Obama '08?

Eh, snood?

No, of course.

I was clarifying what I thought Lash had said since that point was going 'round and 'round -- though she went ahead and clarified it right before I did. I think what she was actually saying was nice, which is why I was pointing it out -- that it would be cool if these black candidates were elected in enough numbers to make the discussion of whether they're electable moot.

On that larger question, I dunno about feasibility. For that matter, on the narrow question -- the one that started this thread, whether Obama is electable -- I dunno.

Bits and pieces, like the article I pointed to with the big white corn farmers sporting OBAMA buttons and Thomas' Missouri friends are encouraging. But I dunno.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Proportionate representation, snood. Anyway, that would be my inimitable estimation.

BM- quickie answer: I think Obama may have the best shot of all Democratic candidates. Only Clinton (Bill) was more impressive at the DNC last year. He has a way with words that just grabs you... very, very impressive. Team him up with the General Wesley Clark and I think you'd have a team that would require either Giuliani or McCain to defeat them. I don't know if the GOP would see the writing on the wall or not... but I think the Majority of Americans would like to see a moderate in the oval office. Absent someone as unlikable as Kerry or Hillary; I don't think they could get away with another hardliner.

Thanks for your answer.

I have an interesting experience, a true story to tell. In a little town I am familiar with, which was maybe 98 or 99% white, in fact you seldom saw a black person, the town elected a black gentleman as mayor. Everything went fine, and most people had good things to say about their mayor. As time went on however, the mayor had a disagreement with a councilman, and the mayor accused the councilman of racism, and ended up sort of accusing the town of racism because not everyone supported him concerning the disagreement.

Hardly anybody saw the issue as racism at all. That all left many scratching their heads because how did he get elected in the first place if the town had been racist? The answer is that I do not think the town was or is. Most saw it as a case of too much hypersensitivity and preconditioned mindset on his part to the possibility of racism when in reality none or very little existed. It left me saddened to see the man become embittered when he started out as a well liked, good mayor that had the overwhelming support of the town. I liked him but ended up wondering why did he need to turn the matter into a matter of race in order to justify his own decisions and actions? Why not defend his record on their own merits?

I think this experience illustrates a point. I would suggest that any politician run on the issues and the principles they stand for, rather than being a member of a particular race or whatever. And as Martin Luther King said, let us consider the content of our character instead of the color of our skin, and that is what most people will respond to and vote for.

What town was this and what was the name of the mayor?

Sure, snood.

O'Bill, great to get your take. You're saying a lot of the things that I like so much about Obama.

okie, interesting story. I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical -- there seems plenty of room for racism in your story, as told. (What was the disagreement, exactly? How many people thought it WAS racism -- you say "hardly any", not "nobody" or even "the mayor was the only one who...")

Again, I do agree with the self-fulfilling prophecy idea, but I don't think all racism in America today can be laid at the feet of that idea, not by a long shot.

Its been a few years ago now. I recall the mayors name as David Russell of Canon City, Colorado.

(That was sure as in "sure, acknowledged, thanks," not sure as in "yeah, right," by the way.)

I don't honestly remember what the problem was all about, I don't want to misrepresent it, but I think a councilman questioned an expenditure or expenditures or something as to whether it was proper. You would have to call the town newspaper or something and see if they have any information on it.

I'm afraid that even if we track this down it's of limited use, as even if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy situation, it's just one situation.

Race: If Hillary is really the presumed nominee, race could be in his favor in getting the nomination. Part of what is exciting about Hillary is that she could actually maybe (I don't think so, but in theory) be the first woman president. It's much more exciting to make the nominee another inspirational groundbreaker rather than defaulting to yet another old white guy.

IMHO, I don't think "race" is an issue, because before Powell got involved with Bush, he would have been a good contender against any candidate.

Admitted drug use: While this is bad, it's the kind of thing that just possibly could play up a couple of Republican weaknesses. One is that he's already taken full responsibility. Sure, he tried it, he didn't like it, let's move on. I think that kind of full disclosure and accepting responsibility might be seen as refreshing by the electorate. Another is that it's the kind of thing that if the Republicans pounce on, it might just make THEM look bad. "Oh, sure, smear the black candidate with the drug allegations, dirty politics again." I think people are really sick of that crap.

Another non-issue; Bush was a drunk, and went AWOL from his military service.


Inexperience: This is the one that has changed the most since Obama first came up. I, personally, like to have a leader with a lot of experience. But things I've read here and that I've seen in general seem to be indicating that the zeitgeist is more towards "FRESH START." Get rid of the lying liars, the politicos, the fat cats. Get a breath of fresh air in there, someone with integrity and enthusiasm. Obama has that, in spades.

Another non-issue: Most presidents do not have prior experience. Sometimes, prior experience in government becomes their achilles heel. Bush's experience as governor of Texas sure didn't help him become a "good leader" by any stretch of the imagination. Most people that disagreed with Bush have been dismissed.

You are right, but if anybody knows anybody from there, they can verify my story. This is a town, like many towns of the west, that had a kkk membership many decades ago, but no more, and people are open to anybody now of any race that will run for office on principles and character.

You're for Obama, then?

The AWOL thing makes me think of something else, though: military experience (or lack thereof). We may well still be at war in 2008. I wonder if a lack of military background would be a liability? (Not sure what the Republican side looks like there, except for McCain...)

soz, Think Abe.

Looks like a good analysis to me, C.I., especially the handling of the drug use thing.

That's why you toss in the General. A charismatic speaker and a proven military man. Precisely the right combination in today's climate. I really do believe they'd be tough to beat. I don't know about 08; but it will surprise me not at all if Obama is President one day.

Roger, I think you might be crediting C.I., partly for Soz's work. His is only the blue stuff.

I'm ready to give Soz all the credit.

Since I already brought them up, maybe I should describe why they are uncomfortable about race, and why Obama might have it relatively easy with them.

Contrary to popular clichées, these friends (who say they are fairly typical in that regard) don't have a problem with race as such. They have a problem with some cultural baggage they think is correlated with large parts of the black community, and which Thomas Sowell summed up with the words "black rednecks". It's a culture of blaming your problems to suppression by a white establishment, of excusing and tacidly admiring kids who drop out of school, of discouraging those who seek success in schools and jobs through hard work, of valuing rebellion against the establishment and chastizing those who decline to rebel as "Uncle Toms" who are "acting white".

My friends think the reason for these attitudes is that blacks are the only minority whose ancestors were brought to America against their will. All the others', by contrast, had come because they wanted to. My friends believe that these ancestors' attitudes were handed down through the generations, and now foster a mindset that is utterly unhelpful. But (according to my friends) it is pointless these days to articulate this opinion in polite conversation. Unless you're black yourself, they say, it would only be received as a sorry excuse for spawning racist garbage, and you would spend the rest of the conversation explaining that you are not a racist.

I don't want to explore here how accurate my friends' view of black culture is. For purposes of this thread, it's enough to note that I believe they hold it sincerely. (One reason I believe them is because they feel no discomfort with Asian Americans, whose race is also different from theirs but who don't have this cultural problem.) And if this view is indeed common, as they say it is, it explains why Obama resonates with them. His mother is white and from the Midwest, his father a voluntary immigrant from Kenya. Neither of them descend from American slaves. So it stands to reason that in spite of his being black, he lacks the cultural signatures (many of which are unconscious) that repel white conservatives the way Jackson and Sharpton do.

You raise some very interesting points, Thomas. I won't be free to answer in any depth for awhile, but I want to get back to it.