a very damaging claim being enthusiastically pushed by the wingnuts and the more extreme Obama-haters among the Hillaryites.

damaging? - Yes, if true. If not true, why would it be damaging?

enthusiasticlly pushed? - No one is "enthusiastic" about the racism of Obama's grandmother. I guess it does not serve the writer's point to assume people are genuinely outraged at the petty and cowardly tactic, thus 'enthusiasticlly pushed' gives him some a false point on which to spew his own hatred.

wingnuts and the more extreme Obama-haters among the Hillaryites.

Haters? wing-nuts? extreme? Perhaps they are ignorant. If so, make the case. These words make the entire point ...

a very damaging claim being enthusiastically pushed by the wingnuts and the more extreme Obama-haters among the Hillaryites.

damaging? - Yes, if true. If not true, why would it be damaging?

enthusiasticlly pushed? - No one is "enthusiastic" about the racism of Obama's grandmother. I guess it does not serve the writer's point to assume people are genuinely outraged at the petty and cowardly tactic, thus 'enthusiasticlly pushed' gives him some a false point on which to spew his own hatred.

wingnuts and the more extreme Obama-haters among the Hillaryites.

Haters? wing-nuts? extreme? Perhaps they are ignorant. If so, make the case. These words make the entire point seem disingenuous.

They completely misunderstand what he's doing ... [Obama is saying]
that intimacy can triumph over ignorance, over racism, over racial
resentment, over anger, over fear, and over stereotypes: you don't
break off with the people whom you love and who love you, because that
bond of connection, that intimacy, that human contact, is the basic
from which stuff can be transcended.

Funny. That is not what Obama thought according to this article.
It appears he was more than willing to forego the "connection" to get elected.

And to transend he describes his grandmother as a "typical white person".

Then this piece of wisdom from the source article:

Barack Obama will get virtually all of the black vote, and the votes of
all the whites, Lationos, Asians, and Native Americans literate enough
and emotionally mature enough to read and understand his speech. Now we
just have to wait and find out whether that comes to a majority. I'm
hopeful, but not confident.

So blacks are racist and will vote on racial lines because Obama is black. 100% will vote for Obama because they cannot think for themselves. This is the separation that is so disgusting and sadly too often seen in JK's clips. Of course he goes on

I have gone over the Obama quotation here. I think the record shows that much of the criticism of Obama's speech is unfounded and strains credulity, including the argument that Obama was slamming his grandmother.

The argument that Obama was slamming whites when he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person" is especially disingenuous, one that relies on selective quotation and memory. People who argue this hope you do not remember that Obama said his grandmother loved him and sacrificed for him, but was susceptible to the racial prejudices of the era she grew up in.

A typical white person--vuln...

I have gone over the Obama quotation here. I think the record shows that much of the criticism of Obama's speech is unfounded and strains credulity, including the argument that Obama was slamming his grandmother.

The argument that Obama was slamming whites when he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person" is especially disingenuous, one that relies on selective quotation and memory. People who argue this hope you do not remember that Obama said his grandmother loved him and sacrificed for him, but was susceptible to the racial prejudices of the era she grew up in.

A typical white person--vulnerable to prejudice but deep down kind hearted and capable of loving and caring for a black child.

Only in bizarro-world is this considered a smear against whites.

I missed even hearing that Jefferson raped his slaves.

Uhh...there's fairly strong evidence that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings. And I don't see how consensual sex is possible in such a situation.

Then it's against you to make a claim of him raping Blacks and then foolishly say the Constitution is not a racist Document when in fact it is just that. It's a lot of good things as well, but allowing slavery and Blacks counting as less than a whole person seems a tad racist to me!

If you follow Willhelm's logic, anyone who endorses the Constitution or the Declaration of Independent is automatically a racist, just as anyone who likes James Hal Con...

I missed even hearing that Jefferson raped his slaves.

Uhh...there's fairly strong evidence that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings. And I don't see how consensual sex is possible in such a situation.

Then it's against you to make a claim of him raping Blacks and then foolishly say the Constitution is not a racist Document when in fact it is just that. It's a lot of good things as well, but allowing slavery and Blacks counting as less than a whole person seems a tad racist to me!

If you follow Willhelm's logic, anyone who endorses the Constitution or the Declaration of Independent is automatically a racist, just as anyone who likes James Hal Cone is automatically a racist.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

And I don't see how consensual sex is possible in such a situation.

Of course consensual sex and love can occur in such a situation. Rape is of course a possibility but the relationship was supposed to be an ongoing one I believe, and that would argue against it.

As far as comparing Cone and the Constitution that would be unfair.
The reason I say that is because the Constitution is a compromise among many different parties with very different interests in many cases. So of course one does not have to personally approve of every word in it to believe that it is a good and great Document.

Cone and the relationship between the followers of him I assume has nothing to do with ...

And I don't see how consensual sex is possible in such a situation.

Of course consensual sex and love can occur in such a situation. Rape is of course a possibility but the relationship was supposed to be an ongoing one I believe, and that would argue against it.

As far as comparing Cone and the Constitution that would be unfair.
The reason I say that is because the Constitution is a compromise among many different parties with very different interests in many cases. So of course one does not have to personally approve of every word in it to believe that it is a good and great Document.

Cone and the relationship between the followers of him I assume has nothing to do with needing to revise and compromise views in order to achieve some political. agreement. It is leader and follower.

One can certainly like and associate with a racist without being one just as one can do the same with a homosexual or Republican without being either of those two things; one would have to look at the relationship more closely than mere association.

That is true on the personal level. On an institutional public level that becomes nearly impossible I think. You don't publicly give awards to a Farrakhan for example, when one doesn't subscribe to their views, especially the more controversial ones because mere awareness would cause you to know that people will take it that way no matter what you say.