She is best known for Bill Clinton’s criticism of her remarks about race in the United States during the 1992 presidential campaign. Clinton’s well-known repudiation of her comments led to what is now known in politics as a Sister Souljah moment. 

Take a look and make our own conclusions:

Obama Voted for Employee Free Choice Act. Obama co-sponsored and voted for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions without employer harassment. (H.R. 800, Vote 227, 6/26/07)

Obama Promises to Sign the Employee Free Choice Act into Law. Obama says, “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.” (Chicago Tribune, 3/4/07)

Obama: Employee Free Choice Act Gives Workers Majority Sign-Up. Obama said, “Th e Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks, and strengthen penalties for those employers who are in violation. The choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone. It should be their free choice.” (Obama Senate Press Release, 6/20/07)

Obama Says Choice to Form Unions Belongs to Workers. “Th e choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone. It should be their free choice.” At an AFSCME forum, Obama said, “In this country, we believe that if the majority of workers in a company want a union, they should get a union. We can do this.” (Take Back America Conference, 6/19/07; Obama Senate Press Release, 6/20/07)

Obama Says Workers Are Victimized by Current Law. Obama said workers are being victimized by current organizing laws. “The employers are abiding by the letter of the law…but it turns out we (still) have an overwhelming number of voters who would want to join a union….It would seem to me that we should change the law.” (Investor’s Business Daily, 3/30/07)

Obama Rallied With Resurrection Health Care Employees Promoting Passage of Employee Free Choice Act. Obama attended a rally of 2,000 hospital employees, union members and supporters promoting passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. “Keep marching for justice,” Obama told the Resurrection workers. “Where there is injustice anywhere, it suppresses justice everywhere. And organized labor has a history of bringing about justice.” The rally brought attention to the Resurrection workers’ campaign to form a union with AFSCME. (AFSCME 31, 3/5/07)

Obama Voted for Collective Bargaining Rights for Airport Screeners. Obama supported an amendment granting 43,000 airport screeners limited collective bargaining rights without the ability to strike or negotiate for higher pay. (S.Amdt. 316 to S.Amdt. 275 to S. 4, Vote 64, 3/7/07)

Obama Publicly Supports Workers Trying to Form Unions and Gain Contracts. In addition to his support for Resurrection staff , Obama has publicly supported workers in organizing and bargaining campaigns many times, from walking a picket line with Congress Hotel employees last year in Chicago to refusing to cross the picket line of striking television writers and urging the head of WMUR-TV in New Hampshire to negotiate a fair contract. (AFL-CIO Now blog, 11/26/07, 12/4/07, 12/28/07)

Groups such as the National Association of Realtors, the Greater Capital Association of Realtors Inc. and the New York State Builders Association Inc. are vowing to fight the move to limit the itemized tax deduction for mortgage interest.

They claim the proposal would increase the cost of housing and depress already sagging home prices.

“It seems like the last nail in the coffin,” said Philip LaRocque, executive vice president of the state builders association. “It’s like we’re under attack not only from the economy, but also from the government.”

Under existing tax law, a homeowner can subtract mortgage interest from his taxable income. Obama is proposing to reduce the full value of that deduction, along with other itemized ones, for taxpayers with incomes over $250,000.

Under Obama’s proposal, a homeowner in the proposed 39.6 percent tax bracket, who would now realize a saving of $396 for every $1,000 in deductible interest, would see the benefit reduced to $280, according to Susan Drislane, an accountant at Teal, Becker & Chiaramonte in Albany.

The proposal seems modest, and is likely to affect less than two percent of homeowners. And as Drislane said, most taxpayers in the highest tax brackets already own homes, so it’s unlikely to affect many decisions to buy.

So why is the home industry so upset?

One reason is that higher-end homes are a relatively large share of newly built houses, which makes them important to the construction industry. They are also the homes that are hardest, at least at the moment, to sell and Realtors don’t want that lucrative slice of the market further slowed.

The proposal, though, wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, when the economic downturn presumably would be over. The measure, along with caps on other itemized deductions, would raise more than $300 billion annually for the federal government.

That’s not chump change, said James Ader, chief executive of The Greater Capital Association of Realtors.

