Probably, it is just as safe to conclude that (1) there was political utility to going there, (2) his wife liked it there.  He probably made a lot of good contacts there.  As to 2, women set the religious tone in many families, with husbands going along with it.  I suspect the Obama family is that way, based on Michelles’ comments and demeanor. 

the idea of blacks (and other minorities) being allowed to pursue their ethnic interests because of "past injustices" is no doubt a successful racket.  Its success is largely due to the fact that no one can produce a metric which can tell us when everyone is "equal?" 
.
Because of this, people of European descent are supposed to accept a lower standard of living.  This is exactly why I support Obama.  After electing a black President, the civil rights racket will no longer be able to claim that they are in some way being "discriminated" against.  Of course I have no doubt that they will.  But the important thing is this will give the green light to European Americans to start pursuing their own ethnic interests.  
.
Affirmative action, racial quotas, negative portrayals of people of European descent in the schools and media, black (and other minority) on white crime, forced busing, illegal immigration, and forced diversity are all issues that need addressing, and a black president will make it all the easier. 
.
Its unfortunate that Africans sold other Africans to Europeans 400 years ago as slaves.  You have no idea how much I wish this didn’t happen?  But since its obvious that this excuse will always be used to further black interests, it only makes sense that whites start taking measures to protect their own interests.   

My last comment wasn’t strictly addressed to you, but a conglomerate of the various criticisms I’ve heard.  For instance, Dan tdaxp has used the term racist in reference to Obama’s church or minister or message (will have to refresh my memory on that), others have well or have outright called him a racist; others have given the 20-years membership to suggest he must agree with the church’s messages (although they like most who comment have 1 or 2 video clips to attest to the 20-years of messages); and so forth.

.

On the pro-black and pro-white analogy you are making:  false.  For this reason: a long history of oppression and suppression exists against blacks in America unlike against whites, despite the fact that some unapologetically white critics would call affirmative action a suppression of whites.  Of course race relations have improved greatly and blacks have more real opportunities now than ever before in America, but the history and the memory still exist.  We might even say, as Obama said in his speech on race, that the backward-looking philosophy that holds a fixed eye on past grievances and oppression/suppression is out-dated or ought to be.  Nonetheless, whether from the culture in general, or from some within the culture, or from within the family histories or black culture, the negative messages still exist.  To be "unapolegetically black" is quite similar to something else I read today in an article on Will Smith in USA Today [1]:

"When I was doing Ali, I realized that he kept saying, ‘I’m the greatest, I’m pretty,’ to make himself believe it," Smith says. "He doesn’t believe it, but he was dealing with racism. He was reacting to pain and rejection. He said it so much that he started to believe it. That’s what I’ve tried to do for myself."

Now, we may interpret the pro-black message differently of course.  Nonetheless, the "pro-white" comparison you are trying to make is false because quite simply, whites in this nation have never had to deal with the same history.  Being "pro-black" is similar to the whole "gay pride" thing, which I think is a silly thing (being PROUD of it), but I do understand it.

.

Re: Seerov.  It is funny, and apropos of the main question and theme of Mark’s post, that on the one hand some will call Obama a blank slate upon which fanatical fans (redundancy) can see whatever they like….yet somehow certain opponents can be 100% sure that Obama is this or that (whatever is negative.)  This tells me that

.

1. Perhaps certain hyper-negative critics are writing their own particular biases upon the blank slate, whether because they believe those biases or for merely political/spin purposes, or

.

2. Those hyper-negative "Obama is a racist!"  "Obama is a Marxist through and through!" critics have some special knowledge of him that the vast majority of people studying the race do not have. 

.

But it seems that every time these questions are put forth, most of the proof offered by those critics is not special knowledge but assumptions and highly abstract permutations of the "Anyone who spends 20 years yadda yadda MUST be yadda yadda."

.

Mark has mentioned some verifiably votes, Eddie has offered some links and more info.  But where is the proof of anything Seerov et. al. try to paint onto Obama?  Or is Obama indeed a blank slate upon which bigoted or biased or politically motivated opponents can paint their worst demonic images?