MSNBC hosted Coulter and highlighted, without challenge, her assertion that Obama "wouldn't be running ... if he weren't half-black"

Hi Bruce.  I have said before on a thread that dealt with this comment that it is silly to think Obama's race is what got him where he is; rather I think his intelligence, charisma, and passion did that.  I do think the Obama campaign is using race to give him an advantage though.  For example: accusations of racism against the CLintons, Michelle Obama in speeches saying black people better wake up and saying it is our time now, Obama's campaign chair Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. trying to pursuade super delegates to  switch their support from Clinton with threats like:   "...do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"  Is it wrong for them to use to their advantage what for so long has often been a disadvatage in getting ahead...I guess we each have to make that determination for ourselves.  Personally, I don't have a problem with how Michelle Obama is using it in the instances I mentioned but I do have a problem with the false accusations against the Clintons and their campaign chairs comment are unsettling for me...I think they go over the line. 

Bruce, 

You make a very interesting point, but I am not sure I agree with you. Of course, I can only speak for myself - but I really believe Obama is where he is not because of his race, but because of where we are in this country, what we are looking for, and how he has tapped into that.

Thanks to Bush/Cheney, the war, and their arrogance, the country is so polarized and entrenched in their corners that your garden variety politicians have little chance of moving anyone, anywhere, from their marks.  I think everyone was ready for Clinton, on the left, and the right was so messed up and demoralized they are just basically apathetic, look at their pathetic field of candidates for proof of that.

Then along comes Obama, a brilliant orator and an inspirational figure that doesn't pander to people's divisions through typical left vs. right battles, but rather appeals to our shared commonalities beyond red/blue state politics.  That is not to say that he doesn't offer up liberal policies that I don't agree with, but I would rather have an honest liberal than a conservative I don't trust.

Also, many people, depsite the good times in the 90's, feel that another Clinton in the White House, followed by two Bush's, is just more polarization and division and rancor that people are just fed up with. 

What the country is hungering for, Obama offers to many - his race is irrelevant, at least for me, in my opinion. 

To all who want to believe Obama is only running because he's black or that his race is helping him, ask yourself this question - "Has every president we've ever had benefited from being a white male?"  Your arguement is nonsensical and insulting.  Hillary's only running because she's a woman, Mitt Romney only ran because he's Mormon, McCain is only running because he's a war vet.  No they are running because they believe they are best to lead this country.  Furthermore, how can his race be helping him, when at every turn someone is talking about it negatively?  He's not black enough, he's muslim, he went to a madrassa as a child . . . The list continues.  You racist conservatives and racist liberals don't realize your hatred of the man is what's fueling his success.  America loves the underdog, check historically.  So keep at it.  You don't want it to happen but all over the world people are hopeful of racial equality and change in this country.  You may think it can't happen, but millions of voices are saying "YES WE CAN!!" 

See you in November chumps.

Whether Obama's race helps him or not is irrelavent when it comes to Ann Coulter.

She is a vile creature who has the gall to write about the erosion of political discourse in this country... to which she contributes probably more than anyone else.  Based on her history of saying anything to be provocative and to sell her books to the kooky-cons, I won't give her a pass on this one.  Especially in context of her calling Obama the least dangerous person named Hussein.  She is pulling out every race-baiting trick in the book in her actions, and she thinks she's funny.

To address your main point, though, Obama's race helps in some instances... and hurts in others.  At Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson dinner, former governor Doug Wilder said he won his own high statewide office in a Commonwealth where he was told a black man could never win by conveying a message for all Virginians.  He supports Obama because the Senator has a message for all Americans.

Neither Wilder nor Obama have preached racial divisiveness.  Yet, the evidence of racial inequalities continue to show in crime rates, incarceration rates, and income disparities.

The difference between a Wilder or Obama and a Sharpton or Jackson is the former pair do not point fingers.  Their message is how do we help raise the poor up together.  For Obama, this has not just manifested itself in bringing out the black vote in droves... but in bringing out the youthful vote.  He actually is bringing the 20-somethings to the polls.

