If you use the word racist so freely, it will lose its meaning.
But if you don't use it when it applies, it will also lose its meaning. Nader thinks that because Obama is African-American, his priorities and actions should be different from mine. Nader's comments represent a clear opinion that Obama should behave and speak a certain way and to certain policies based on nothing but the color of his skin. If that's not racism, what is?
Having higher expectations for a black politician after all these years of white politician neglecting these issues and black leeaders complaining that not paying attention to those issues was tantamount to white leaders not paying attention to black oriented issues is not racist. It may be unfair.
Anyway, I am not saying what Nader said is fair. Obama gave a good response saying that nader shoudl pay attention to what Obama has been saying. However, the topic was about that statement he made. The statement in itself is not racist.
Fair enough; but I think it was a mistake on Nader's part to introduce color to those issues. Urban issues are predominantly seen as "black" issues because of the AA concentration in many US cities; but it's still wrong to treat them as racially based. Government failures on poverty, health care, education, etc. may impact the urban AA community disproportionately, but that doesn't make them black issues, nor is there a greater imperative for Obama to address basic human rights issues simply because he's black.
I see what you're saying, and can maybe shoehorn your interpretation into something more benign; but Nader's statement was insensitive at best.
I have high expectations for Obama because he's a Democrat and a man who has seen those problems first-hand; but I have no expectations of him relevant to his skin color.
