I recently saw a Boston Legal episode that did a nice job with the 'sounds black' topic.
The facts are, some blacks have more of a dialect associated with some blacks; others dont. It is a factor in politics. If Obama's accent were urban black, he'd pay a big price politically.
This is hardly the hate-based race discussion race discussion often is. Because it's at all similar, it is awkward and usually best apologized for when there's any controversy, to keep racism stigmatized.
The price for that noble cause is sometimes sacrificing or apologizing for otherwise reasonable chat.
When we were having an election in which a cnadidate could break a 100% rate over 200 yeaqrs of only whites, race was an inherently political issue, and even neutral comments could be controversial.
It's all too easy to reference race for nefarious purposes. "We disagree with the black candidate's position on welfare, and the black candidate is wrong about Iraq."
Neutral, and gratuitous, and an appeal to bigotry.
It's a tricky issue. It doesn't equate Harry Reid with actual bigots.
It's somewhat analogous to religion in JFK's race. Race now and religion then were inherently political.
It wasn't exacly going to be 'pretend a catholic or black isn't running'. They were and it was an issue for people, whether the issue was bigotry or opposing bigotry.
For JFK, like Obama, it was a contest between gaining votes to oppose bigotry more than you lose votes to bigotry.
Mentioning the issue for both was delicate. JFK had a baptist minister's speech, Obama had a race speech folllowing a controvery about Wright. They could be accused of exploiting.
In both cases, some suggested they had an unfair advantage to gain votes by appealing for the issue 'not to matter'. In each some argued they gained more than they lost.
Almost everyone agreed it 'shouldn't be an issue'.
For almost everyone it was an issue.
No one saids it wouldn't be awkrward breaking down old barriers. But catholics aren't controversial now and hopefullly blacks won't be.