Thanks AS. I’d missed this. I’ll get it.

Well, if they’re elderly, they won’t be scared all that much longer, eh? Do they think he can do them some sort of harm through the TV or something?

Come on. Give elderly ladies a little bit more credit than that.

No linda,

He’s not a repuglican or a democrat, but he does have a distorted view of EVERYTHING…

In other words, chalmers is not the ‘equivalent’ of a sociopath, but a genuine SOCIOPATH. His posts have proven him to be the creepiest of the creepy.

Oh Well, I’m wondering at this point what makes someone an expert on Anthropology. As someone, myself who has a degree in Cultural Anthropology, I would say that your view of, Anthropology, is to say at the least over generalized, and also somewhat limited.

There are as many different schools of Anthropolgy, as there are schools of Psychology.

Could it be that your views about what an Anthrologist feels toward America, are little more than a projection of your own feelings, your own thoughts your own anger?  Not Mr. Obama’s.

Are you not just a little bit P.O.’d about his possible win?

Usually, your content just to make fun of the rest of us. But this time, it’s clear to me that your reaching, and your conclusions are not supported by any facts. Only your subjective ideas.

I very much appreciate and agree with tdbachs analysis on Ellen Goodman’s columns. I nearly always appreciate them myself, FOR THE SAME REASONS mentioned.

That said, I’m also in agreement with G Anderson in that none of these candidates are their mother, or their father. I believe that there is a certain/specific DNA that makes a leader, but it is not purely a biological DNA. Our personalities have their own individual DNA’s as well, and those are determined by our life experiences, which cannot help but include our parents whether they are our biological parents or not.

Having followed Obama’s career and campaign since it began; I know that he has already (and long ago) paid this very tribute to his mother, and frequently.  So, I’m sorry if there are those, (including Ellen) who may have missed that.

Or, maybe she didn’t miss it herself, (as she did include the addition to his book) but I believe that much of the American public has. So, while some of us may be aware of the frequency with which Obama has contributed much of who he has become to his mother, as well as to his wife Michelle, maybe it needs to be repeated. I don’t know.

Meantime, Purplewolf begs the question, (and she is not the first one to do it) of why his bi-racial status is never mentioned. There is a very important but easily overlooked reason for that. When it is suggested that his bi-racial ethnography isn’t addressed, we say it in the same breath as his mother having been ‘absent’ in the limelight of his campaign, which isn’t really the case. Again, he HAS spoken of his mother, and far more often and recently than he has of his father. What he does NOT do, in those references, is to make it clear that his mother was white. THAT is the difference. But, how IMPORTANT is that difference? Well, it depends on who is considering this stuff, and to what relevance we give it.

Is Hillary’s parentage any more or less important than Barack Obama’s, or John McCain’s, (isn’t McCain’s mother still alive)? One would imagine so, since neither of these others come up. So, does that mean that for most Americans, race is far more important then gender, class, etc? I would say yes, even for those of us who don’t believe that it should be. How many people knew that Hillary Rodham was born in Chicago, Illinois? I didn’t until about a year or so ago, when I was curious enough to look. I knew that she wasn’t originally from Arkansas, but I didn’t know from exactly where. (I thought the Northeast) But, how often does THAT come up?

Barack Obama’s mother is associated with being from Kansas, (which is where she was born) but I’m only just discovering from this article, that she was in Hawaii because her FAMILY had moved there, and while she was just a teen. For whatever the reasons, I always assumed that she had made her own way there, as a result of her career in academia. THOSE are important differences for anyone that focused on the race question, and what it has to do with Barack Obama. I say that because I am consistently repulsed by the constant remarks from at least one poster here, that are intended to be disparaging, and that is the constant reference to Ann Dunham, as having ‘gone native’. It is the same ‘put down’ of so many white women who associate with or marry men of color, as if it somehow makes them of a lower class than their presumably superior white one. In reality, we see that it ‘follows’ perfectly reasonably, that any white MINORITY living in or growing up in a community where people of color are the MAJORITY, (such as Hawaii) would be even more inclined to form their own relationships with members of the majority.

My own point here, is that these issues are only important in terms of who is attempting to create an image for someone else, when the only ‘image’ that counts, (or should) is the one that we define for ourselves. Obama is himself, and only he can define who he is.

There seem to be good points in Goodman’s article about Obama reaching out to women (white women).

