We should all pity those simple minded right wing opponents of the Sotomayor nomination who ridiculously dare us to substitute a white male for Sonya and see if his similar "statement" about his life experience making him a superior choice would be acceptable. The naked truth is that a white male can't make the same claim or the same statement since there are no comparable life experiences applicable to a white male which would legitimize the statement. In other words; they lack valid credentials to make a parallel statement by virtue of who and what they are. What a bunch of far flung crap !

We already are all well aware who his parents were. If your interpretation is true and Obama is a veritable African-American, then you had better inform the millions of others (Ersatz African-Americans who have a quite different gene pool and who have in common the horrible legacy of slavery in this country, all of whom have at least one parent directly related to that legacy) that they are not quite "truly" African-Americans (by your definition) as is their hero, our new President. I'm not splitting hairs, but broad generalizations used to garner political support or make people feel good are still lacking and can be easily made more accurate (Bi-racial v. African-American) if there is anyone left with the desire to foster truth.

Isn't it time to let go of the incorrect and ill-used "first African-American President" and if need be, refer to Obama as the first "Bi-Racial President" or at minimum, the first "Black President" ? Neither of his parents were African-American (his father wasn't even a US citizen) and he was brought up by a white mother and white grandmother. He has no affiliation whatsoever (except skin color and by marriage) to anything "African-American" - either by genes ( pure African) or by his personal historical legacy. It's all-right to appropriate your identity (in the broadest sense) so as to win a nomination and even an election, but to continue perpetrating an urban myth so as to pacify one's following is both dishonest and deplorably pathetic.

Any analogy that attempts to portray similarities between King and Obama rests it's plausibility on sentiment; not fact. Aside from skin tone and carrying (to different degrees) the racial genes of Africa, there is very little that the two noteworthy historical figures have in common. Most African-Americans had to overcome the horrible aftermath of slavery, discrimination, poverty, lack of proper education and social separation. Mr. Obama has endured very little of these challenges and his entire life experience is alien to the majority of today's African-American community. Further, your intellectually dishonest reference to Obama as "African-American" is simply another accommodation to the persistent and condescending media, true African-Americans who desperately want to appropriate a "racially similar" champion and to Park Avenue Liberals, who believe that his election is partial vindication for all the suffering that African-Americans endured in this country since before it's infancy. No; As compared to King, Obama is a quite different person with a substantially different legacy. We all wish him well and if he delivers and lives up to just a small percentage of the over-the top pre-inaugural adulation, we shall all profit. That is and should be - quite enough!

Obama is returning the "financial favor" to those Wall Street throng that "quietly" gave him millions in campaign support along the way?

Obama still doesn't refer to or think of himself as "African-American"(he is not; he is b-racial) yet allows the African-American community and the media to allude to him as such?

Obama is openly willing to use his once "forbidden" middle name Hussein now that electoral expediency is over?

Obama is going to be a "play by the rules centrist" in meting out his presidential program?

Obama's left leaning campaign promises and main talking points will obviously be book-shelved or otherwise watered-down?

"Obama Inaugural mania" has reached an almost sickening level and only culmination in an actual "anointing" could do it justice?

Somewhat self serving but generally "on target." The only question I have Joan is - what the hell is a "Bi-Racial African- American?" There is no such thing as far as I am aware. Many of today's African-Americans have some "white genes" but are still classified as AM. President-Elect Obama is not a member of this group. He is a true "bi-racial" individual and has no connection to the AM experience, either by direct gene pool, or by legacy. His skin color and the fact that his father's homeland is the "historical" homeland of true African-Americans is the only connection he has. Would you refer to Ny Yankee Derek Jeter as "AM' ? He justifiably thinks of himself as "bi-racial", even with an AM father which BO did not have. What about Tiger Woods ? What about the recently deceased Eartha Kitt who thought of herself as "bi-racial?" What about the countless number of people from Jamaica or Trinidad ? What about those from Puerto Rico or Cuba ? Consider the Dominican Republic where almost 75% or more are darker skinned. If color is the acid test then what about people from India or Borneo for that matter ? By now we all know that if we go back far enough, all of us are of African descent. Once and for all and now that the election is over, let's get back to reality ! The incorrect appropriation of an individual's ethnic or racial background for any purpose is wrong !