"More insidiously, the authors say, the idea that failing black kids pull down successful black kids can be used as an excuse by administrators to conceal or justify discrimination in the public-education system."

This is complete and unadulterated b.s. How would the "authors" explain Orleans Parish public schools, which had something like 95% black enrollment for years and years before Katrina? The school board was almost entirely black, as was the administration, and faculty and staff were also predominantly black. Spending per pupil was well above the national average, yet the schools were notorious failures, little better than chaotic warehouses rife with danger. Most kids advanced through their grades thanks to social promotions. At the same time, at least forty percent of Orleans Parish adults remained functionally illiterate (the vast majority of them black) - how many years after Brown vs. Board of Education? So, the question here is: who was concealing or justifying discrimination on the part of whom for what purpose?

...but what does it have to do with "acting white"? As someone who has been black for a little while now, I can say that the "acting white" thing is overblown, and it, to the extent that it exists, definitely is analogous to the other examples I cited. It's more socioeconomic than racial. If you contend that it's not socioeconomic, then you must think we're genetically inferior. If that's the case...hey, you have the right to think that. But be honest about it.

since anything he will have to face from the democrats is nothing compared to what the republicans will do so there are only two possibilities:

1) attacks from democrats won't matter at all because if obama can handle the republicans nothing the democrats do will have an effect.

2) democratic attacks will do obama real damage, but if this is true that fact will be totally meaningless becasue if these mild questions are capable of damaging him it means he never stood a change against the republican anyway.

For the record I think Obama is going to get the nomination and I think he can handle what he has to handle.

n/t

My own style is distinctly non-political. I want to be myself and only myself. I don't want to have to please people. So sometimes I get pissed off at Obama.

I can agree with not wanting to get into ass-kissing as a profession. To each his or her own, however. I don't begrudge Hillary or Obama their career choice. It doesn't make my angry to see it in action up to a certain point. And the most blatant ass-kissing this election cycle, at least to my reckoning has been done by John McCain.

That is part of what I mean by trying to have it both ways. I do think Obama is sort of a phony. I think he is his own creation. I actually understand this but I also resent it.

You've gotten my attention with this. By my own lights, being one's own creation is the height of authenticity and individualism. Something along the lines of "I got my own life to live through and I ain't gonna copy you". If I was Obama I would be pissed at black people that wanted me to be "black" and pissed white people that wanted me to be "white". I would want to be whatever I wanted to be . Suicide for someone in the ass kissing business, I know. We all carry our identities around with us a like a bag of rocks; some of have black rocks, others white. But travel somewhere like Korea or Thailand for awhile without a tour group bubble and suddenly you have a very different bag of rocks.

But you're calling it phony. So I gotta think you're taking a different tack. Must admit it's left me mystified.

AKA, thank-you for your letter. I read it and I will think about many of your points, and maybe I will pick up Shelby's book.

However, I will disclose something personal about me. My mother's sister is married to a Japanese American man, so my cousins, who are called "Japanese" by our culture (their father and his father were all born in the United States--they also spent time in an internment camp in WWII) are like Obama. Neither fish nor fowl, as they say.

So there is some tribal (since they are in my tribe) part of me that struggles when you write:

"I think he is his own creation. I actually understand this but I also resent it. My own style is distinctly non-political. "

I see Obama's self-creation as his strength, and that he has no choice but to be complicated. Biracial children sometimes pick one culture as their own, sometimes they embrace both, sometimes neither. My cousins call themselves Japanese...but they are never completely comfortable with this. They are "phony" perhaps in some sense. But to me the responsibility for the phoniness is our (I mean national--historical) insistent racial lens that grows more tired with every successful generation, since part of our national pride as a country is supposed to be our "melting pot."

Around the world people are watching this election. I feel like I am, maybe because of my cousins, maybe for other reasons, loyal to the complicated racial lens rather than the simple one: and in this day and age most of us are constituents of more than one community, either in class or race or in both. I agree with what you say about Obama supporters needing to be more careful about using the term "racist" especially against people in their own party who they need to create support for the Democratic presidency. We are dependent on one another to win this election. "Racist" as a term that often isn't really helpful, but often I think it tends to be used by those who otherwise feel powerless against the real (or perceived) forces of discrimination--and these forces do exist. I think we can all acknowledge that they exist. Not acknowledging these forces in our society I think gives more force to people like Wright who choose to give voice to that rarely spoken but frequently felt outrage at racial injustice.

I see what you are saying about his church, but I think that his loyalty to his church is deeper than what you are hoping. I think that his "authenticity" for what that is worth is that he cares about the church and the people there including Wright, who I don't think he agrees with on issues like the ones being discussed. I don't think he will turn his back on the church or Wright, and I hope that it doesn't cost him as much as people guess it might. His speech was courageous in that he tried to do both. I still find it ironic that in a country with as much hate speech as there is--I deliberately try to avoid for example talk radio that is extremely hateful toward women etc.--that only Obama will be punished even for association with someone like that. I think some people are putting too much weight on "spiritual advisor" as well. Obama navigates his own spiritual boat. Wright to him (at least in his memoir) more of a personal friend, and a symbolic father than a real one. Obama's ideas about race are very clearly his own. And to borrow from what you said: Wright is not running for president. Obama is. I hope that this is what will matter to most voters.

p.s. About what you said about Hillary. I think she is physically beautiful. She has grown into her skin. I told my mother that it gives me hope that intelligent women age well, because she was sort of frumpy looking many years back, but now she is lovely. I see that. But I wish that she could be slightly more direct with voters. I know that like you say, she is a methodist. And maybe Obama's directness will be his undoing. A person's strength can also be their weakness. But Obama showed in his speech, to me at least, that he possesses courage. Clinton possesses courage too, but she needs to come out of the shadow of Bill and Mark Penn and to show that she possesses a similar courage to take a political risk and to follow her heart.

Sorry this is so long. But good-night and thanks for the conversation.