Actually, Obama is not color blind. He is the only candidate to ever discuss the reality of the racial divide in the country without smarmy pandering, fake southern accents while talking about "life on the plantation," or any of the other props used by white politicians to talk about race.

It has been the media who has fixated on not seeing race as a potent equation in the election cycle (done, remarkably while trying to "talk" about race.)

Obama has been cast as this person trying to "transcend" his race, when in actuality, the media hasn't wanted to address in a reasonable and rational and thoughtful manner. (Clinton has not been challenged to transcend either her race or her gender. In fact, as the New Hampshire tears and other histrionics show us, hers is not to "transcend" but to wallow.)

They fail to see or hear the blatant race-baiting the Clintons have been doing (until it cannot be ignored) and yet obsess over the "polarized" nature of the campaign. "Why," they ask incredulously, "did 90% of the black vote in Mississippi go to Obama? What does that mean about Idaho?"

We've had the "is he black enough," "he is black enough," "oh wait, he's too black," "he's so black he is lucky to be black," "his extreme blackness has made him just like us white, elitist, arrogant snobs who are telling everyone else he's too black now and cannot 'connect' to whites who are really white."

Black isn't the new fear card, it always been the fear card. Willie Horton ring a bell? I surprised Obama hasn't been linked to O.J (both black men who like football). Rev. Wright is the new Horton.

The Clintons -- far from being "honorary" black folk -- are just another "southern" couple steeped in the pre-civil rights -- hell, pre-civil war -- values of Arkansas. Certain things (the presidency) are reserved for whites only, and although we have some darkies near and dear to us, they are smart enough to stay in line, not get uppity and think they are good enough to be our equals or ever, ever surpass us.

While I agree with most of what you've said, the problem with "race in this race," doesn't lay with Obama, or black folks (we get it), it's with white folks who need to ask themselves: Are you brave enough to vote your hopes (for Obama) and not your fears (for Clinton)?

I completely agree with you, and what's really rich is the argument by Taylor Marsh, Bill O'Reilly et al. (yes, here it does make sense to put these disparate voices together), that your post's topic is racist.

When James Carvllle says Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama inbetween - the implication is "a black man cannot win Pennsylvania"

When he said this, I knew he was talking about Ohio too. I know I was born there and I have to go back to genealogy.

Black is the new "fear card"

When did it ever stop being the fear card?

The MSM? They did give Obama a lit of a pass initially but that was more because they never thought he would get this far in the nominating process -- so now they are trying to make up for it.

I think it is more likely that Sen. Clinton or her campaign advertised her/herself as the "inevitable" candidate putting her/herself in the front runner position therefore garnering greater attention from the press because they considered it news. The secret of the press is that they have bias toward having something to fill the pages and screen on television. Empty space and an empty screen cost money.

Notice they were chopping at the bit for brokered convention in Denver.

This race is far more sexist than it is racist. Women are not a minority group. They are a MAJORITY group and have always been the majority and look at the representation.

So "the guys" had to locate a potential kingmaker, Axelrod, the Democratic Party's answer to Karl Rove. And those two are going to play out their little Glitzkrieg, eliminating the candidate who could honestly make a difference, Hillary Clinton.

Or maybe not? A recent poll showed that the Axelrod-Obama saturation of soundwaves in the Pennsylvania voting space had convinced 23% of voters to vote for Clinton just to spite their megabucks ad barrage. Some votes aren't for sale.

This is why the Clinton's are essentially
"bombing the country to save it", they have pushed our nation back in time, in history, in terms of race relations and other important matters in the way they have run their campaign. They have gone back on their own ideals.

The idea that you sell-out your own ideals to win is mind-blowing, assinine, sad.

What the Clinton's are doing is further ruining this nation. But why you ask? For their own selfish and self-centered pride and arrogance. They think they know better, they are so paternalistic it's sickening.

I hope that the American people don't get hoooked or brainwashed by the mainstream media or the Clintons and I don't think most will.

I knew the former had no shame, but didn't know the latter had none either.

The arrogance of them thinking that they know what is best for this nation because Gosh-damnit they are Bill and Hillary Clinton is so offensive to many people, to me.

It may not come out now, in ways more than let's say this blog, but their actions are not forgotten, their actions and the way they carried out their campaign have seeped into our collective consciousness and someday they will apologize much like McCain apologized for his vote on Dr. MLK Day. Democrats? They have tainted the party and the word.

