Obama '08?

I think he could be a strong candidate, if he handled himself well. The issue of a lack of experience is a non-starter. There is no experience which can prepare someone for the responsibilities of the Presidency, and the incumbent is evidence that alleged experience will do nothing to save a bad presidency. Governors have, however, historically done better running for the office than have Senators. There is a public perception, which i consider unjustified, about experience.

All of which being said, i think racism would rear its ugly head--and it would be great if conservatives could be outted for their racist attitudes by such a candidacy.

The Dowd column mentions a Dem. who wonders if the voters can accept a candidate with a name like a Mideast terrorist's. Sad but true.

Then again, someone named Condaleeza is taken seriously, so there is hope...

I think the admitted drug use would work against him in local communities regardless of unfair it is.

What do you mean by "local communities"?

Hey Americans elected a reformed drunk why not someone who has tried drugs. In addition he can identify with the baby boomers many of whom have also tried them.
I would imagine his biggest drawback is lack of experience [as the electorate would see it]. He may be a viable candidate in the future time. However, his time is yet not come. That said who can predict what the US electorate will do?

easy solution -- change it to Barry O'Bama...

Admitted drug use?
Is that not better than the ever so popular deny-any-drug-use-in-spite-of-evidence-and-accusations-proving-the-contrary that we have seen in the past?

I think the name is the biggest problem. He should have changed it years ago, even I can't get it to come out properly and I've known about him for a few years (we call him
Osamabama around my house). I think conservative America would vote for a black man before they would vote for a white woman. As Au1929 has already pointed out - lack of experience and substance abuse will not keep you out of The White House.

Re: Obama '08?

This sounds all too idealistic to me. People were said to be sick of dirty politics in '04 already, and yet the Swiftboaters succeeded in bringing Kerry down - and that on a succession of allegations of which most were plain out there. Who would have believed in advance that a group of bitter partisans could succeed in smearing a decorated war veteran like that, that the voters would fall for that? (I didnt think much of Kerry, but that was the one point I thought he'd remain unassailable on, too).

Theres the thing tho, perhaps. I dont think voters really "fall for that"; its not like they do start to believe the smearers all of a sudden. Its just that the whole nastiness that then comes to surround a candidacy leaves enough of an unease for voters to just turn away from the whole thing and look for an alternative - or just drop out altogether.

Thats one of the cool things about a multi-party system: agressive negative campaigning is much less likely to work - at least, not in the attacker's favour. If one party starts mudslinging and another party gets the mud slung at it, most voters simply turn to a third. In Holland for example, 'attack ads' are extremely rare, and the one previous time before this year that a party did it (the VVD in '94), the result was that, as one expert put it, "it was the only ad that had a directly measurable result" - namely, it was the VVD that dropped in the polls.

In post-Soviet countries, "black politics" is therefore sometimes delegated to third parties. Eg, a small, new, but improbably well-funded party starts attacking one of the main opposition parties, out-trumping it on the issues or slandering it with 'kompromat' (compromising material); the voters, in disgust, turn away from both that opposition party and the small, new party in question - and vote the governing party back into power. Hmmm.

Anyway, with just two parties to choose between, people cant turn to a third party in disgust. The only comparable situation was that of '92, where Bush Sr. fought a negative campaign and it merely resulted in many voters voting for neither him nor Clinton, but Perot. I dont see that happening now. So if a new candidate is systematically blackened, but people have no third way to turn once they get uneasy enough to hesitate about voting for him anymore, at best many will just stay at home altogether. That alone would be lethal, because turnout still seems key for any Democratic success.

I dunno. Blacks + drugs is, like it or not, such an almost iconic image of white, suburban fear - the image that security systems and alarms are sold on, that zero-tolerance campaigns are sold on, that insurances are sold on - it practically embodies or symbolises white suburban fear. So the thing is that you only just need to bring it up for it to already work its unease and deterrance - regardless of what the person in question then still has to say about it or how he says it.

(Count me pessimistic..)

I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat!

Anon

I really don't think race will work against him. Except for a few sad pockets of Jim Crow throw backs, I think America is over the color issue. I'm not saying racism has been eliminated, far from it, but Americans do not associate successful black people with the old black stereotypes of drug dealers, pimps and welfare queens. Most Americans really wanted more from Colin Powell (I did until he started to work for The Dark Side) and I think many would have been happy to see him in the oval office. I live in a rather whitey conservative neighborhood, but our local mayor is black and he could only have been voted in with a majority of white support.

It probably does help that Obama is mocha and not licorice, it also helps that he has a beautiful mocha wife and children. However, as a whole, I think many Americans would consider him presidential material - as long as he doesn't have oral sex with some intern.

GW:



Later, in the same post:

This is perceptive, and a very apposite analysis of Powell's image and career.



This fairly adequately describes the situation in Columbus, Ohio. However, there, Mayor Coleman put an awful lot of black cronies in positions of authority and responsibility for which they were not qualified, and an awful lot of contracts were let to minority (almost always black, and usually male) contractors who were not qualified. This resulted in a good deal of resentment by affluent white liberals who had voted for him, which said something about their attitudes as well as it said things about what Coleman was prepared to do once in power. He was re-elected, but attitudes have soured--including among significant portions of the black community, who find cronyism less than charming if it does not work in their favor.

Okay, I'll bite - someone explain to poor ole snood the mentality that likes mocha better than licorice in human shades.

I didn't want to pile on Green Witch, Snood, but your penultimate post does deserve a response...

Hmm, well ya gotta wonder why, if that were the case (America being over the color issue), there's not many more black elected officials already. Obama's only the third popularly elected black senator in US history, and there's only ever been one black popularly elected governor (and that was fifteen years ago).

I thought this was very unfortunate. I don't think he'll be perceived as a black guy with a drug history, I think only the drug history will stand--and as soon as he addresses it, it will evaporate. Clinton has broken all those barriers.

Inexperience will get him. If he behaves for the next four years and shows some knowledge, he could be a great contender in the future.

The GOP was ready for Colin, as someone said previously, and Condi would have enormous support, as polling reflects.

I think the Dems are more hung up on race than the GOP.

Look at the person, not the wrapping.

Actually, polls of Republicans and leaners have Condi being outpolled by both Giuliani and McCain almost without exception.

Thanks, nimh - it seems you can always be depended on to bring needed kernals of truth.