Well, I don't know if it's a ploy or not, but unless this woman is a mouthpiece, saying what he demands her to say, I don't see what exactly is wrong with her saying it. On the other hand, it seems to me that most of the Democrats, including black democratic officials, for my entire lifetime, have been talking about a candidate doing what's best for "us," when they talk to us. But they always talk the talk without walking the walk, and I think it costs us. You say that there's hell to pay when we hear people saying that candidates should do for "us." Well, there must be a lot of hell being paid, judging from the fliers that come around my door every election day. In state elections, we get promises to pass laws banning racial profiling. We don't get promises to keep government spending low, or do something about our high auto insurance rates. We only get promises that are aimed at making us believe that the candidate "feels our pain." Because obviously, no state law banning racial profiling can stop racial profiling, when state and federal constitutional guarantees against it couldn't stop it. In the 2000 presidential election, we had a guy who rides Clinton's popularity with blacks all the way to 90% of our vote, even though his running mate was Lieberman, AKA "Bush-But-With-Brains." And early indications were that even Lieberman in the current campaign was getting a lot of that support before Dean started surging.
Our elected leaders -- at least our statewide or federal leaders -- need to be those who will look out for the best interests of the jurisdiction they govern. If the country suffers because of poor leadership, the members of the population who generally are at the bottom will bear the brunt of that. Tell me what you'll do re: federal judicial nominations, taxes, foreign policy, and the budget deficit. Don't tell me how many blacks you'll put in your cabinet. Or, better yet: tell me that, and all of the other things too.
Clark is going to have to play the game, obviously, and he should. As I'm sure you and I agree, it would be insulting if went around telling white farmers what he'll do for them, but then asks blacks to put aside their issues. But because of the way these candidates try to woo us with many issues that ultimately are pointless, it's time to start looking more at the substance of the candidate, rather than the skill he uses to "connect" with our plight. Hopefully a candidate will "connect" with us in that emotional way but also shows some substance to be a strong leader for America. So far, this guy seems to fit that bill, and the rest of them don't. But we'll see how this plays out in the coming months.