Please, Clinton's stop dragging the people and this nation down. You have tainted your legacy, is it really worth-it?

I'm guessing this post has to be some kind of really hip tongue-in-cheek parody of the Obama campaign, designed to do the opposite of whatever it seems to be doing. Obama decided to run as the "black" candidate after NH. He needed to make sure that his black voter base would hold in SC and on into Maryland, Virginia and other states where blacks are a high percentage of the Democratic electorate. Running as the black candidate also guaranteed the votes of the latte liberals who missed out on the civil rights and anti-war movements.

Obama has brought this nation together, though Clinton's trying to drag this nation down and divide it.

It goes beyond race though,

Otto F

you missed the point --

I wasn't calling Hillary supporters racist - to me the divide is generational--

Hence the "people are static" comment --
and the grandmother (and my mother) references--

Obama is the first post racial candidate - if his skin was lighter and he chose to live in the white world rather than the world he did choose

If you read his books - his road was chosed for him by how he looks -- so in Chicago he had to learn how to live as a black man --

It's about everyone projection their views onto him -- and how they/we see that reflection

--
As a woman, frankly, I don't get the gender issue - Hillary is just Hillary -- she's kind of "post gender"

She chose her path long ago when she moved to Arkansas and subjugated her own career to Bill's.
I get that because unlike what the feminine movement told us - you cannot have it all - and she made a choice.

But you don't get elected a Senator from a state you aren't even from - as the very first elected office you run for unless you have fame and/or a platform.

So to say Barack would not be where he is unless he was black - is actually less true than to say Hillary would not be where she is without Bill.

Hillary Clinton is a woman and yes she was the first serious prospective woman candidate for President of the US - but she did not earn it on her own. So while she may be the gender dream for the older woman who never had the career options many of us did -- she is not the first woman in the sense of a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir or even Benezir Bhutto.

That is one of the reasons woman under 60 - may not feel the same gender pull toward Hillary. Had she done it on her own - we might feel differently.

Without Bill and without the gender "card" - Hillary Clinton would be teaching ata University or a Lobbyist -- she is not owed anything by the women or the people of this country.

The presidency is not s gift from her husband --

Clinton's last, best chance at the nomination is race. And it IS a legitimate concern.

But the choice between Clinton and Obama is about giving the citizens more control of government, and just giving the citizens less corrupt government. Both are good. One is better.

Something to always keep in mind: when someone of a different race, gender, orientation, religion or ethnicity has to 'prove' his patriotism in front of a bunch of white powerbrokers who have either cheerled or had a hand in sinking us into an unwinnable war, wrecking our economy and miring us in debt to a foreign power (whose also our chief economic rival)while shredding our Constitution, spying on us and committing torture, this is an example of some type of '-ism'.
When a person must jump thru more hoops to achieve the same goal as his white, protestant, heterosexual rival, then we have some sort of '-ism' going on.
No other candidate has had to answer for the 'patriotism' of an acquaintance, have they? Are you going to tell me that a Clinton doesn't have a lot of questionable ties and associations? What about McCain? How long has he been in the game? He's got a million of these 'questionable' associations - he has to; it's part of being in politics.
I, personally, have to wonder about the patriotiism of a candidate that's determined to defy the will of the people of this country! That's sedition!

Oh, c'mon Billy. Hillary has been nailing the gender card on every billboard and fence-post and forehead from the very beginning. It's the essential appeal she makes, overtly and covertly, all the time. In fact, it's really the only appeal that she uses most consistently. It's her single issue, and all the rest are window-dressing. I realize a woman has a unique set of issues to overcome to run like this, but this woman does not strike me as all that well qualified.

It's not like she's the only woman who'll ever run for president, is it? Of course not.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH.

This country is still the U.S. of K.K.K.

White folks >60 still have deep, racist feelings.

They couldn't vote for him not even if Obama was 1/20th black!

Bugeroff:

Obama transferred to Columbia from Oberlin - he was not an AA candidate

He also took a few years off before Law School and entered at 28 after working as a community organzizer - he then became the President of the Harvard Law Review, the first African American ever to hold that position

Arguably the number one student in the number one Law School in the country

You don't have to vote for him
You don't even have to like him -
but don't underestimate his brilliance

You last line:
"there was nothing more ridiculous than the black profs, although some of the womyn profs came close"--
makes me curious what grad school you attended (likely not an English major)