Thanks, Mr. Fielding, for your efforts, your success, and your example. I'm a white, 55 year old Texas Democrat, and I can't wait to vote for Senator Obama. He is the only one who can transend the bitter politics of the last decade and create a vision that will allow America to move closer to our ideals. He moved me to hope when he appeared before 20,000 people at an Austin rally in the spring. He moved me to action when he asked for money to make his campaign possible. And now he has moved me to volunteer in his campaign.His experience as a community activist and state legislator show his sincerity. His skill at countering Billary's campaign mud shows he is tough enough. And being the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review shows how smart he is. But enough of that...you know I support the guy.

Within my circle of friends, mainly white and middle class, his African American heritage is a non-issue. He has shown the power of his character and we can trust this guy, and he can do the job like it's not been done Jack Kennedy.

I love how every letters section of any Clinton/Obama article just merely picks up from where the last one did, irrelevant of whatever the actual article is talking about.

Addressing what the article is talking about, I disagree that the election of black (or female, or x whatever) candidate can be seen as a victory for the group in question. No place better demonstrates this than South Carolina itself, where most of its black legislators are impotent, due mostly to gerrymandering that guarantees them a safe seat, but a permanent minority in both Houses of the legislature. I'm not saying this is their fault (the lines, after all, are drawn by the party in power) but their almost rampant inability to either effectively use what power they have, and the fact that they will never face any serious challenger, renders their presence useless.

This gets into larger issues of what representation means, and dovetailing with the Clarence Thomas article, what ones group identity means. Is it (or was it) ever enough to be black/female/gay/Asian/etc? Is it better to vote in a conservative, Pro-life, family values woman or a pro-choice, feminist male? Is a white progressive better than a black conservative when it comes to advancing ones own identity group? I find many of the arguments preceding about Hillary's gender and Obama's race to be absurdly reductionist, and presuming (and almost rallying for), biologically determined factors being the driving force of identification, and not even something as coherent as ideology. Its gotten to almost absurd levels.

It's important to remember that campaigning is very different from governing. Campaigning for elections, in this country, is quite the media circus. From the debates, to the talking heads on TV, to the numerous articles like the ones on Salon and in every publication, they goad the candidates about the most ridiculous things. And the candidates get pulled in. They end up looking pretty distorted. Howard Dean said it well when he described it as theater. And he ought to know. The media did everything they could to make him look crazy. And they succeeded. Even when he lost the Iowa caucuses, he was 20 points ahead in NH until they played that "scream" 900 times on T.V.

Governing is something else. I think that any of the Dem candidates would work hard to get the country back on track and would make a positive difference. I already voted for Obama absentee. I would love an Obama/Edwards ticket. But I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, although I do not believe she'd win.

I think at this time it's important for us to be pragmatic, because there is too much suffering going on in this country and the rest of the world to get too caught up in the emotional drama that our news media thrives on.

Obama began his entire campaign by perpetuating republican talking points:

1. Obama began dividing Democrats initially by calling Hillary 'Divisive' and himself a 'Uniter'. She had "baggage" and everybody has an uncle who would never vote for her in a million years. She's considered "the establishment" while he is "change".

2. He conflates Hillary to be not much different than Bush, as if her as president means that she will just continue many of Bush's policies, governing abilities and manner of style.

3. In the meantime his stance on Iraq has been called "a fairytale" and voting for him is a "rolling of the dice". Sometimes one of Clinton's surrogates make veiled comments about his past drug use.

Now we know that Hillary will be far, far, far left of Bush and will represent fundamental change just in terms of philosophical and ideological principles alone. Yet Obama allowed these charges to go forward as a message that he wanted to convey.

I can't think of a bigger smear than what Obama has leveled on Hillary from the commencement of his campaign: that she is like Bush, and he is not. And in the meantime, he has allowed many of the negative characteristics of Hillary persistently pushed by the republicans, to stand clear and present that she is "not likeable enough", leading to his condescending remark to Hillary about being, "likeable enough".

I believe any three of these candidates will bring transformational change to the white house. Hell, look who we are kicking out!! But instead, people like fetboy pursue these anti-Hillary characterizations and will put faith in their accuracy as if any major message by the republican party has any credibility.

Jesus, Dems. Look at who started the whisper campaign. Can you believe it's true after everything they've sold us?

Once you realize that you're handily dividing the Democratic party by perpetuating republican talking points and demonizing Hillary so much, perhaps then you can see that Obama is far from being a saint in this race.

A lot of people are excited about Obama's run, and a lot of people just aren't excited about Clinton's run (putting it politely as I can). That makes all of the difference. Clinton only barely beat "Uncommitted" in Michigan. That should be a big warning for the candidate.

Given the relative similarity between the candidates' stances (and, let's be honest, they are both distressingly center-right in their stances, which passes for leftism in America's woefully right-skewed political continuum), the politics of personality come into it in a big way -- that is, because Obama and Clinton are pretty close overall in their views, it comes down to which one more people like better (sorry, Edwards supporters -- your guy's finished), and more people like Obama than Clinton.

Obama brings in more people, and Clinton repels more people. It doesn't have to do with black/white and man/woman; it's just an issue of charisma -- Clinton's smart, but lacks Obama's charisma. Obama's smart, and has charisma to spare, so he's the better candidate in the personality game. The Clintonites resent the hell out of that -- we're just supposed to be so dazzled by Clinton's brains that we're supposed to ignore that she's just not charismatic, that she's uninspiring -- the John Kerry Effect. Obama will bring more people into the Democratic Party, and HR Clinton will drive them away (and energize the GOP against her) -- so, Obama's a winner, Clinton's a loser, at least along the lines of charisma and personality.

Charisma does matter in politics -- Bill Clinton would never have made it if he didn't have charisma to spare; he pissed me off with his political gutting of the Democratic Party, and I still like the guy. The trouble is, Bill can't teach Hillary charisma; you either have it or you don't. And she doesn't.