I think if it was written well, it could serve as a call for everyone to step up to the plate. Done well, I think the media would embrace it.

I think if you put a spot together that emphasized that it's been 43 years since the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act was signed and that while we have come a very far way, there remains serious work to be done and that as an African American who has lived in African American communities, Obama wants to be president so that he can aggressively begin to resolve the lingering issues of past centuries so that our children are no longer held hostage to the sins of their fathers and so that his people can prosper accordingly and he is therefore asking for your money and your time - yeah, I think that would play very well in this nation. Everyone wants to leave that crap behind. People who aren't going to vote for Obama because he's black probably aren't people who are gonna vote for Clinton, or Edwards either.

If he's the nominee, he'll have far more room to make that claim in the general than in the primary because the opposition is going to be making covertly racist appeals. That will free him up to be more overt in his embrace of African American culture because white people are going to be pissed at the Republicans for their game playing. It's like after katrina, being white wasn't so appealing because Bush is white and he's an asshole. You didn't want to be associated with that crap. If he's the nominee, there'll be a level of backlash against the right that will allow far more room to talk about race issues in a constructive way.

It raises an ethical question, though. Because Obama could not do the same with his best performing demographic, due to established media stigma.

But in order to even submit this for ethical consideration -- from the POV of the Clinton campaign -- the hypothesis that the MSM would be disproportionately critical (toward Obama) would have to be proven. Technically, before one can say, "You're applying a double standard," you need proof. I tend to agree that the media's response would be more negative if Obama did this, but there's no concrete evidence. I'm sure we could pull numerous studies together, which would show the trends for media bias (a huge one), but it wouldn't help us much here. We're working off speculation and common sense alone. This wouldn't be a very cogent argument to present to a political campaign.

Again, I don't think this ever crossed the mind of anyone in the Clinton campaign. They knew they had a clever marketing tactic, and they used it. I don't see it as unethical. If Obama and Hillary can use their race and gender (respectively) in stump speeches, then I think they're free to use them in other ways, as long as the intent is positive and uplifting rather than harmful.

Well, there is a media double standard on race, but I think that is partly due to the "be PC at all costs" aspect of the media and society at large.

We can't have a true dialogue in this country regarding race because any way you slice, someone is going to come out a "racist."  You don't need to look any further for a perfect example of this than right here on this blog.  

What I really hate is the exploitation of important issues for personal gain.  That's what I feel Hillary is doing with this 77 cent crap and what Fox did with Wright.  I mean, I can't even begin to address the issue with Wright because it was just so ridiculous.  People are openly persecuting a man who has been serving his community and God for 30 years!  Those few statements, as offensive as they were, do not define him and people just refuse to accept it.