It's past midnight in the North of Amsterdam, the neglected part of town where I am working hard on opening an arts centre where 90.000 people live on the wrong side of the river without a cinema, a theatre or even a decent bookshop. Your story on black politics is a breathtaking piece of journalism. Ever since traveling through New Jersey for a month in 2001, working on a novel and a documentary, and finding out that out of seven African-American men I interviewed (including the great and very tough Amiri Baraka) five had spent time in jail, I am fascinated by the topics you raise. And as a traveling writer, I admire one thing greatly in your journalist technique: you venture seriously into some explosive and potentially very awkward topics, but you treat everyone of the people you quote - regardless of the position they take - with grace and respect. No false modesty, no pats on the head, just truly taking the people you speak to very seriously. This is a rare quality, and I do want to tell you how much I appreciate that. Inspirational, also to us here on the wrong side of the river in Amsterdam.

The high point of your article ("Is Obama the End of Black Politics?"), for me, is: "... for Michael Nutter...not supporting Obama’s candidacy marked a kind of progress, too. The movement, after all, was about the freedom to choose your own candidate, white or black. In a sense, you could argue that it was Nutter...who represented the truest embodiment of Obama-ism. Here, perhaps, was a genuine postracial politician, even if that meant being, as John Lewis put it, on the wrong side of history."

It's not just that I agree with this thesis but, it touches on the internal conflict that many black Americans face as the concept of "the group" further disintegrates and we follow, as you note, the integration route of the Italians and the Irish. It is also a conflict that many whites, as Nutter implies, fail to see because they play the race card and presume blacks are and act as a monolith. It is the most condescending,blind and stubbornly resistant to change pov that makes its way daily into MSM coverage of this election.

I'm a young black journalist (about to go to CUNY J-School! :-) and honestly, I was annoyed when I saw the article's subject matter and the color of its author. Here we go again, I thought. One more botched job about what's going on in black America relative to the rest of the country. But I was pleasantly surprised and actually finished your article thinking that I *liked* that an outsider (a competent one, not just any ol white guy) tackled the topic.
I'm glad that you used "I" and admitted, in parts, that you may not understand nor see the entire story. That "I" is needed in articles about an elusive, shameful and subjective issue like race.

I'm looking forward now, to when the MSM looks in a consistent way at white Americans' conflicts re: race that this election has mined. In general, the MSM continues to speak about race as though it is a black issue. I find that continuation of white solipsism into the 21st century fascinating on one hand and extremely worrying on the other.

This election is an opportunity, finally, to ask: How has race been an issue (a source of conflict, a marker of the expansion of 'who is an American?') for white Americans since Obama became a viable candidate? Anyways, just wanted to say, good job. Your article is a smart contribution to the national conversation.

Your writing, both from the Times and The Argument, have given me hope that someone, other than me, actually cares about the direction in which our country is headed politically, socially, fiscally, etc. Thanks for being a voice of reason.

Your excellent piece in next Sunday's Times Magazine highlights a problem that is not unique to "black politics," but is a theme of modern politics of any ilk. Namely, a problem generates a solution, and if you become part of that solution, you are dependent on the problem to stay relevant. I'd love to see someone dig into this, how the very nature of politics means that if you actually solve a problem, you put yourself out of business.

Very well done. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I never do this, but I just had to e-mail you to tell you how impressed I was by this article. ("Is Obama the End of Black Politics?") It was incredibly well researched and quite lucid. I never have the patience to read such a long piece, but I was hooked to every word. Your description of the age divide in African American politics was spot on and the best writing on the topic I have seen. Incidentally, this divide exists in the Hispanic community, of which I am a member (although not to the same degree). Thank you again for enriching my understanding of this complicated issue.

This is a tremendous piece of journalism, Matt. ("Is Obama the End of Black Politics?", Aug. 10 2008.) I've written to you before and I'm a big fan, and this piece proves again what a unique writer and reporter you are. I particularly appreciated the section in which you bring yourself into the conversation with Nutter, in which you juxtapose your struggle to feel that you can legitimately cover race relations as a white reporter, with his seeming cynical nonchalance about the way whites and blacks engage in serious conversation in this country. I would love to see that theme developed in future reporting, particularly among the younger generation and comparing peoples' outlooks who have lived in racially charged regions and those who have not (for instance, being from San Diego, I struggle to understand the full extent of the historical divide between blacks and whites).

