I was very glad to read a point made by someone here that sort of embraces both sides of the argument. First of all, Ms. Ferraro will not apologize. She clearly does not see that she's said anything wrong. Her mistake is that she misses the point completely. What was said earlier is the fact that Barack Obama has in himself, his background, his experience, a way to strike a chord of longing and hope (that word!)with people in this country that has not been struck since Hillary's husband did it some 15 years ago. It's not really surprising when you think about it. Black candidates have tried this run at the White House before, but for some reason, a critical reason, I think, it never took. Jesse Jackson tried 20 years ago and had no chance against GHW Bush. It's not that he didn't have good ideas and a presence. He did. But it didn't take then. We've had Carol Moseley-Braun try just 4 years ago. We had Alan Keyes try, but that's a BAD example and thankfully he was just crazy enough not to be taken seriously. We had Al Sharpton try. He had a presence, but no way in hell was anybody going to vote for him! And he knew it.

The point made earlier, which I'd like to attempt to amplify is this: it's not really so much about black or white. That's an afterthought, hard as that is to believe. It's about someone who is truly unique and has a unique combination of intelligence, character, and skill that resonates with so many of us. Add to which, he's a brilliant speaker and he just happens to be black! Does being black qualify him for the highest office in the USA? Well, it didn't work for the aforementioned also-rans, did it? But does being who he uniquely and distinctively is, with his background and experience and his ability to actually unite the country qualify him? I would say it does. The nation is in need of a grander vision of itself than GW Bush, John McCain, or even Hillary Clinton can articulate. The fact that Obama can and does is why folks in UTAH, NEBRASKA, WYOMING, and a bunch of other "red" states voted for him. These are states Mrs. Clinton has rather cynically dismissed this primary season. And, in case anyone's missed it, black people are kind of rare in those parts. People like Ferraro who are focused on the fact that Obama is black miss the point and miss the lessons of recent history. It's less, far less about the color and more about the person and the vision. Mr. Obama is not trying to be the "First Black President of the United States". He's trying to be President of the United States. The fact that he's black is less important and rightly so.

It seems to be a naive thing to support someone like Barack Obama who appeals to hope and unity and the best that's in us. Yet I find this seeming surrender to cynicism unacceptable. Even more so after hearing this speech that was marvelous in its restrained tone and thoughtful meditation on this persistent issue of race in this country. Something we can never seem to articulate but only experience. It's a question we live but find hard to ask intelligently or with any kind of detachment. The speech for me said everything that I've always felt but never had words for. It connected the dots between past and present and laid out in stark terms some of the reasoning behind this misunderstanding and anger. He helped us see into each other's worlds and he somehow found a way to make us see that it's the same world, the same struggle, the same goal we're all reaching for. Still, to my dismay, the press and some people posting here are asking the wrong questions. Why not leave this church? Why did he not have the man drawn and quartered in public? Tarred and feathered at least. I think Obama anticipated those questions and answered them as honestly as he could. For the same reason that so many of us don't disown relatives or even friends when they say things that are out of line. And if we do, we don't do it easily. Bonds between loved ones are often very complex. They become frayed and strained but not easily broken. Everyone has these kinds of ties and understands the anguish of having to change a relationship that doesn't work the way it used to. This is so much the human story that to cheapen it in terms of mere "politics" is both insulting and cynical. The talking heads are so ready to dismiss this moment and measure the talk in terms of "momentum" for the campaign. These are the ones wondering how the "knuckleheads" will react. I submit that these are, in fact, the knuckleheads and Barack Obama wasn't talking to them. People like this were never going to vote for him or Hillary or any kind of meaningful change in the way we do our politics. This speech, this long needed meditation on race wasn't meant for them. This is not a conversation for stupid people. I agree with Mr. Greenwald. Adults only need participate, and thank God someone believes we're adult enough in this country to handle it.