“At a time when the housing market is so challenged, and when its recovery is so essential to the economy, why jump in there?” Ader said. “And once government finds its way into the mortgage deduction, where’s it going to stop?”

Indeed, many in the housing industry fear that reducing the deduction for wealthy homeowners would eventually lead to its elimination for all homeowners.

They also note that it would most affect areas of the country where housing prices are highest.

“It’s going to hit New York real hard,” LaRocque said. “It’s going to hamper one of the greatest benefits of owning a home.”

But Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking Wednesday to the Senate Finance Committee, said the move, along with some other tax increases, is necessary to limit future budget deficits, according to the Associated Press.

With even some Democratic lawmakers raising concerns about the limits on itemized deductions, he seemed to suggest that the Obama administration might be willing to rethink some of its tax proposals.

Bonus Video:

Disappointingly, Senator Barack Obama immediately criticized McCain: “I think in the past he’d been opposed to these Ward Connerly initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right. These are not designed to solve a big problem, but they’re all too often designed to drive a wedge between people.”

Obama’s criticism is wrongheaded for at least three reasons: (1) it is obviously preferential policies that are divisive, not their abolition; (2) the “big problem” of helping people from disadvantaged backgrounds can be addressed by helping people of all colors who are disadvantaged, rather than crudely and unfairly using race as a proxy for disadvantage; and (3) Obama himself has recognized as much, albeit fitfully and inconsistently, in his own statements—for instance, acknowledging the divisiveness of preferential treatment (in his Philadelphia speech), and the fact that his own daughters, for starters, come from privileged backgrounds and thus are “probably” not deserving of preferential treatment.

Kudos to John McCain! This is a solid, important commitment by him to the principle of E pluribus unum, and Americans across the political spectrum, but especially conservatives, should applaud him. As for Barack Obama: This is a critical moment in his campaign. Is he a candidate of change who will transcend race and bring us all together, rejecting divisive policies he knows in his heart are outdated and irrelevant—or just another Democratic pol who lacks the courage to stand up to powerful but aging interests in his own party, which remain hopelessly infatuated with identity politics and insist on perpetuating a set of policies that have always been unfair and divisive and are now outmoded to boot?

As per Lashawn Barber:

The whole point of the civil rights movement was to bar the government from preferring one citizen over another based on factors like race. But our government continues this odious practice, and I can think of nothing more unfair or divisive, no matter which race or sex benefits from the discrimination. A government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks has the power to discriminate against blacks.

To my mind, commentary about Obama’s ‘race’ speech in the press has been superficial and overtly, unreflectively partisan. (It was a fine speech, to be sure; don’t get me wrong. This guy is not only a brilliant politician, he’s a genuine intellectual. He has integrity. And, he’s brave, to boot.) Yet, as editorial writers rush to call it “the greatest speech on race since King’s 1963 oration…,” I can’t help but notice how they blithely overlook LBJ’s 1965 commencement speech at Howard University which, to my mind and by any serious historical standard, was easily a more important and historic statement. Johnson’s speech was, after all, a statement which had and still has consequences, in terms of major institutional reforms embodied in our nation’s laws and practices, affecting the lives of many millions of people over the span of two generations. (But, then, the Obama enthusiasts have successfully implanted the idea that it is somehow ‘racially insensitive to recall that LBJ’s skills, vision, courage and compassion were absolutely indispensable in bringing about the progress we all take for granted today…)

After spending much of the summer searching for an effective line of attack against Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain is beginning a newly aggressive campaign to define Mr. Obama as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency. Senator John McCain, speaking Wednesday at a town-hall-style meeting in Aurora, Colo., has begun a campaign to define Senator Barack Obama in negative terms.

On Wednesday alone, the McCain campaign released a new advertisement suggesting — and not in a good way — that Mr. Obama was a celebrity along the lines of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Republicans tried to portray Mr. Obama as a candidate who believed the race was all about him, relying on what Democrats said was a completely inaccurate quotation. The Republican National Committee began an anti-Obama Web site called “Audacity Watch,” a play on the title of Mr. Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope.” And, in a concerted volley of television interviews, news releases and e-mail, campaign representatives attacked him on a wide range of issues, including tax policies and energy proposals. The moves are the McCain campaign’s most full-throttled effort to define Mr. Obama negatively, on its own terms, by creating a narrative intended to turn the public off to an opponent.

