I'm afraid I don't understand why you or anyone could even take this study seriously. When I graduated from college I had a lot of very positive stances on important issues. Many of them have either gradually changed or fallen by the wayside as I entered "real life" and the petal hit the metal. Try surveying these same students when they have married and had a chance to establish their careers and/or create a family. College students, both male and famele, tend to be idealists, and I applaud the parents of these male students for bringing them up to give such high priority to family and these female students to give high priority to career. But ... the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and college students have had no chance to really taste life.

Like a previous writer, I was born in Africa. I spent about half of my childhood in Liberia and Kenya. As an adult I have travelled rather a lot, and lived in Italy. I disagree with that previous writer, in that I grew up with a strongly global perspective that I do not believe can be gained so easily by a person who grew up in the Midwest (I lived there, too, by the way) and whose foreign experience is that of a privileged traveller and as a First Lady or a Senator or any other US leader. Obama is introducing a new element to the foreign policy arena: the experience of actually observing and living with a completely foreign set of values and world views. Like him, my experience overseas has not diminished, but rather nourished my patriotism and love of m country. However, I will never shed my perspective that what this one country does or thinks is not by any means the only or the best way to act or to see the world. With his family background, his overseas experience in his formative years, added to his bent for true consensus building, I think that Obama offers what no other candidate can in this increasingly global economy and political arena. I want Barack Obama to lead my country into the uncertain global future.

Rebecca, please just read your own column and I think you'll see that if you vote for the person, and not the gender or race, your choice is already made. You made a much, much better case for Obama than for Clinton. Think about it .... and then vote on the basis of your conscience, not your gender or race politics.

Thank you for this eloquent explanation of the origins of Barack Hussein Obama's name. I only wish that the bigots who think his name matter were smart enough to read your article, but my pessimistic prediction is that you are preaching to the choir.

By the way, I would add two items to your article: in Kenya, Barack may be more directly related to the Kiswahili word "baraka," also meaning blessed or blessing. Kiswahili (more commonly known as Swahili) itself is a combination of various African and Asian/mideastern languages, which evolved as a lingua franca over years of trading up and down the East African coast. There is no Swahili "tribe."

My second point is that of course, Abraham Lincoln's namesake Abraham is an important person in the Koran, the Christian Old Testament, and the Torah. He is considered by Jews and Christians to be the patriarch of their faith through his son Isaac, and considered by Muslims to be a prophet of Islam as well as the ancestor of Muhammad through Abraham's son Ishmael.

So ... what's in a name?

You're really getting wound up over this British royalty genealogy issue. What about the point of the article, which only contained a single sentence about the royal family? Are you calling the rest of the article erroneous, too? Do you think Obama should be ashamed of his middle name? What's your point?

I do find your detailed explanations interesting, since I find European history fascinating, but ... maybe you should start writing to genealogy sites instead!?!

In your article you talk about "soundbites." Well that's exactly what you're overreacting to. Try checking this post for a look at the whole speech Obama gave: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html

Obama didn't deepen the rift, Clinton and the media did.

My mom (1925-1998) was a thoroughly feminist woman who raised 5 children, started a career at a late age, and would have wanted to want to vote for Clinton. However, I'm pretty sure she'd have plumped for Obama, because she was no fan of dirty politics. Hillary reaped the benefits of the political efforts of women in my mother's generation. Feminists of Mom's generation are more likely to vote for Hillary out of feminist loyalty, but I'd like to think that my Mom would look at the candidate, not the gender, and would have been equally thrilled to elect a black president as to elect a female president. To give in the to the irresistible impulse of humor, "I knew my Mom, and Hillary Clinton is not my Mom."

Hear, hear! I'd much rather have Clinton realize she's playing dirtier politics and stick to substantive claims and questions, than see her blow her own chances and waste our time harping on what Obama calls "petty distractions." I support Obama, but I know he has a little more to learn about how to respond and how to avoid certain kinds of verbal gaffes. He's learning. However, I think it's time for Clinton to stop pretending she's just showing him what he'll face in November if he's the candidate. That's just plain silly. I want the old Hillary Clinton back, the one I admired. I'm going to vote for whoever is nominated on the Democratic ticket, but I'd much prefer to vote because I believe in the candidate, than the way I so often vote: against the other guy.