Oh I do indeed. Its no big deal. Certain discussions are useless, though, because no one will change their mind when it is that vehement.

Dy, there's a fundamental problem with what you're saying.

Race is NEVER going to come in to play if you are a white man. No one will bring up the gender or ethnicity of John McCain, Bill Clinton, George Bush, or any of the other presidents. Race, as anyone other than the 'norm' for our society, will be an issue that you can't avoid. Should a black man or hispanic woman never run for anything because their race might get brought in to it? White people don't have that problem because we're used to seeing a white politician. Men don't have the problem of gender because we're used to seeing male politicians.

The whole point that I was making above, though, is that the premise of the article, ESPECIALLY where it is supposidely based on Obama's 'anger' from his speech (in which the author conveniently forgot that Obama was saying that anger is counterproductive) is completely ludicrous. It has little to do with Obama and painting him as a divider, especially based on his speech, is being dishonest.

When the article cites that the Vietnamese didn't complain about Katrina when ASIANS (not even Vietnamese; Asians as a whole) make up 2% of the population of the New Orleans area as opposed to 36% blacks, that is being dishonest.

When the article takes a section about anger from Obama's speech COMPLETELY out of context and uses it as the premise for an article that...oops...has little to do with Obama anyway, that's being dishonest.