Thanks again and keep writing! (By the way, I think you're one of the best writers the Times has. And that's saying a lot.)

I am writing to point out the extreme lopsidedness in the subjects you selected for your article about politics in the black community. Even a token woman in the photograph would have given some acknowledgment to the REALITY that black political leadership encompasses both men and women. How about Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta, a far more significant city than Newark (a satellite of NYC). How about Maxine Waters of Los Angeles? I could go on. Is this or is this not the 21st century? Thank you.

i just saw your recent speech at the sydney institute on fora.tv. thank you for being rational, insightful, and eloquent. i wish there were more yous and less bill o'reillys and keith olbermanns.

May I raise a point of order? As you note in your July 13 "Magazine" piece, Senator Obama and his friends brag about creating a base of small-dollar donors, as if it were unique. Bill Middendorf, treasurer for the Goldwater presidential campaign, did that in 1963-64. He generated some 1.5 million contributions for the primaries and the campaign, an astonishing increase over the 50,000 supporters who contributed to the 1960 Nixon campaign. (For perspective: Population in 1960 was 180 million; 2008, 303 million). Many Goldwater contrbutions were for a buck, some as low as twenty five cents.Was this emphasis on small-dollar donors a breakthrough in political fund-raising? Who can say for certain? History is long and details are often obscure – but Newsweek was kind enough to give him credit for a "new money-raising technique."

As he wrote in his memoir of the campaign ("A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater's Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative Movement" Basic Books, 2006):

"The techniques we pioneered during the primaries and the campaign set the standard for all who came after. Big money is usually easy to get, but gets
very few people involved with the candidate. I pushed what I believe to have been some pretty revolutionary fund-raising tactics: charging petition-signers a dollar for the privilege, charging everyone a dollar for attending some rallies, and emphasizing our willingness – nay, eagerness – to accept small donations through the mail. Call it, a buck for Barry. 'But,' someone complained, 'it costs nearly that much for the mailing.' Yes – but each mailing that brings in a contribution, no matter how small, adds a member of the campaign, each, not only likely to vote for Goldwater,but to convince their friends and neighbors to do so as well."

Cordially, Brayton Harris (I worked for Middendorf when he was secretary of the Navy, 1975-76, and most recently helped him winnow down his impressive personal archives to pluck forth material for the book.)

PS: The Coda of mis memoir reprints the opening paragraph of your July 17, 2005 NYTimes Magazine piece, "The Framing Wars," and closes, "If, indeed, the Republicans were able 'to control the language of the debate' in 2004, I guess that means we have finally figured it out. And that the Democrats have forgotten how."

I read your McCain article two days ago and I read your book last fall. My question is more Bush/Iraq related.

It seems to me that a great deal of the motivation for going to war in Iraq was profit. The news just came out about the oil companies who have secured no-bid contracts to develop the oil fields in Iraq. The fact that Cheney and Bush had friends that stood to profit enormously from our military--the fact that our military operations everywhere are profitable for powerful people--just seemss underreported. I have read some--not all--of the articles/books about why we went to war, about Bush's ideology, and now your article about McCain's ideology/worldview regarding military action. It seems that writers and reporters (and voters) chalk so much up to a decision-maker's worldview, his/her personal belief about what works, what doesn't. But when powerful people have so much money and power to gain by an action such as invading an oil-rich country, why doesn't THAT become the commonly-held belief of why we went in the first place? Why is THAT not provided as a prime motivation in articles and on the news?

I am not really talking about your article on McCain, because our decision to go to Iraq was not its main concern. People--especially Senators--have strong opinions and approaches to policy, and your article taught me quite a bit that I did not know about McCain and and the '90s. If you can teach me something else by answering my ramblings, I would appreciate it. Thank you!