Hi JP, Thanks much for leaving your comments. I agree with much of what you said. I wanted to mention a few things, just as food for thought. I wanted to mention first that I didn't hear Harriet's use of the word "inadequate" the same way that you did. And I understand why you heard it the way you did, by the way. I took the word quite literally - and in a political/experiential sense, Obama IS inadequate, as you point out. It is interesting to me that you did hear it that way, and I'm glad you speak to it. I guess I have no problem with her anger. Sometimes anger - if it is honest - can be constructive. Of course, in a calmer moment she may have been more careful with how she phrased things. I have heard her twice in cable news interviews since, and she is amazingly calm, rather soft-spoken, but firm in her views and very intelligent. I wrote the article in fact in response for seeing one of these interviews. I tend to be more suspicious of someone who tries to be oh-so-tactful and says really outrageous things, with a smile. (Obama for example, does it all the time.) I would rather have a good honest tirade, because at least you know exactly where someone stands when their high emotion doesn't allow time to parse words. The article is meant to suggest that another view - that of the reality of reverse-racism - must be part of any productive dialog. The problem is, in the current political environment it is considered so not politically correct to speak about it, that the argument has become incredibly lopsidded, and that only adds to the frustration and thus the vitriole. Make sense? Personally, I have twice lost a job to a less qualified person of color. Yeah, yeah, I know, that's illegal. But it happens all the time. In both cases I found out through the grapevine, that although my qualifications were indeed better and I was preferred based on interview, I was passed over to fill an equal-opportunity quota. Now, I have to make a living too, (I am a woman by the way!) and it was blatantly unfair. If these two people had had better qualifications than I did, I would have absolutely no problem with their being hired . . . the point is they didn't, by all accounts. Such an incident is no less hurtful and maddening, whether it happens to an AA who calls it a glass ceiling, to a woman who calls it a glass ceiling or to a white who calls it reverse racism. I totally agree with you about Hillary's failure to speak to sexism. In fact, she seems to have left that job to poor Geraldine Ferraro, who has done it well. The sexism displayed by the Democratic Party, in my opinion as a woman, was breathtaking. It was real. That she has buckled under pressure and cowtowed to the Party line is deeply disappointing to me. I disagree that Hillary is somehow not qualified. She wasn't just First Lady - frankly when I hear that line I it sounds very sexist to me, because it isn't difficult to research her background and contributions - - I don't understand why someone would reduce her to "first lady"... I hear that almost exclusively from young Democrats. She was deeply involved in the administration on a day to day basis, from the day Bill took office. Before that she had years of experience in public service as a lawyer and as the First Lady in Arkansas, during which she wasn't making cookies. She is infinitely more qualified than Obama. No one - certainly not myself - is disputing the reality of racism, and the pain of the past for AAs. But that pain exists for many ethnic groups. The question is - who lets go of it and contributes to society, and who hangs onto it for over a century and ends up shooting themselves in the foot. Again, I just want to offer a point of view that is real, valid, and needs to be part of the discussion. I do so appreciate your taking time to leave your thoughts.