Is that because of his race?  Partly.  Is it because of his message?  Mostly.  Is it because he's a black man with this message?  Certainly so.

Conversely, is he subject to the "Wilder effect" (Virginia polls showing Wilder with anywhere from a 10-to-15-point lead a week prior to Wilder's 1989 election... but actually winning the election by the closest margin in Virginia's history)?  Yes (remember New Hampshire).

I disagree with your comment "Clinton camp is actually responsible for increasing Obama’s Black support". I think the media is the one who is responsible for this. Look at the "fairy tale" comment. Did Bill say Obama's campaign was like a "fairy tale"? Of course he didnt , but many people believe he did. And why is this? Because the media simply lied to their faces. Do you think the Clinton's are so dumb that they wouldn't know the media would absolutely savage them at the first hint of playing the race card? And all the other "examples" of racism are pretty slim. Did Bill compare Obama to Jesse Jackson? Of course the media believes he did. Or was he simply comparing Obamas victory in SC to Jackson's in 1984, and that Obama had an advantage because of the large black population in the state?  It may have been an ill-advised response to a snotty question from a snotty reporter in a parking lot, but I wouldn't read too much into it. As Krugman said in the NY Times, the media is playing you like a fiddle on this issue. And by the way, given the Clintons past work in Civil rights, they deserve the benefit of the doubt a few 1000 times before labeling them racist (which i'm not saying you did).

By the way, I like Obama. But to think the media is not the one playing the race card here is somewhat misguided. They're definitely not innocent in all of this.

Well said, Lynn.  If I might relate some personal history which is, I believe, relevant:

Recently, in organizing my late mother's effects, I came across a letter written to her by her beloved brother (and my namesake) on the day she gave birth to her first son (me.)  In addition to congratulations and best wishes, my uncle included the observation/hope that I might become the first Catholic President of the United States.  Seventeen years later, as a high school senior in Washington, D.C., I was privileged (and very well paid) to shovel snow all night, clearing sidewalks for the inauguration of the first Catholic president.  It was a thrilling time for my family.  We were Boston (not Southie) Irish, and my parents and uncles were politically active New Deal Democrats.  My namesake uncle, incidentally, was a (much younger) law partner of Joseph Welch, of McCarthy Hearings fame, a source of great pride.  JFK's Catholicism was not dispositive in gaining their support, although it clearly had great meaning.  His political party and positions, along with his personal history and charisma were the major factors, along with the already apparent sleaziness of his opponent.

It would be hard, however, to overestimate the power of that historic victory.  The day after the election the first words out of my Latin teacher's (an Augustinian priest)mouth were, "We're in.  We no longer have to prove we're American.  The rest of the country is going to see that the Swiss Guards aren't on the way, and the Pope has no more power here today than he had yesterday."  It really meant that we were no longer second class citizens.

Today, either Hillary or Obama may well toss another second-class designation onto the ash heap of history, and I will be just as thrilled (well, maybe just a tad less) to see it.  Obama's race is one of the things that makes the race compelling, as is Hillary's gender.  Neither of those attributes entitle them to be president but, with their other qualities, they make for a watershed in our history, and I'm glad to have had something like this happen twice in my lifetime.

Lynn wrote: "There seems be this assumption by some in the White community across the political spectrum that being Black is somehow a plus."

I'm white, and I know plenty of whites who, when presented with a decision between a qualified white candidate and a qualified minority candidate, will choose the minority candidate because he/she is a minority.  I do it all of the time, most recently in the Illinois primary.

Among racists, being black is definitely a deficit.  But among non-racist whites, it can actually be an asset.

Just once I wish the show host would drop "It's great to see you again, Ann" in favor of something a little more fitting...

"So Ann, what kind of senseless crap are you going to spew to my audience today?" works.