I think you're too modest. I think your posts are very cogent and often witty. I enjoy them.

I never said that all or even most black people were voting for Obama because he was black. Where did you see that in my post?

Hope you kick your kid's ass at boggle.

We'll leave the light on for you.

I did definitely read your post but was quite baffled by it. I got a bit of a ramble from you on why you think Obama is better than Clinton. My fault perhaps. No doubt my initial post wasn't clear enough.

I did get a sense that you would feel a certain pride and satisfaction in seeing Obama do well and win due in part to his race. I certainly don't begrudge you that. I think many women would feel thrilled if Hillary became the first woman president. I know that I would, but that is not why I voted for her. You also made clear that that wasn't why you voted for Obama. Am I understanding you correctly?

Please see my post of 5:54 where I have attempted to refine my point so that there is no mistaking it.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm practicing my false modesty in the hopes that through some karmic alchemy it will one day turn into the real thing.

But it would be cool to write. I'm mean really, write. Cheers!

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

"Obama used race and the implication of racism against the Clintons with very little justification. In that particular war, he fired the opening shot."

Can you substantiate this for me? So far, I've heard allusions and innuendo, but not enough for me to have a clear opinion on this matter. Are you referring to that event where he said the Clintons were trying to "bamboozle" black folks?

"I do see his Rev. Wright problem as chickens coming home to roost. He deserves the problems he is having not because Rev. Wright is a bad man or because Rev. Wright is not patriotic but because Obama wanted it both ways."

Ok, I'm listening.

He wanted to have the political and social advantages of belonging to Wright's church, therefore gaining acceptance in Chicago's black liberal community (I'm thinking), in which case he has to take the good with the bad now.

He recognizes this. He tried to discuss taking the good with the bad in Philadelphia. He said specifically that his church reflected the authentic range of opinion and experience of "the black church" and that the anger articulated by Wright is at bottom real and needs to be recognized and confronted in a productive way, not simply shunned, for all our sakes.

Surely, he could foresee that Wright would be a problem.

Ok, so?

I guess it seems like you're conflating Obama's political skills and maneuvering with what we might call, for lack of a better term, his "core values."

Sorry, I'm trying to get your main point, but having trouble.

You distrust Obama basically for being a politician who says he's not a politician?

Don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this is a formulation I've heard from Clinton supporters before.

Is that basically right?

If so, I'd say that sure, he's a politician and has acted out of political expediency.

But that's not important, what's important is the question of degree and context.

I just don't see, as you do, that he's not who he says he is, although I started out as an Obama-sceptic, so I can sort of understand.

As long as I've been paying attention, though, I've seen a guy who has far more integrity than I've seen in a politician in a long time.

But I never claim he's not a politician. Again, it's a matter of degree.

Maybe I just don't understand Obama supporters because they are more emotional than I am. Maybe he sort of "selected" more emotional supporters due to the abstract and emotionally-laden thrusts of his speech. (See, I gave him thrusts. That is almost as good a balls.) Sometimes he seems to communicate in a way that is almost feminine. Hillary, on the other hand in trying to appeal to working class voters as adopted a language that is aggressive, masculine. (And being from the working class, I can tell you exacly why that is working.)

As usual, I am more interested in language and the sociological aspects than I am in the political aspects of the horserace.

The horserace is no doubt even now being recorded by someone who will have a bestseller along the lines of Primary Colors. No one can say that it doesn't lack drama, but it does lack nuance.

Satisfaction, yes, not so much pride.

I don't personally take pride vicariously in the achievements of others, at least, I don't think I do, but yes, satisfaction.

But as I say, race is only a very small component of this sense of satisfaction.

I'm much more enthusiastic at the prospect of having an insightful president with foresight and even wisdom than I am by the prospect of a having as president a black male very similar to myself in his biography.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's really not about so-called "identity politics" with me.

His race, in other words, is an aside.

What's important is that he seems to have learned lessons based on his experience as a human being in this world, which tells me his mind is open and he struggles to make sense of things.

I'm drawn towards philosophical minds, not only because I have one, but because I believe, basically, in Plato's philosopher king ideal, in which the person (people) who makes the decisions regarding public life is detached enough and deliberative enough from the noise of the market place to think in terms of the long-term.

Anyway, this is just to say that for me, Obama's race is really incidental, hardly even worth discussion.

As to Clinton, if she displayed evidence of having gained some wisdom into things based upon her experience as a woman, I'd be sympathetic.

As I see it, though, all she's gained is an awareness that health care, child care, etc. are good things (I do believe she wants to make the lives of "families" easier), but that's not an insight one can only gain from being female.

She's also learned that, to succeed as a woman one needs to practice all the odious tactics that men do and have.

This to me is not wisdom, but betrays (as I like to say) a siege-mentality mind, oriented not to long-term goals, but to the immediate ones of survival and success.

In short, I don't see any evidence that being a woman has compelled her to question the status quo in anything like a serious way.