A reader writes:
Why should anyone be surprised that the "leading figures" in the Black establishment are at best cool to Obama’s candidacy, and at worst, are openly hostile to it. For years there has been an iron triangle of racial politics in the Democratic party. The largely white party establishment has banked on the loyal support of black voters (easily its most reliable source of voters since the mid-1960’s), which is turned out and kept loyal by a clique of "black leaders." These black leaders have used this power to produce votes to promote agendas which they have felt benefitted their constituents, but they have also used this power to obtain a great deal of personal wealth and status (probably more important than the money).
Obama breaks this triangle.
He appeals directly to the average black voter. His appeal is so obvious and great that he potentially renders the "black leadership" irrelevant and unnecessary. When this happens, where is the incentive for "grassroots campaign building" contributions and "get out the vote" contributions, or as they are referred to among Democratic party pros, "gift offerings"? There is none.
As badly as the Clintons may want to beat Obama, the black establishment MUST beat him. It promises to get nastier before it gets better.
As a postscript, you can substitute the above names with "GOP," "evangelical voters," and "evangelical leaders" in a discussion of why the Republican establishment is so hostile to Mike Huckabee as well. And I say this as someone who is not a supporter of Huckabee.
The Dish 