There's just one problem- he's biased. More of that towards the END of this entry.
Professor of History at Princeton, Sean Wilentz is highly regarded in some circles. He argued infront of the House Judiciary Committee in 1998 against impeachment for President William Jefferson Clinton. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer, received the Bancroft Prize, and the Beveridge Award(American Historical Association). He's an accomplished author. He has also written an article in the Rolling Stone entitled "The Worst President in History?" This was an article about George W. Bush that few here would disagree with.( http://en.wikipedia.org/...
I think most have made up their minds about the use of the race-card in this election, and enough who have thoroughly examined the situation can conclude that the media is the one who really started the fire. Some will argue that one camp or another, perhaps even both, added fuel to that fire. The fact that Wilentz cannot provide an instance in which the Obama campaign itself called the Clinton campaign on "race-baiting" says enough. Instead, he points to the Shaheen remark and the fall out from it. Yes, let's forget that the media seized on it. Let's forget that pundits said it was very strange for someone like Billy Shaheen to toss out the possibility, no matter how he worded it, that maybe Obama had been a drug dealer. Wilentz has a right to his opinion.
There are many here who will object to the Op-Ed piece by Sean Wilentz that came out yesterday entitled "Obama Was the First to Use the Race Card"( http://www.philly.com/... ) which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It's a hard hitting piece, an accusation that contrary to popular belief, Obama is the victimizer who has effectively played the role of the victim. Indeed, this wasn't the first such piece written by Professor Wilentz. He wrote an earlier article in the New Republic entitled "Race Man"( http://www.tnr.com/... ) that dealt with "how Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton."
Certainly, it's admirable that someone has the cojones to come out with these types of accusations. A overly-enthusiastic supporter is one thing, but a respected scholar and writer is another. It's a damning claim to make against Barack Obama that some agree with and many disagree with. There's just one problem. Professor Sean Wilentz, as noted on wikipedia( http://en.wikipedia.org/... ) is married to another professor by the name of Christine Stansell. Who's Christine Stansell?
We write to you now because it's time for feminists to say that Senator Obama has no monopoly on inspiration. We are among the millions of women and men who have been moved to action by her. Six months ago, some of us were committed to her candidacy, some of us weren't, but by now we all find ourselves passionately supporting her. Brains, grace under pressure, ideas, and the skill to make them real: we call that inspiring. The restoration of good government after eight years of devastation, a decent foreign policy with ties to world leaders repaired, withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care: we call that exciting. And the record to prove that she can and will stand up to the swift-boating that will come any Democratic nominee's way: we call that absolutely necessary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
A prominent and active supporter of Hillary Clinton is married to the scholar who wrote these claims that Obama was the first to play the race card. Then again, Wilentz himself is a Clinton supporter. It's sort of amusing that he's written a second article on the same exact subject. Talk about determination- but for what reason? Perhaps to appear as a more intellectual version of Larry Coulter Johnson.
UPDATE:
As MissLaura pointed out, Wilentz himself has endorsed Clinton months ago. I apologize for missing that.