Why won’t Obama take up racism?

I AGREED with just about all of Lance Selfa's article "Why won't Obama go for the knockout?"

He is absolutely correct to point out the frustration that many Obama liberal supporters have with Obama's unwillingness to throw "the knockout punch" in debates. Lance is also correct to locate this problem as primary one of Obama's own inherent conservatism, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

But there is one other compelling factor about Obama's debate timidity that deserves mention: the advice from many advisers, including explicitly from his campaign co-chair Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., that the country "won't elect an angry Black man." This sentiment was echoed both before and after the debate by many liberal columnists and supporters.

Is this even true?

Given the level of economic and political crisis, not to mention anger, that exists, many people thirsted to hear Obama cut loose at his recent debates with McCain with the passion that he has displayed in some of his speeches. But given the way racism has been whipped up this election season, first through the Clintons and now through the McCain-Palin horror show, it can't be ignored as a factor in Obama's smiling quietude.

Conservative bigots would jump at any sign of anger to ignite racial resentment. And Obama's own campaign--other than when the Jeremiah Wright episode forced its hand--has been mute on the question of racism, despite it's constant and noxious presence. This is the fight they duck.

In short, one of the factors we need to watch from now until Election Day will be both racism and the absence of anti-racism.
Dave Zirin, Washington, D.C.