The context missing is this, from the Rocky Mountain News, where the original article appeared:

"In Monday's interview at Nader's Washington, D.C., campaign headquarters, Nader was asked if Obama is any different than Democrats he has criticized in the past, considering Obama's pledge to reject campaign contributions from registered lobbyists."

After describing how Obama was the same as Kerry, Gore, et al, Nader's response was Obama's racial identity was the only real difference.

That was the context, and Nader said a number of things about Obama related to the "corporate candidacy" Nader says Obama is running, as well as Obama's decision not to use public financing of his campaign.

Obama has said virtually nothing about the poor and working class during his campaign, either in the primaries or the general. What happened to Obama's pledge to John Edwards to keep the issues of importance to them front and center in his campaign? Nader pointed out that contradiction between Obama's rhetoric, and his actions on the campaign trail.

These are important questions that should be asked about Obama's stands on issues. So far, Nader is one of the few visible political figures on the left who has challenged, much less commented on Obama's actual stands on the issues. Ishmael Reed is another voice from the left questioning Obama's stands, and his betrayal of the African American community that put him over the top in the primaries.

So what does the media focus on when Nader gets down to brass tacks? An illusory tempest in a teapot, manufactured by cable news spinners and party hacks on the partisan political blogs with a self-interest in manipulating white racial guilt for their own purposes--low ratings in the case of the cable pundits, and keeping a racially and religiously neutered Obama in the news cycle, so no one will talk about race issues in a meaningful way and expose Obama to racist backlash in the voting booth.

The Obama camp exploits the moment because it presents a sensational smokescreen for him to further obfuscate his 180 on campaign finance, and deflects the discussion away from him single handedly dismantling the public campaign finance system.

Obama must feel threatened by Nader--otherwise, why would Obama feel it necessary to call a press conference to address Nader's comments and wind up the cable news punditry? Why not just ignore Nader and let him fade away, if he is so irrelevant?

I'm with Ishmael Reed, who recently wrote about what a tremendous disappointment Obama is turning out to be. As someone who voted for Obama in the primary, the fact I feel so bitter and betrayed in June doesn't bode well. I can't imagine how much farther to the right he will run to pander to the electorate, but I find it totally disheartening. I feel suckered by yet another political opportunist.

The only thing more disheartening than Obama's running to the right of Bush and pandering to white racists to get elected, is the number of black and white Americans who are voting for Obama based upon his race, instead of his political stands on the issues and his character as a leader.