I apologize, but I do not feel bad for being angry about this. The bottom section of this reply contains some clarification (I hope), but I do have a bit of a diatribe in the middle, I'm afraid. You know I respect your opinions, so please forgive some of the anger. I couldn't quite manage to tone it down any further.

As far as I can tell, he did not try to change the decision of the court, or use his presidential powers for anything other than hoarding the soap box. It's not a "violation" if it's nothing more than slightly uncommon.
In addition, he didn't attack anyone - he made the effort to discuss the points that some people are having such a difficult time understanding - like SYG, for example. But mostly, he made the attempt to explain why some people are so incensed, and why they might easily jump to the conclusion that this was racist (he doesn't say whether he believes they are correct or not). Excess baggage isn't ignored in relationships, so why do we pretend it couldn't possibly exist here? Or that ignoring it will work?

And it doesn't have no connection to him. For good or for bad, many of the people who helped to elect him are now completely furious with (and feel failed by) our justice system. I do not contest the decision, so that is not what we are discussing, but I think it is completely appropriate for my president to speak on something that has so many people in an uproar. Especially when he is so uniquely placed to see it from both sides. I am willing to agree to disagree.

I can see how you would think that, but I did not intend to label anyone as racist - the intention was to point out that if we consistently speak as though we believe the hurt and anger and history should have faded completely by now, or that anybody who still acts as though they have a right to that anger should just man up, anything we say will have the flavor of racism.

I told MF what I thought of his post, and I have responded to Random above. I did lump Guard in, who said that Obama was being racist against blacks. That's complete bunk, so I'm not going to give it a specific reply. The whole damn point is that whether it was because he was young, or different, or whatever, a boy ended up dead because someone thought he shouldn't be where he was --> AND THAT many people think it was because of racism. Whether you agree with them or not, trying to ignore that it may be a fair point simply marginalizes these people, without making any effort at intelligent discourse. I think that by giving it recognition, Obama brought it up a level - especially because the heart of the speech was that no matter how many books or degrees (etc: an Obama and a Martin, for example) may separate two individuals, gut reactions come from somewhere else.