[TonyB06]

Winning elections vs. galvanizing black people is the critical issue you’ve posed here, IMO. Are “our” issues (that’s an interesting thread idea) broad enough for a national AfAm candidate to champion yet have the crossover appeal to make majority (white voters) comfortable enough to vote for him? Obviously not yet. While I think this is a question better asked of white voters, here's a thought of mine.

Our cultural experiences, and to a lesser extent, our shared experiences in America both good and bad, often shape our similar conclusions. Yet these conclusions are ALWAYS reached individually. "Successful” AfAm national candidates, like successful white ones, have no choice but to appeal to broader issues because that’s where elections are won—the broad middle. Operationally, we’re as diverse as anybody (we’re white/grey/blue collar, professional/non-professional, religious divides, conservative/liberal in our thinking, etc…) As we continue to expand along these lines, it should become “easier” to champion these broader issues and still find large scale AfAm support because we’re in more of these categories. Economics often play a large role in affecting both black/white voters, giving issues like schools, the economy greater or lesser importance. Also, we are going to have to continue to grow politically, upper middle and lower socio-economic classes.

Issues of racism, redlining, Affirmative Action, etc. will continue dominating headlines, but as society moves forward, and cultures continue to merge, a lot of grey areas will emerge—maybe making it easier for “our” candidate and “their” candidate to be one-in-the-same, and to, at least sometimes, look like us.