I don't know exactly why - probably the "Frank" character telling a young "Bar"
about "the facts of colored life" combined with the WP's daily email
"briefings," but these recent three pieces in the WP brought the recent
"discussion" involving Obama's bio to mind

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040202347.html

and/versus:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rc=nl_opinions

(Note - the latter was in the WPs daily "Opinion" email labeled/linked as
follows (the complete link tag):

"Eugene Robinson
The Forgotten District
Where's the help for the black underclass?"

combined with this article linked-to in the news brief email:

Obama to discuss needs of black community
President Obama will sit down Tuesday with about 20 black religious leaders,
including representatives of the major African American denominations, in the
second White House meeting in three months to discuss the needs of the black
community.

(the full article is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...rc=nl_headline)

IAC, since, apparently, the only two people in the world who consider Obama to
be bi-racial are Obama and me, why isn't the election of a
"black"/"African-American person as the President of the United States at least
some indication that "blacks" have come a long way, baby...brother....? And
maybe it should indicate that views attributed to "Frank" aren't anymore
appropriate than David Duke's (or whatever loon(s) are leading the sheetcutters
these days), nor are those of opportunists like Jackson and Sharpton or "guilty
white liberal" paternalist "PC"ers in a modern, progressing world...

And an aside to jeff - thus far, IMO, Obama's "job" with regard to racial
"traps" has been pretty good. He appears to have avoided most of race nonsense
from all sides (the Gates ****up being an exception, but at the end of the day,
not that big a deal), but I do disagree with his refusal thus far to fully (and
accurately) address his heritage as the product of a white "American" mother and
a "black" "African" father. I don't particularly fault him for it - a pol has
to, well, pander to their base(s) - but, again IMO, he could do a world of good
for the whole racial issue, at least insofar as "regular people" (non-public
figures without a "public" agenda) are concerned - if he were to address it
forthrightly and head-on. And I'm not talking about might appear to be
"popular" with a particular base, I'm talking about what's right.

R