While I agree with much of what you said, one thing stood out to me as wrong:

"Her views also seem to indicate a pattern or attitude, one you construed as the stereotype of the angry black woman, which seem to indicate a disdain or at the very least a disrespect for society as a whole. Her statements on America seem to reinforce the "us vs. the," arguments made by Sharpton, Jackson, and company. These themes do not bring us any closer to racial reconciliation, rather they harden the positions of both extremes and leave the rest of the country uninterested, unconcerned, or fearful of being caught in the crossfire."

I don't think it is Michelle's fault, or Sharpton's or Jackson's or company's fault, if they have disdain or at least disrespect for a society with a long history of segregating a race and discriminating against it in millions of small and large ways. They are not responsible for making everyone comfortable with what they say; the realities of racial discrimination are uncomfortable to hear about for a lot of people who are in the racial majority but the only way to change the status quo is to try to figure out why they might be disdainful or disrespectful of society, what experiences that led to feeling this way, and how can we prevent others from having the same experiences by changing society. The answer is not for them to put on a fake happy face; that will not change anything for the African-Americans and other minorities who still suffer from discriminatory practices.

Kaplan tries to play the race cards even as she is denouncing it. She, in assuaging her liberal guilt, turns every criticism of Obama into a racial rant rather than taking the time to separate legitimate critiques from the inane or even sexist/racist ones.

It is a fair statement to say that Michelle Obama would have a hard time connecting with those under the poverty line when she alone makes nearly half a million dollars a year in corporate America. And who was attacking, rather marvelling at the irony of John Edwards representing the poor and uninsured when he was filthy rich and spent years bilking the medical system as a tort lawyer? Everybody but progressives.

It is fair to examine the statements that Michelle has made, past and present, and how it reflects on her view of the country. In much the same way BHO faced issues when he first moved to Chicago (did the community see him as black enough), Michelle is being evaluated with the same skepticism by the American people as to if she is patriotic enough. Cindy McCain has endured her fair share of criticism from a host of issues. Michelle is expected to receive the same.

Her views also seem to indicate a pattern or attitude, one you construed as the stereotype of the angry black woman, which seem to indicate a disdain or at the very least a disrespect for society as a whole. Her statements on America seem to reinforce the "us vs. the," arguments made by Sharpton, Jackson, and company. These themes do not bring us any closer to racial reconciliation, rather they harden the positions of both extremes and leave the rest of the country uninterested, unconcerned, or fearful of being caught in the crossfire.

You seem to think that John McCain's anger was glossed over by the media as part of his appeal. I would refer you to the archives of the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Time, Newsweek, and a host of other media that chronicled the history of McCain's temperament including remarks and incidents from both current and former lawmakers and staff.

Your entire premise is based on a weak argument that lacks any substantive (read: factual) support. Your myopic perception of society places you dangerously close to portraying the stereotype that you seem to be pure heartedly debasing. It's not about race, it's about values. Afro-centric thinking is not putting America first. Rather than evaluating how the world fits into your self-identity, why not devote your time to integrating the two, hopefully with the inclusion of others that may not share your same story?

Let's have a frank disucssion on race. But to do so, we must be open and honest. We must enter that conversation without the chip on our shoulder. We must refrain from grandstanding every time someone has said or done (or not said or not done) something that can be manipulated into a racial issue. Unfortunately, I believe you have only failed yourself and the reader by not doing so.

Read the following books:

A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America

A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America

Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning White People Perpetuate the Racial Divide

Thank you for the book recommendations; I have requested them on my library's website and can't wait till they come in so I can read them.

"An open heart and the self-awareness to individualize people are the biggest things you can do. We group and label too much in this country." -- I agree.

As for the southern system of honor, I didn't know what it was so I looked it up, and this was what I found: "For southerners brought up to believe that insults must be met with force, the ultimate insult—the election of Abraham Lincoln—had to be met not just with secession but with a deliberate pursuit of war. The honor code dictates that one loses face if one does not respond to an insult, but one does not always know whether something is an insult. So it is always best to treat it as if it were. Similarly, it is better to get one’s strike in before an opponent has a chance to hit first, even if perhaps he never intended to attack anyway. Thus, one secessionist commented in 1860 that if one sees a sleeping, curled-up rattlesnake, one doesn’t wait until it wakes and unwraps itself before killing it: precisely the logic of the 2002 U.S. national security strategy." That explains a lot about the racist people reacting on this letters section, as well as our recent American foreign policy.

"A lot of the newer history is cross racial. The press will discover it in ten years, and scold we historians, claiming that we "never do this". Or some pop idiot will publish it and journalists will discover it. Sigh."

--Haha. I agree, that's funny though.

"I am glad that we are having this conversation. It's this kind of reaching out that bridges divides, that helps to heal the wounds lazy people open for fun and profit. It is so hard to not engage the chain yankers around here. They cause more damage than they know, and they just get off on getting people to argue. Building bridges is much harder work. You are doing good work. Keep building these bridges."

I am glad that we are having this conversation too. I know I have needlessly responded to the chain yankers around here and it really is a damaging endeavor that I will try my best to avoid getting involved in.

Thank you for your kind words and saying I'm doing good work. That is such a huge compliment, but I think it is actually you who's doing good work and building bridges. I will definitely work on building bridges though and work on my self-awareness so that I individualize people and learn to look underneath race.