Equally interesting points are in the TruthDig reader comments about how we call Obama and mixed-ethnicity people “black” if they are half-and-half, or similar identifiers for other mixed-ethnicity people.

Question on gender and race: If Obama’s dad would have been white, and his mom black ... would we identify him Obama differently?

Isn’t this like the old “one-drop rule” of the South? (If you one drop of black blood ... you are black.)

How does this compare with people who are part-white and part Native American Indian, part-Japanese, half-Mexican?

Food for thought in the articles:

“Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128

- - -

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50835

Quote: “Cherchez la femme,” advised Alexander Dumas in: “When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman.” In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama’s women reveal his secret: he hates America.......

He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States........
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/jb26aa01.html pages 1 + 2

Hmn ... make that Ellen! Brilliant, Ellen.

Really.

Really

My sister ahd her first daughter when I was 10, the second when I was 12. I watched her struggle every month to stay afloat- working and going to school - first cosmotology then occupational therapy. She only asked for help when things got really tight.
Now her one daughter ahs a Dcotorates the Other Her Maters- doing it on loans and grants
I watched my older sister and I admired her perservance, but I also promised myself I would never end up in her situation- Self centered, less fortitude, or just seeing a road worth avoiding. I don’t place my life choice above hers- she proved hers to be a worthy cause and a life to be proud of. And for more a figure to be hailed than anything Hillary could ever dream of.
I see my sisters strength and commitment in my neices and I see the same qualities in Sen Obama tht is why he has this ‘White Blue collar girls’ vote and Hillary wil not(along with her disgraceful work in the Senate, Armed Services Com and on the campaign trail).
Happy Mother’s day all you single Moms- your sacrifics are immeasurable and Priceless!

I don’t want this taken out of context, however since Obama has been running in this campaign he has been referred to as an African American, when in fact he is bi-racial. Why has this never been mentioned. It is like one half of his parentage has been hidden or denied by choosing this description. I did not know his mother had passed on, she did an excellent job of raising him and it saddens me she is not here to see the success of her efforts.

Obama first and foremost is a person. I believe all these “color descriptions” tend to divide people rather than unite them for the common good of everyone. Someday it would be nice to decide about a person from their deeds and actions rather than a skin color. Then we will truly be united as a the human race and not sorted out into groups like we have now. Only when people are truly united in a common good for everyone can true advancement be achieved for all.

Are you really as dense as it seems? Or are you just riding a favorite hobby horse as hard as you can with your eyes closed, like so many among the blogosphere’s commentariat?

Whatever feminist sympathies reside in me, I owe much of them to Ms. Goodman. Her columns are invariably thought provoking, eloquent, and entertaining. She may not always take up feminist themes, but she always gives the subject of the day an unmistakably feminine perspective. That’s because, although she may be self-consciously clever at times, she is always true to herself. Or so it seems to me. There’s no posturing about being smarter or wiser than the other guy, the way so many opinion columnist do. It’s more, “Isn’t this interesting! I wonder if he/she thought of this. What does this mean to me? What could this mean to them/us? Is there something to be learned here?”

As far as this column in particular is concerned. she raises a spot-on question: How will/should Obama address the gender question? Feminists and anti-feminists and post-feminists alike have acknowledged the huge presence of gender politics in this race, whether they want it there or not. Shouldn’t it be addressed?

So far, Obama has launched into his eloquent and thoughtful “conversations” when his campaign has been threatened. The tone he has used has perfectly captured the bridge-building theme of his campaign, but the cause and timing has been self-serving. He might well win the general election without building a bridge to women who have aspired to politcal progress through Clinton, and God knows the Hillary haters of both genders who make up a significant portion of his base would ridicule the very idea, so he might think it unnecessary. But the purpose of bridges isn’t just to avoid hazzards, it’s to open possibilities. Will the candidate of hope and change seize this opportunity or let it slide?

After reading this article I’m struck once again by the kind of reductionistic thinking that will probably lead the Democrats to defeat in November.

In the future I will purposely avoid all stories about Obama’s mother, McCains mother, or Hillary’s mother.

None of these candidates are their mother. There is no such thing as “beliefs rooted in DNA”.
How one dimensional can you be?

It is one of the most telling weaknessess of the Democratic party that they assume people will vote for someone just because they like their mother.

Without much thought it sinks to the level of Rush Limbaugh. And if people vote only on that basis then then we are all doomed.