By now, we have all seen or heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson's rather crude or off-color comments about Senator Barack Obama. Jackson was waiting to be interviewed on FOX News when he made his comments to a fellow guest. He articulated a growing concern within the African-American community regarding Obama's speeches at African-American churches. Some are concerned that Obama uses these forums to lecture and "talk down to" black people. Jackson also expressed disdain for Obama's support of President Bush's faith-based initiative program by saying, "I wanna cut his nuts off."

    A few points need to be made right up front. First, it is unfortunate that what should have been a private conversation between Jackson and Obama was aired in such a public and embarrassing forum. Second, anyone as seasoned as Jesse Jackson knows that anytime, I repeat, anytime you see a microphone you must assume that it is on. Third, what Jackson did was amateurish if not stupid, and he has been in the game way too long to make such rookie mistakes.

    It is also important to understand that Jackson has dedicated his entire life to furthering the cause of civil and human rights in this country and globally. Doing what he has done over the past five decades is not for the meek or faint-hearted. Does he have a huge ego? Sure he does. Has that ego clouded his judgment at times? Sure it has. However, it was that same ego that convinced him as a college student that he, along with others, could kill Jim Crow. It's that same ego that motivated him to work to abolish apartheid in South Africa, and to bring about greater racial balance to Wall Street. Too many of Jesse Jackson's detractors (particularly those of color) refuse to recognize that it's upon his shoulders (and others) that they stand. Many African-American political pundits, as well as TV and radio hosts, would not have programs on which to express their views if it were not for the struggles, marches and boycotts that the Rev. Jesse Jackson and others have led.

    Some are accusing Jackson of being jealous of Senator Obama. Others say that Jackson just can't stay out of the limelight; he has to find a way to make himself appear to be relevant. These assessments may or may not be true. Whatever your assessments of his motives, we should not allow ourselves to be so distracted by others' views of the speaker and what was spoken that we totally miss the point of what was said.

    Jesse Jackson is not alone when he expresses concern that Obama's efforts to run a "deracialized" campaign may come at the expense of African-American issues. Some believe that as Obama competes for the center of the electorate, he is "adjusting" more liberal positions that were taken to secure his party's nomination. Some are asking, "How can a self-proclaimed 'agent of change' deliver if he uses tactics of the past?"

    One example of this is the recent vote that Senator Obama cast in support of FISA. According to The Nation, Obama voted to "amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to absolve George Bush of responsibility for initiating an illegal warrantless wiretapping program and to provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations that violated the privacy of their customers in order to collaborate with a lawless president." If one understands the history of wiretapping in America and how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other progressive leaders were spied on through J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO efforts, one has to wonder how, if by his own admission Senator Obama is "somebody who is no doubt progressive," he could cast such a vote.

    There are those who believe that Obama has been "talking down" to or pandering to African-American audiences in order to gain favor with white voters. When Obama goes before an African-American congregation to speak, he goes as a politician, not a minister or a social critic. It is very dangerous when one uses a political forum to discuss social ills without putting forth solutions that he/she plans to implement or champion once elected to the office being sought.

    As a politician, don't challenge African-American men to be more responsible for their families unless you acknowledge past and present social factors that have contributed to the problem, and you also offer solutions to address the social factors that contribute to the problem. As a politician, don't talk about continuing faith-based initiative programs unless you articulate how those programs will be utilized. Challenges without solutions can appear to be shallow and patronizing. In this instance, it is important to understand the power of perception, and that perception in the minds of many is reality. It's okay for Senator Obama to run a "deracialized" campaign; he just shouldn't do it at the expense of African-Americans.

    It is also important to be consistent with those you challenge. If Obama is comfortable enough to chastise African-American men in their churches, he should cast that same ire toward Zionists and their treatment of the Palestinians when speaking before The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    Ironically, at times the senator has problems defending his own statements, even when they are correct. Earlier this year, he was caught attempting to explain resentment from small-town voters in the Mid-West and Pennsylvania with the following comment, "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Once challenged, he backed away from the statement, even though it is clearly understood by political scientists and sociologists to be valid.

    Will Senator Obama offer a direct challenge to the people to whom he's referring (most of whom are white) to rise above their antipathy toward people who aren't like them the next time he's in Pennsylvania? Nineteen percent of white voters in Pennsylvania said race was a factor in their candidate selection.

    Finally, too many people are getting caught up in the symbolism of Obama's candidacy and losing sight of the substance. Don't get me wrong; political symbols are very important. When I was six years old, I was told that the world was my oyster, I could be anything I wanted to be, EVEN PRESIDENT (wink, wink). I can now sit with my six-year-old son, point to Obama's image on the TV screen and say with a tear of joy in my eye, "Look, that man has the same skin color as you do, he has the same texture of hair that you have, he's a brilliant man. If you work hard, you too can be president." That symbolism means a great deal to me and many other Americans, black and white.

    But symbols in and of themselves don't get it done. If progressive people believe that merely having Barack Obama in the White House will improve their lot, they are sadly mistaken. Progressives are going to have to lobby, protest, write and call their elected officials in the same way that any other group has to if they want their agenda furthered. With that, one can only hope that the ear of a President Obama will be more in tune with the agenda being put forth.

    It is unfair to Obama to think that he alone can improve the lives of African-Americans. He is just one man; as president, he will be a functionary of the United States government. African- Americans are going to have to hold President Obama accountable, hold his feet to the fire in the same way they would have to hold President McCain accountable. That's what I heard in Jesse Jackson's statement.

    --------

    Dr. Wilmer Leon is producer/host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "On With Leon," a regular guest on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," and a teaching associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Contact him at www.wilmerleon.com or wjl3us@yahoo.com.