I realize that you believe America is still too racist to elect a black man and since you are a black man and experience racism I do not I won't argue that point with you. But does that mean you'd rather he didn't run? To my mind the only way those bull**** barriers are going to be broken down is by getting smart, likeable, reasoned and reasonable candidates of color out there, at the highest levels. And I'm expecting you wouldn't complain too much if I was right and you were wrong with regard to Obama's electability. I say let's have this fight now. Let's put the guy that wrote the article that began this thread on TV and give him the loudest microphone we have. And let's see how the American public responds to the GOP's attempts to tear him down. Obama is a dream candidate and he'd be a dream president. Apart from his name and his race I can't even think of a single perceived problem he'd have and he'd have zero legitimate ones. If GOP (and even Independent and Dem voters) are really that racist, let's get that out in the open. I can't think of any better way to do it than running Obama. Let's have this fight now.
Damned right. Let's get this out in the open. There is no earthly reason that Obama couldn't be President except for his race. The man is charismatic, a superb orator, has that gift of being able to put complex issues in way that the general public can understand and relate to, and in a way that makes them want to do something about them... a rare gift indeed. He's brilliant, good looking, with a lovely wife and family, has a great sense of humor. As you say, Batman, let's fight this battle now. Why the hell not? Why wait? Tear those damned walls down! Keep D&D Civil.
The New York Times March 19, 2006 The Nation But Will They Love Him Tomorrow? By ANNE E. KORNBLUT WASHINGTON MOST politicians spend their careers working to overcome flaws. Then there are politicians like Barack Obama. So charismatic that his greatest challenge has been trying to play down expectations during his first Senate term, Mr. Obama's enviable plight was neatly underlined at a black-tie dinner here last weekend, as President Bush facetiously tried to roast him. "Senator Obama, I want to do a joke on you," the president told the audience at the annual Gridiron dinner, an event where politicians and the press mingle to make fun of one another. "But doing a joke on you is like doing a joke on the pope. Give me something to work with. Mispronounce something." Ribbing aside, Mr. Obama's seeming perfection — as a gifted orator, award-winning author and proven intellect who was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review — has become something of a political marvel in itself, as Democrats survey the landscape of potential presidential candidates and endlessly wonder if he is the one to lead them back into favor after a season of darkness. But such grand expectations can, by turns, be a curse — not only for Mr. Obama himself but for the party overall. From William Jennings Bryan, who electrified the populace with his 1896 "cross of gold" speech, to former Senator John Edwards, who briefly dazzled the Democratic party before fizzling out in the 2004 presidential race, fledgling superstars have often learned the perils of soaring expectations the hard way. "Perfection is always risky," said Darrell M. West, a professor of politics at Brown University. If Mr. Obama's popularity and reputation among Democrats grow, will it be possible, his advisers and other Democrats wonder, for Mr. Obama to maintain his smooth trajectory over time? How can he lower expectations, to reduce the impact of any future misstep? Could voters and the press tire of his impeccability, and start looking harder for flaws? (One admitted speck: a smoking habit that he is working to break, and a past experimentation with drugs.) Historians and political strategists see lessons for the senator's future in the stories of wunderkinds from the past. "The ones who have been successful were very focused in understanding where they wanted to go, and had a good strategy to get there," Professor West said. "You can't wait too long because golden boys only last so long and then they start to tarnish. And then they just become one of the pack, and there's nothing special about them." To some, at this early stage, Mr. Obama is most directly comparable to John F. Kennedy, whose youth, dashing looks and captivating speaking skills catapulted him to national stardom in 1956, when, as a first-term senator, he campaigned for the vice presidential nomination; four years later he was elected president. His assassination in 1963 raised him to the category of permanent golden status among Democrats. Of course, that was time when it was easier to sparkle. Kennedy benefited from a cozy press corps that largely left personal issues alone, something Mr. Obama could never count on. Other political stars have fallen over time, as shining promise has given way to the inevitable disappointment of reality. Even when he was still a basketball player, well before he was elected to the Senate, Bill Bradley seemed destined for greatness. He dominated the spotlight for a time, but stumbled, and his political career ended in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2000. John Edwards made a splash when elected to the Senate in 1998, but he quickly suffered from criticism that he was light on gravitas and failed to live up to some expectations that he was the next Bill Clinton. The historian Doris Kearns Goodwin argued that Bryan, the three-time Democratic candidate for president, dazzled the country in a way comparable to the Obama phenomenon with that one speech in 1896. But he faced too much resistance to his perceived radical populism to win election and, having lost, wore the indelible taint of failure. History has not been kind. Robert Dallek, the author of several presidential biographies, said that such "golden boy" leaders have emerged "in a time of frustration and disillusionment," but that few, apart from Kennedy, sustained the