Debra's original piece was not well argued, but her concerns seem to be threefold: 1. To the extent that there is now political cache in being black, Obama is an undeserving beneficiary because he does not share "the" black experience. 2. Obama makes it too easy for whites to congratulate themselves on supporting a black person. She may not feel this way, but Debra's argument implies that it would be OK for whites to congratulate themselves over a Dickersonian-black candidate. 3. Obama is not ready to be president, but he may become president anyway because everyone is all psyched to be voting for a (palatable, non-threatening) black guy.

We can dispense with argument #1 as follows. To the extent that there is still racism, Obama looks black, has the requisite one drop, cannot "pass" and is not immune to the dangers faced by black men, such as driving while black, etc. Or, more precisely, he is only immune to these things because he is famous. True, Obama has not been held back by the lingering impact of slavery. His upbringing was very different (and a plus, in my opinion - I WANT a president who has resided in another country). But his wife and daughters ARE Dickersonian-black, and Obama began his career as a ghetto community activist. Why is that not enough?

We can dispense with #2 because most whites, in supporting Obama, are not aware (till Debra and other point it out) that there are degrees of blackness, or that their support of Obama may not "count." It may be considered racist of them to not know about those distinctions, but that may not be quite fair because nobody calls it racist not to know the difference between white ethnic groups. If whites THINK they are supporting a black person, they are either doing it in spite of his blackness, or in total indifference to his blackness, or because of his blackness. The first two categories of whites are irrelevant to the argument, and the third group, that may be self-congratulatorily racist, or patronizing, or any number of things. But if you believe it's objectionable, you forfeit the right to whine about diversity, and must immediately withdraw any support for affirmative action you may have. Consistency demands it.

As for #3: here we have a kernel of an important issue, the propensity of voters to be seduced into voting for the wrong guy based on irrelevant criteria. While not really describing the harmful outcome of an Obama presidency (not being "soup yet" doesn't cut it), she SHOULD be arguing for people to vote on qualifications, not race. Instead, she is arguing "Dont' vote on race THIS WAY because, psssst! he isn't really the race you're trying to vote for."

Why have we suddenly forgotten that one's personal status does not define his political identity? Look at Al Franken's campaign announcement, where he acknowledges that he's been fortunate, but states "Let me tell you why I take progressivism personally." He then describes his widowed mother-in-law's empowered used of survivor benefits and Pell grants (i.e. "government handouts") to raise five children, launch them in successful careers, and send herself to college to become an inner-city teacher (a career in which Al's own daughter is following her grandmother's footsteps). That fact that Al grew up middle-class, did not experience his wife's family struggles firsthand, and subsequently got rich is not a factor in his understanding of poverty and progressivism.

You brilliant, incisive, hysterically funny guy. Truly the inheritor of greats like Swift and Twain. I kiss your shiny shoes, oh God Of Truthiness!

A note to "a black man": Dude, you're the one who's not getting it. It's not that we don't see the distinctions you're on about. It's that we don't care. This is a political candidate, a guy running for President. What race he is, where he grew up, where he went to school, etc., don't matter. It's how he treats the people of this country, and the country itself, that matters. A candidate's skin color or gender or whatever are not relevant; it's the ability to do the job that is. Dickerson's weird theory seems to imply that Obama would somehow not be a good president because he's one kind of black and not another, which is silly. What does that have to do with being a good leader? How does one's skin color and/or cultural background make one a better or worse President? To wit: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are both Southern whites, but they could hardly be more different as occupants of the Oval Office. The argument just doesn't wash.

A very wise person once said, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." The distinctions you're making may be relevant in a person's everyday life (and as other posters have noted, when it comes to racism, one kind of black is exactly like another, because no racist gives two shits about where your daddy came from as long as you look black; hell, they call Australian Aborigines "n***er"), but at the workplace, such things are supposed to be left outside. Or are you advocating that we should judge a candidate on such things as cultural background? Wouldn't that be...oh, I don't know...RACIST??

I want to point out a few things others did not:

"It's unfortunate - but telling that the overwhelming majority of people who have commented so far are not black."

There is no way that you could claim this knowledge. Call it what it is -- an assumption.

"And I know that because every African-American decendent of slaves and immigrant African-American (or African-African-American as Dickerson says) knows there are cultural differences, and often some tensions between the communities. Every. Single. One."

Again, you are claiming a knowledge you couldn't possibly have. "Every. Single. One."? What, did you personally poll them?

Children growing up know nothing of history or racial distinctions. They learn those things from adults. Wise adults teach the childrens principles, then give the children basic facts about ancestry and so on. Unwise adults teach their children the ugly history without the context of principle, turning their kids into ideological clones who learn to hate, distrust and categorize as their parents do.

"But failing to recognize these differences and simply lumping all dark-skinned people into one category based on looks or treatment, while admonishing those who point out the difference, illustrates better than Dickerson ever could why white people in this country still DON'T GET IT!"

Who said white people were lumping all dark-skinned people into one category? You might have missed it, but a lot of white people wait for a person to self-identify before they will label him. If a man is clearly black, I'll call him black, but if somebody shows evidence of mixture, I'll hold back. My main concern is descriptive accuracy, and I tend to think the individual has the best handle on what terms best describe him. This is a much more defensible position than somebody (such as Dickerson) who claims to have authority over how others should label themselves.

It isn't about "admonishing those who point out the difference." Did you read Dickerson's original article? She did not merely point out Obama's differences; she made value-judgments based on those differences, and further claimed that white people were being self-congratulatory over liking Obama (citing no evidence for this, but rather using some sort of telepathy to read the minds of millions of people). This was my major gripe with Dickerson's article. If she had merely pointed out Obama's different background, and how it separates him somewhat from what is considered mainstream black culture or identity in America, then that would have been a good, interesting article. Instead, she drew various political conclusions that served to de-legitimize both Obama's identification as "black" and white people's appreciation for him as if they were guilty of some form of risk-free tokenism.

"There's a personal connection and thereby consciousness of slavery that comes with being a decendent of slaves. Upon exploration, a light-skinned African-American who's complexion is the product of the rape of their great grandmother is more likely to view some sensitive issues differently than a light-skinned African-African-American who's complexion is the product of a voluntary marriage."

This is one of the most bizarre parts of your message. While I am certain that people descended from slaves have more intense feelings on the subject, I fail to see how this reflects on somebody's value as a presidential candidate. As for rape, well, isn't that another subject entirely? What percentage of partially white African-Americans are descended from such a rape as you describe?

It sounds to me like you are concerned that, in focusing on Obama as a black candidate, people are inadvertently treating the painful historical and systematically racist social aspects of the black history in a superficial fashion. It's as if people are saying, "Obama! He's our black friend! We love him!" and you resent it because he and his relatives never suffered as you and yours did.

But the truth of the matter is nobody is thinking in the way you imagine they are. You are projecting your fears and resentments into the minds of others and assuming that your imagined scenario reflects reality.

I would be all for this discussion if it opened up interesting and important issues about race in America, etc. But I worry of the harm it does us to quibble over Obama's race when the most important issues are the more pressing ones: His stance on the war, the economy, various foreign policies, etc. I want to vote for the best candidate, period. I don't care if he's black, a woman, or whatever. I just want somebody who's deft and ethical and charismatic enough to bring people together on the matters that will affect all of our lives for many years to come.