In her conversation with Madeline Albright, I was disappointed by Michel Martin's off the cuff comment about black women get lynched and implication that white women have not suffered the same adversity. Please explain how centuries of witch burning were not designed to keep women (mostly white) in their place. History demonstrates many forms of oppression and none of them are acceptable. Practicing it is modern form is no more attractive, whether you be black or female.

I guess what surprises me is that black women seem to identify themselves by race rather than sex in this election. What disappoints me more is hearing this bias from an NPR host. I somehow expect NPR to be above this kind of behavior, even if it is the socially acceptable kind of reverse bigotry by a member of a formerly oppressed minority.

Sent by Kate | 12:14 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I am sitting in my office just after hearing remarks about the subject of race and whether Mr. Obama???s timing or indeed whether he was the correct messenger to bring about a dialogue on race during his candidacy for the Presidential nomination. The interview aired March 26, 2008 with guests Christopher Edly and Jeff Jacoby.

I am fuming because the two individuals chosen to respond to this question were reasonably unlikely by name and title and after listening to the conversation, I was appalled that they would deem themselves worthy to be interviewed.

The reason that the interview took place is because of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright???s tirade about race (among other issues) in America and the question of how his influence on Mr. Obama???s thinking could sway Obama???s judgment as presidential candidate. Both of the invited guests were able to describe the complexity of the matter, neither seemed to understand the nuance that both black and white people verify truth in these things differently.

For the commentator to allege that Mr. Obama could share a vision with black America that there is a more optimistic and positive view comes across as most na??ve leaning toward ridiculous. To her credit, Ms. Martin asked whether white America might need someone to share about their perceptions; this question was ignored.

The reality is this, race ???based opinion plays writ large in the way that people think. As a result, the O.J. verdict, the Katrina disaster, opinions about the U.S.???s role in Rwanda are sharply divided along racial lines. These differences can collude along small lines individually but seem to remain viably separate.

Barack Obama gets it. Understanding that the anger comes from different perspectives and that time has changed the view of the anger but has not displaced its object. We love our noble leaders, not for what they do but for what they aim for in spite of what they are confronted with.

I have no idea what it is like to be a native American living in the twenty-first century. As much as anyone could tell me that they had no part in what happened to this body of people, how could I avoid anger? How could anyone deny that this was a long, disparaging and nearly complete genocide? How many broken treaties? How much absolute swindling? Is this not true? Do we call this justice? On whose hands does this blood lie?

So when people cede that the different views don???t coincide there lays truth. Barack Obama is the single person willing at this time to point out that we don???t see things the same. Yes, there is an optimistic positivism that says this can change. But it comes at the price of hurt feelings, brutal honesty and willingness to admit being wrong. Mr. Obama has placed this heart of leadership on the line. The individuals interviewed had no idea.

Sent by Guy Hayes | 5:50 PM ET | 03-26-2008