momentum. "Kennedy hadn't done much, there wasn't much of a Congressional record you could point to, and so people said, 'Wow, this guy has got imagination and principles,' " Mr. Dallek said. More recently, glamorous governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, both Republicans, have lost some of their luster after clashing with state legislatures. By that standard, Mark Warner, a Democrat and the former governor of Virginia, may have benefited from the law requiring him to step down after one term; without more of a record to haunt him, he has had the luxury of picking issues to champion, unlike his potential rivals in the Senate, who still must vote on everything from the federal budget to Iraq. Mr. Warner is now among the Democrats contemplating running in 2008. "The longer you are in a position of making the hard decisions, weighing in on the difficult questions, the weaker you become," said Mario M. Cuomo, whose rousing 1984 speech at the Democratic National Convention, during his first term as governor of New York, fueled a decade of chatter about his greater political potential before he finally lost a re-election bid to George Pataki in 1994. "The third term is a killer," Mr. Cuomo said. "I had three terms, and what happens is, people get to know you so well, and their instinct is to be angry with the negative more than it is to appreciate the positive." But when asked whether he saw a comparison in his early rave reviews to those Mr. Obama is experiencing now, Mr. Cuomo demurred. "I'm a whole different story," Mr. Cuomo said. "I'm not in his class at all." Still, Mr. Obama has yet to finish one term as senator — a reality he seems keenly aware of, as he lightly mocks his own press coverage while slowly beginning to promote his legislative work, like pushing for research on the avian flu. Mr. Obama seems, at times, to be balancing the need to reduce unrealistic expectations with the wish to retain his golden mystique. Even in acknowledging, with some embarrassment, his ongoing cigarette smoking habit, Mr. Obama has managed to turn it into an expression of his imperfection, telling The Chicago Tribune last year: "The flesh is weak." Mr. Obama did not return a call seeking comment, but in his Gridiron speech, which brought down the house, he tweaked the press for its fawning coverage so far — a recurring theme he has hit upon in response to an excessive crush of media attention from the start of his political career. "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career," Mr. Obama said. "When I actually do something, we'll let you know." And no doubt, when that happens, the world will notice. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/w...&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Good article, serious. I remember reading it when it came out. Thanks for posting. Rocket River: Here's one for you. Do you think America's ready for a gay president? I don't. Not yet. Would you personally be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for president if you knew he or she was gay? We will eventually have an openly gay president (and we've almost surely already had a closeted one). It will be interesting to see where black Americans are in the chronology of that being a generally acceptable thing.
To further explore the eventuality of a gay president, when our first lesbian president is elected what will we call her wife? The Second Lady?
i wish i can agree with you but in this day and age of politics, that rubber band you mentioned has grown ever so larger. i don't think jack kennedy would've won in a "modern" debate, where both parties agree on camera angles, what not to say, who can be involved and what questions can be asked. i'm convinced that you can make anyone president as long as he fits a certain profile. the system today has produced a normalization effect where even special characteristics of candidates are largely nullified (of course the opposite holds true for not so special candiates). what remains is mostly manufactered. in order to obama to win, because he's black and doesn't fit a preception, he needs to be extremely chrismatic to escape the political grinding machine. change can come, but at a slow rate and within the system.
It seems like you are setting this up so that if one doesn't vote for Obama one is a racist... You are talking here about the voters not the campaign managers; is that really what you mean?
Obama has several things working in his favor and raises him as electable 1. he is not a descendent of american Slaves . . . 2. he was raised by white family [mom] 3. his politics are not 'extreme' Colin - was the son of immigrants as well They is as close to a white with black skin as one can get [barring Condi Rice and clarence thomas but. .. I have other thoughts on her] That being said I could see an open Gay President before a Black one Definately a woman before a black one I'm cynical and jade On the pecking order of America American Black folx tend to be on the Lowest rong An Accent can be your best friend. . . . I dunno why but it changes people's perspective. . .and thoughts about you Rocket River
"The longer you are in a position of making the hard decisions, weighing in on the difficult questions, the weaker you become," Thats why being the governor of Texas was such a good jumping off point. No real decisions, no real power.
i'd have to disgree, a black president will become president first before an openly gay president. the reason is people can use the context of religion to justify anti-gayness. with race, the new generation seems to be more accepting and eventually, the "old guard" will die away. as for being the lowest rung in AMERICA's geo political system, i disagree too... it's the asian male, east indians more so, but other asians males are next. blacks seem that way cuz it seems the more obvious choice, but there are few avenues to be "heard" or "seen" if you're asian and a male (unless you know kungfu). the east indian will be the last minority to be president if ever.
