I want to add to my statement below, which I had to toss off rather more quickly than was comfortable.

Over the past months, people have occasionally accused me of being in Obama's camp. And sure, I just plain liked the guy better than Clinton or Edwards. I suppose there's also a natural inclination to root for the UCC'er in the campaign. We are only 1% of the population, you know.

But when I said that any of the Democratic candidates would have been just ducky with me, it was true. Up until very recently, any of the three leaders would have been perfectly acceptable. While I might have had more enthusiasm for Obama, there was by no means any disappointment in the prospect of a Clinton presidency. My calculation was that it would be easier to push a Pres. Obama left on important issues than a Pres. Clinton, but that kind of math is really just an educated guess. I would have been happily proved wrong on that score.

But my feelings started to change when Fox News manufactured the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

At first, it didn't have anything to do with Hillary.

I think what it was, more than anything, was a growing realization that the Wright controversy had upped the racial ante in this election significantly. We all knew that having Obama come anywhere close to the nomination would increase racial polarization, and we all knew that the Republicans would trot out racial stereotypes just as quickly as they could while maintaining their nominal fig leaf. That's not what I meant.

What I meant was: for every election for as long as I can remember, Democrats have been presented with two choices in an election. There's the dude who will almost certainly make the racial situation worse - that would be the Republican - and then there's the dude who will probably leave things alone or let them slide a little. That'd be the Democrat.

Sure, sure, Jesse Jackson looked like he was going to make some trouble in the 80's. How long did that last? Fifteen minutes? Al Sharpton never even made it out of "joke candidate" status.

No matter how you slice it, the race issue is a party the Democrats haven't shown up at in forever. Hubert Humphrey slipped out for a pack of smokes in '68, and we haven't been heard from except in apology since. Literally my entire life has been one long series of waffles, hedges, postponements and disappointments on this score.

And I'd made my peace with that. Really I had.

But then that scary black preacher threw it back on the national plate, and miracle of miracles, Obama stepped up to the moment. Grudgingly, yes. Not entirely coherently. Imperfectly.

But the fact remains that all of a sudden, Democrats were presented another option: a candidate who might actually advance the racial conversation in this nation. Again, not perfectly, and not always in the way that a good old-fashioned white liberal thought it should be. But perhaps some things might get said. Like: massive injustice and inequalities in opportunity still exist. Institutional racism still exists. The work of desegregation needs to continue. White resentment still wins political campaigns and makes bloated idiots even happier. That sort of thing.

So now we've got three candidates and three choices: move forward, stay the same, move backward. Problem is, I'm not sure who's who anymore. Because it sure as hell wasn't John McCain stoking the flames of racialism or trying to kneecap the most talented black politician in a generation. Nor was it McCain comparing the strongest single institution in the fight for black civil rights to the Klan.

At the very best, Clinton comes out of this with a nomination and an electorate split straight down racial lines. She will have utterly no credibility if she tries to implement any kind of social justice program, even if she makes it into office. And for that small margin, she risks setting the conversation back at least to the time of Reagan.

I'm under no illusions about Obama's abilities in this area, either. As President, he would be forced to dart and weave on the subject, and there will be so much else to look at on his agenda. Any accomplishments he might make will be as fragile as glass. He will disappoint progressives, there's no doubt about that. And that's before we start looking at the substance of his economic, military or foreign policy proposals, or factor in the endless hostile shenanigans of the GOP. They love playing defense. It's what they're good at.

But my personal ethics won't allow me to vote for somebody I think will hurt the cause of racial justice. Even though I've been committed to that cause my entire life, the reality of the situation is just starting to sink in now. I think it's because I never expected that I'd have to choose between Democrat and a Democrat on this score.

You may vote for whomever you choose come November. Street Prophets does not and will not make endorsements. But I can tell you that my list of candidates I will not vote for just got longer by one, and I couldn't be less thrilled about it.