darknesse, I'm not a believer in the one drop rule. Please. I think in this fantastic mixed-up society, we have to let people choose their own identity, check as many boxes as they want, on the census and everywhere. And having read Obama's first book, I know how complicated his racial identity is and how well he's developed his sense of himself. I admire it. I've written about it before. I do think that to this point, while he's been adamant about saying he doesn't see himself as the "black candidate," he's never said it's because in fact he's multiracial. It's not that he's hiding it, either: He has spoken openly about having a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. It's just...complicated. And I think it's going to continue to be a complicated navigation, politically, which will be fascinating to watch.

sesanders, I'm sure there are a lot of people on this thread who'll be happy to tell you all about Salon's pro-Clinton bias.

Wow, I continue to be surprised by how people are reading this post. I am not criticizing Obama for using the images or the history of his white family. There's no way to pretend it has absolutely zero meaning or impact, either. I think if Obama is elected president, the photo of him with his mother will immediately become a transcendent iconic image that will change the way we view ourselves and are viewed in the world. But it is also a kind of Rorschach test -- and maybe this post is, too.

bethincary, you need to check your facts. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1980. I've actually written about it on Salon. Wrong age, wrong school. I don't know Hillary Clinton personally. You might want to do a little more research -- how about emailing me and asking? -- before making such disparaging claims about my journalistic ethics.

I also lived in Chicago -- Harold Washington's election in 1983 remains the political highlight of my life. I think Ted wrote a fair and interesting story.

Portia56, if you follow the links, you'll see why I respect John. He's never one-sided. I had linked to his debunking the notion of a "Bradley effect" behind Clinton's NH win; I thought it only fair to link to his criticism of her campaign.

Thanks, doloresflower. I appreciate the heart you put into your letters here.

About Ted Kennedy, I'll only say: Any candidate that uses a white politician as a stand-in for a Latino leader deserves to lose California. And I'm sorry, Garry Owen, that you think I'm spending too much time on race, but I've lived here more than half my life and these questions are a matter of respect.

Thanks for your thoughts, Sean. I do participate more than editors of other large sites. I always have. Are you saying you think that's beneath me? I have never thought so. I think it's part of what makes Salon...Salon.

Hi Slider, great post. Just a couple of things: I lived in Chicago, too in the mid 1980s; my favorite all time political race was Harold Washington, I had just moved to Chicago and I volunteered for him. The night he was elected was my happiest night in politics, ever. Yet. (I'm an optimist.)

I was not suggesting Obama doesn't know multiracial politics anywhere; just that he didn't put it together in California. But my bigger point, maybe, was the tendency of Obama fans to just think their candidate simply telegraphs his appeal by dint of what he's done and what he looks like and the multitudes he contains -- and if you don't see it, you're either clueless or racist or in the tank for Clinton. (I don't see that in your post, I'm just trying to flesh out what I was talking about). He fell short in California for reasons that are worth talking about. I describe what I see. I'm not always right. But I'm always telling the truth to the best of my capacity to see it. And I am dispirited by people trying to explain away what I see as bias.

To your point: I think Obama can put together a multiracial coalition because he has done so in Chicago. But he didn't do it here, and that's worth examining, no matter who your candidate is. Thanks for your smart thoughts about Illinois.

AncientAssyrian, just for the record, I am not a paid political analyst on MSNBC, so I haven't cashed a check. And for the Anonymous who was offended by my using the term fluffer, I have to confess: I am SO not hip or with it. I had NO idea of the porn origins of the term (and I'm laughing to think of the two people who've used it in my presence, who may not know it either.) I'm ashamed of my lack of sophistication. I think.

At any rate, I promise not to use it again in mixed company, Anonymous, since it offended you so much you've had to repeat it so often.

moirakelly, I trust you posted that without reading my reply?

Treeple, thanks for that. I'm not sure which is worse: readers thinking I'm depraved enough to use the porn version of "fluffer" in that post about Obama's fans, or readers knowing I'm as clueless as their mothers! It's a tough day for me.

doloresflower, I don't understand why that means those 400 unpledged superdelegates don't agree with me. I was pointing out that there is no one, clear way for superdelegates to vote. I think it's perfectly fine to say the superdelegates are an antidemocratic outrage, but the time to have made that argument would have been before the election season, or before the next one. The fact is, the superdelegates are free to vote for the person they think is best for the nation and the party. It's fine to make the case that the superdelegates should vote for the pledged-delegate winner, but it's not fair to say that they have to.