If, in the wake of Wright's statements, these issues (black resentment for past injustices) are said to be relevant, then why weren't they part of the 2008 campaign discussion before then?
If it turns out that, say, a Hispanic Hillary Clinton supporter - someone she's been close to for years, etc. - expresses hostility to "white America" for being treated miserably, are people going to defend it by saying that, yes, we've been needing to discuss that as well?
I guess I'm asking a political question. How convincing is it to (skeptical) whites to be told that Wright's comments are not to be condemned, but to be used as a starting point in a national discussion - when hardly anybody was talking about it until just now? The issues this election year have been Iraq, global warming, the economy, some civil liberties, and a widening gap between rich and poor. Maybe race relations should have been in that mix, but they weren't. So it's not hard to see why people are puzzled when Wright's statements are defended by saying we should subsume them beneath what appears to be a "just revealed" serious social problem. It doesn't look like moving the goalposts. It looks like new goalposts have suddenly appeared.
On the other hand, the "Wright issue" seems to be fading (although it's too early to tell). But if it fades, then shouldn't those currently defending Obama by saying race relations are important, resist that trend?
I'm sorry, "Ugga to tha B", but Wright's diatribe about racism *is* an underlying issues, *and* the "fading" of that issue points out why:
We ignore it.
We ignore racism at our peril.
No, I don't think Shrillary would be able to accept and then access the need to talk about race in America. But hasn't she and her supporters talked about the underlying issues of sexism?