The run of attacks against Mr. Obama over the last couple of weeks have been strikingly reminiscent of that drive, including the Bush team’s tactics of seeking to make campaigns referendums on its opponents — not a choice between two candidates — and attacking the opponent’s perceived strengths head-on. Central to the latest McCain drive is an attempt to use against Mr. Obama the huge crowds and excitement he has drawn, including on his foreign trip last week, by promoting a view of him as more interested in attention and adulation than in solving the problems facing American families.

“I would say that it is beyond dispute that he has become the biggest celebrity in the world,” Mr. Schmidt said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. “The question that we are posing to the American people is this: ‘Is he ready to lead yet?’ And the answer to the question that we will offer to the American people is: ‘No he is not.’ ”

The intensity of the recent drive — which has included some assertions from the McCain campaign that have been widely dismissed as misleading — has surprised even some allies of Mr. McCain, who has frequently spoken about the need for civility in politics. The sentiment seeped onto television on Wednesday with Andrea Tantaros, a Republican strategist, saying on MSNBC that the use of Ms. Hilton in Mr. McCain’s commercial was “absurd and juvenile,” and that he should spend more time promoting his own agenda.

Mr. Obama’s campaign seized on those concerns, trying to turn the tables by portraying Mr. McCain as cranky and negative. The Democratic National Committee called Mr. McCain “McNasty.” Late Wednesday Mr. Obama released a counter advertisement citing editorials critical of Mr. McCain’s latest volley of attacks and featuring an announcer who says, “John McCain, Same old politics, same failed policies.”

Asked by reporters about Mr. McCain’s new advertisement, Mr. Obama said,

“I do notice that he doesn’t seem to have anything to say very positive about himself.”

Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, said that Mr. McCain’s strategy to define Mr. Obama negatively in voters’ minds, while similar to one that successfully worked against Mr. Kerry, would not work this year.

“When people are struggling, when they’re trying to pay their bills, when they’re concerned about their fundamental security, I don’t think they have much tolerance for Britney Spears and Paris Hilton,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I think they understand times are more serious than that, and they thought John McCain was, too.”

Seeking similar openings, the campaign seized on Mr. Obama’s decision to skip a visit with wounded United States troops in Germany. (The McCain campaign said Mr. Obama canceled because he could not take the news media with him to the hospital, an assertion denied by the Obama campaign and undercut by the accounts of reporters.) The new focus has been welcomed by some Republicans. “They’re now in a position of driving news as opposed to reacting to it,” said Brian Jones, a former aide to Mr. McCain.

But some fear a backlash. And Mr. McCain does not like to follow a script. People who know him said that it may be a challenge to apply the Bush model — strict adherence to the message of the day by the candidate combined with a relentless drive to define the opponent negatively — to a campaign not known so far for discipline or consistency.

As a white 20-something, we so, so got it. At least, myself and my 20-something friends did. We all we’re typing “FIST BUMP OMG” in our chat windows immediately. Followed by “dude, I want a relationship where we fist bump when I win the presidential nomination”. Also, Brian Jenning’s comment (“..was to be a small, private fist bump between them..”) was just fucking awesome.

Also, interestingly enough, most of the first comments that came out when Barack and Michelle walked on the stage was praise for Michelle.

Obama’s formula for energizing blacks while appealing to whites relies in part on demonstrating independence from the more militant traditions of black politics and using rhetoric that spans race. He has opposed monetary reparations for descendants of slaves, for example. And he has said that he does not think his daughters should benefit from affirmative action, because they have had a “pretty good deal,” and he has expressed openness to programs that could help disadvantaged whites, Latinos and women.

This is a perfect example of not explicitly wealth-based capitol. Because most white people are reporters and trained to believe a certain white, centrist perspective is “objective” they never realize when they’re writing explicitly from the point of view of their own cultural fears, and they don’t have to.

