fool who doesn't know he is one.

The time is high for us to hold a national funeral for the slaves to the old and raise not from the dead but from new soil, a new hope. This reminds me of what Harriet Tubman said, "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves."

He is not a black candidate begging for votes to become president but a candidate for president who is real in every sense of the word. Whether you agree or not, he has developed the right organization, has the money, the support, the message and the strong, smart mind that a president needs. He is not the anti-black rather he is a salient light that shows us what we can, through effort, become.

Sent by vamccoy | 6:08 PM ET | 07-11-2008

Re John Ridley's "(Liberal) Fear of a Black President:"

John Ridley's clumsily-reasoned slur to one side, the reason Obama opponents like Ralph Nader and growing numbers of vote-casting American progressives like myself oppose Obama is due to principle:

Obama has flip-flopped on campaign finance, recently reneging on prior statements of belief in public-financing and embracing unregulated private big money donations; voted in support of the Bush/Republican gutting of the FISA law and immunity for telecommunications corporations's criminal actions; refused to distance himself from professional homophobes Donnie McClurkin, Mary Mary, and others on the 'Holy bigotry' circuit; embraces the separate-but-equal notion of "civil unions" over full marriage for gays and lesbians; has back-peddled on correct criticisms of NAFTA, which has sent thousands of American jobs overseas; supports the death penalty (which is irreversible and has traditionally been used in discriminatory fashion); despite claims to "anti-war" sentiment, has voted at each opportunity to continue funding US military participation in the Iraq War; and has (since securing the Democrat nomination) indicated a willingness to maintain US involvement in Iraq.

All are serious matters, and Obama's shameful positions hardly mark him as the progressive he pretends to be. This has understandably given pause to many Obama supporters and other, genuine, progressives.

Sent by David Larson | 6:19 PM ET | 07-11-2008

People can disagree with a candidate without it being racism. I disagreed with John Kerry (and supported Howard Dean). It had nothing to do with racism. I am supporting Barack for president and it has nothing to do with his race.
I am really sick of the race card being played.
It is not fair to Barack and 'supporters' like John Ridley poison our public conversations.
As a Black man, it bothers me that there's an assumption that a White person not supporting Barack must be a racist the same way it bothers me that just because I'm Black, I'm supporting Barack.
I am supporting Barack because I agree with what he stands for and believes in. If Joe Biden had Barack's beliefs, I would've supported him.
I am not saying we live in a color blind society because we don't. But I am saying that people can not like someone for something other than race and people can support someone for something other than race.
I supported Barack throughout the primaries because he was the best candidate. If he had been a woman with the same position, I would've supported him. If he had been White or Hispanic or whatever, I would've supported him.
I do not think race is off limits when discussing the great senator. But I do think we need to move beyond saying someone doesn't like him, they're racist or, as I face every day, "You just like him because you're Black." Elevate the conversation, Mr. Ridley, use your power.

Sent by DeShawn Sternes | 12:12 AM ET | 07-12-2008

I feel that the reason leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have a problem with Obama is that they feel like the old horse being set out to pasture. Also he would set a new standard for African Americans to elevate themselves to besides just entertainers and athletes, plus it would send a message to the under achievers in our community would have no one else to blame but themselves for how their lives are turning out.

Sent by John Luke Jr | 9:28 AM ET | 07-12-2008

Ah, yes, change is difficult for both liberals and conservatives. None of us is used to politicians telling it like it really is, warts and all. That is why I've been amazed by Obama's candid candidacy. What a delight it is to have someone to vote for who truly seems to be about bringing the dichotomies of our country together. Sometimes I have to pinch myself to believe that someone smart is running for president. I just hope the political machine (doing what it takes to win the support of either side) doesn't spoil his refreshing candor. Thanks for your insights, John.

Sent by Margo LaGattuta | 11:33 AM ET | 07-12-2008

well said!

Sent by Rob MacGregor | 4:04 PM ET | 07-12-2008

What a fascinating election year!

In the primaries, we were told McCain isn't conservative enough, Clinton isn't liberal enough, and Obama isn't black enough.

Now feminists are vowing to either not vote or cast a protest ballot for McCain.

Meanwhile, 'not-conservative-enough McCain is moving to the left and 'not-liberal-enough' Obama is moving to the right.

My, my, my, what's a true believer on either side to do?

Oh, right, they're irrelevant. It's the rest of us who really make the decision.

I feel much better now.