I’d blame Al Sharpton, but there are plenty of high profile black folks who are far closer to mainstream black opinion on the subject of reparations, the MSM just isn’t interested in talking to those people, and those people aren’t quite as pressed to be on camera.

Anyway, if we can all try to be mindful of that — and the fact that our own sense of identity gets in the way of discussion, then maybe it would open up the dialogue. I think, underlying alot of comments I read on this blog, there is a theory out there that whites do not have a self awareness of being white, while blacks, in part due to being in a minority, in part due to history, have an intense self awareness of being black in this country, whether they want to or not. I think this is true. I do not “self identify” as white really. It is like a non-issue in my mind when I think about myself. It only comes up in reaction to not being white – so in a comparative sense. If I then make comments or assumptions about another culture/race/group with a lack of self awareness of my own brainwashing, then this comes across as arrogance or naivete — or at least it is likely to get some eye-rolling responses.

So, on the one hand, I can see why someone finds white people’s requests for “come on, be nice, they are trying,” a bit, well, trying. On the other hand, I can say that the defensiveness on some fronts in the face of well intentioned attempts at communication is also trying.

This is a general comment. It does not, however, get to the very real damage that MSM and self anointed journalists can do. When there is no give or take and no ability to react on an individual basis — even anonymously- then the end result is the article stands as an authority on the topic and merely reinforces perceptions based on faulty assumptions.

But really, there is a certain honesty everyone has to bring to the debate as an individual. And this is very, very hard to do no matter your color, gender, education or even personality. Once anyone truly approaches a topic from an individual point of view, as opposed to a collective/group/culture point of view, then everything gets more human and less conceptual (imo).

He knew that this speech would be public and whatever good intention he had distorted! Didn’t he give a speech like this last year?

I don’t congratulate Obama on this a bit. Listen, Obama is smart enough to know that as a presidential candidate everything he says will be used as fodder. I’m sure that he is smart enough to know how white people will perceive things. They will look at it and go yea, Obama is the only good black man (of course because of his white upbringing). He is going to set black people straight, yea, tell those black men how its done!

Here is my point, the brohter does not care! The speech was black oriented and he did it to scold black crowds knowing that it will make white people cheer him on….this in the end will get him their vote. I am sick of people feeling the need to scold black people like their bad children constantly. It is easy to scold blacks by making general blanket statements which feed into the low opinion that many whites harbor about blacks. Yet he refuses to speak on the issues that politicans should be concerned with in regards to the black community?

The criminal just-us system?
His plan for crumbling inner city schools other than telling black parents to stop feeding their children “cold chicken for breakfast”?
The list goes on…

This message coming from Obama is not different than that from black leaders, ministers and community leaders. I believe that the impact will be no different either. However in the heads of his precious white voters and white people, Obama has come up with this concept of “personal responsiblity”; a concept foreign to the negro along with moral values, intellectualism, hard work etc…

People seem to only want to harbor on the negative when it comes to the black community. They love to round blacks off to the lowest denominator. I understand that too many black fathers have dropped the ball but many,many HAVE NOT.

I had a wonderful father’s day with my father, uncles, grandfathers, cousins and friends. All of these men are fathers…good fathers. Honestly, I grew up only seeing black men being fathers. I have friends who are good fathers. I would like these men to get praised and not just a mention but praise!! Sometimes praising those who do the right thing makes those who do the wrong thing feel guilty.

I also find it interesting how Obama never gives whites tough love. He cannot even tell them the truth about our society. He simply panders to their every need. Their divorce rate is through the roof! All of my white friends growing up had strained relationships with their parents because of this yet I hear no politican feeling the need to rail against it. The out of wedlock births in the Hispanic community esp. teenage preganancy is the heightest yet I don’t see Bill Richardson or the mayor of L.A. addressing it.

I really am just sick of people making it seem as if blacks are the downfall of humanity and completely dysfuctional.

I live in Brooklyn, I had a father’s day celebration yesterday and the turnout was tremendous!! Blacks fathers and their children and wives and girlfriends galore!! It was wonderful day in the park until it began to rain.

Black people, as Albert Murray pointed out, don’t suffer from a lack of accomplishment. They suffer from a lack of recognition of their accomplishments.