Sent by Bob Rightsell | 5:11 PM ET | 07-12-2008

This is a specious argument for a number of reasons. Largely irrelevant these days, the characters cited from the "left" are not as representative of this overall demographic as John Ridley posits. Second, (with the possible exception of Geraldine Ferraro,) the comments were off-the-cuff statements from individuals, and should not be attributed by association to their respective constituencies. And after attracting a fairly progressive base through message rather than any so-called "liberal" record, Senator Obama is alienating the the contemporary left with his recent actions without any help from these fossils.

Sent by Michael Carr | 6:51 PM ET | 07-12-2008

I am dismayed that people are so quick to criticize the one candidate we have that offers the hope of change for the good.
The color of his skin matters not one bit, it is the content of his character we should be watching. Here is a person who's intelligent, does not make false promises of easy solutions to our national problems but unites us in recognizing that we all need to be involved in the life of the nation. When was the last time you heard someone ask you to do something for your country, to make a difference?
We must recognize the dire straights we are in and unite behind the one person who offers true leadership to bring needed change.

Sent by Chris Maciel | 10:59 PM ET | 07-12-2008

America is no longer a racist nation? I grew up in rural Montana, and now I live in "liberal" Portland, Oregon. Racism, although more covert than overt nowadays, is prevalent in both places.

Sent by Robert Haines | 12:47 AM ET | 07-13-2008

Well said, especially about the Old Schoolers, but why is all the media attention focused on Obama's African heritage side?
It sounds very much like the "one drop" rule being applied.
I just see him, like myself, as a person of mixed parentage.
Which is neither a detriment nor a bonus to me.
My concern is whether or not he would be a competent president.
Mahalo.

Sent by James Carpenter | 10:54 AM ET | 07-13-2008

It seems as if the Democrats have lived off of victim hood for decades. If Obama starts to show people how they can control their own destiny, the Democrats will have to change their message.
I do believe the party promotes bigotry though low expectations. When a person of color does well, they are sell-outs unless they continue to promote victim hood. Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al.

Sent by Bryan Dyer | 12:43 PM ET | 07-13-2008

While I again *gasp* agree with you, I have to wonder why Obama's half-blackness has been almost completely ignored.

He's not a black man, he's a half-black man, but he's seemingly embraced blackness in his campaign and ignored his mixed-race history. I have to wonder why that is.

BOTH parties seem to be largely looking away from his mixed heritage. Obviously, the Republican side can't attack him on this without bloodying its own hands, but why aren't the Democrats using his heritage to appeal to the white vote who don't understand that the man is HALF THE SAME AS THEM?

Keep us thinking, John.

Sent by Wolf | 4:30 PM ET | 07-13-2008

The "old schoolers" are just that...old of heart, stale mind.

Who said, "our worse enemies are ourselves"? Without giving it a thought Nader and Jackson are willing to choke on their own arrogance. A little jealous are we??

Sent by george | 10:04 PM ET | 07-13-2008

While I agree with many points in the article, if Obama is elected president that still won't change the fact that much of our nation is still locked in the confederate attitude. I'm not so sure some states wouldn't be practicing slavery if it was still legal? What other civilized nation has areas of their country that still have separate public school dances for whites and blacks? Just look at the hatred in the emails about Obama. Just because the "blue states" have a small number of people that are prejudice doesn't mean their isn't large number in the southern states.

Sent by Greg | 8:30 AM ET | 07-14-2008

You're right.
But Obamba voted for "telecom immunity". Which is scary. It calls into question whether he will change anything.

Sent by T | 11:37 AM ET | 07-14-2008

The "Old Schoolers" just don't know where they fit in the scheme of things. If you've been doing something as a way of life or maintaining a particular position,and those close to you seem not to challenge you because their positions are the same,for the most part,change is going to come at some expense,and they just don't know the cost.

Sent by D.K.,Cincinnati,OH | 2:20 PM ET | 07-14-2008

I hate to be logical here, but how is Stanley Crouch afraid of a black president, when his Daily News columns are nothing if not supportive of Senator Obama (and I think Mr. Crouch is smitten with Michelle). But besides that, it's not often that one hears Stanley Crouch derided as a "liberal."

Early in the campaign, an LA Times reporter named Rodriguez mischaracterized one of Crouch's columns as contending that Sen. Obama is "not black enough." Come on, Stanley Crouch would never believe anything that simplistic.

Sent by dave | 1:18 PM ET | 08-08-2008