I was responding specifically to the general consensus of posters here that the only things likely to stop Obama from being elected were his race and his name. Go back and read the post and it ought to be clear to you. I understand that some people would vote against him for other reasons -- particularly ones that regularly fetishize fake, debunked emails and Ann Coulter -- but there aren't enough of those weirdos to cost him the presidency.
Yeah, seriously, I can pretty much guarantee that there will not be a gay president as long as I am alive, no way. Not that I would not vote for one, but i think we are miiiiiiiiiles from that. We're ready for a black president - there will always be jagoffs who would drop n-bombs and so forth, but they are not swing voters. Ohio and Florida could punch the little hole next to the name of Barak Obama or Colin Powell. In fact, let me postulate this. Colin Powell or Barak Obama or Condaleeza Rice or David Palmer - for the sake of argument i will use them - might actually be of use to the anti-affirmative action, anti-race discussion folks - sort of a Very Large Token Gesture that race is not a problem for America anymore. There is so much incentive to get the issue off the table, that an incrementalist black president would be a small price to pay for not actually having to deal with race in a meaningful way. The conversations would go like this: Someone: "Wow, blacks on the whole have access to crappier educational opprtunities that whites. I wonder if we should..." Someone else: "Yeah whatever, we have a black president." Someone: "Wow, blacks seem disproportionally undeerserved by the health care sys..." Someone else: "Yeah whatever, we have a black president." Someone: "Wow, homeownership rates among whites seems to dwarf homeownership among bl..." Someone else: "Yeah whatever, we have a black president." I honestly do not give two craps about Obama's skin color, or anyones when it comes to the supreme court or congress, because I think it is a politically superficial shortcut to actually dealing with the issue of race. Clarance Thomas is a perfect example - he is like a vaccination against the Supreme Court getting too black - put a little of the DNA in there just to build enough tolerance to fight it. To me, race is in a category with global climate change and terrorism as the biggest problems in this country. Very few things can touch it, and we'll do whatever we can not to deal with it. It's the most complicated and internal and challenging one, too.
I look forward to the day when you return to responding to my questions or comments without a veiled insult.... This is essentially a "Bring It On" challenge to the righteousness of Americans all. Voters won't have control over the issues on which the campaign is run. Fetishize? Do you fetishize Gay Issues?
It wasn't veiled at all, but I do dearly love being lectured on civility by an Ann Coulter fan. No, it isn't. It's in direct response to the idea that America won't elect a black president regardless of his qualifications. It's a "bring it on" challenge to that, sure. Do you have a problem with challenging that sort of thing? What in the name of Sam Hill is meant by that? You are so freaking weird. I count gay issues as among the most important facing the nation, yes. The issues surrounding gays in this country comprise a vital civil rights struggle and one day, not long from now, Americans who cast votes for Bush in support of his bigoted gay marriage amendment will surely hang their heads in shame just as George Wallace voters did before them. But do I fetishize those issues? No. And it's weird and sophomoric for you to make sex jokes about gay rights just as it is when basso does. I used the term fetishize wrt your serial posting of previously debunked emails because no one here shows anywhere near the passion you do for insisting on debating the merits of chain mails that have already been proven to be without any merit at all.
Coulter is writing about people; you are writing <b>to</b> people. The discussion was of two variable about Obama: 1. His race and 2. His name. You abruptly indicated that putting him up for election would be a referendum on the American Electorate-- and specifically a measure of their lingering racism. You are skipping over holes in Obama's candidacy. Plus there just might be other and better candidates-- of either race of either party. YOu started the fetishism accusations. I'm just reflecting your light. 1. Serial posting? I've posted such a missive about every 6-8 months over six years or so. Your are far more obsessed with some of your pet topics. 2. Nothing that I've ever posted has EVER "been proven to be without any merit at all." Those pieces are legitimately criticized but your shouts of conquest are hollow. 3. Maybe nobody has the passion for them that I do because they've seen them and I haven't?
If he was going to do me and mine more good than harm . . . then why not that is about all we can ask of a politician just don't kill me and mine Rocket River
If all it takes to end your thus far incessant whining about my relative politeness, I'd be happy to write about you rather than to you in the future. In fact, I'll start right now. But I will not be lectured on civility by someone that defends telling widows they're enjoying their husbands' deaths. As usual, giddyup's (see how I did that?) argument is a non-starter. I've said this a couple of different ways, but he (see?) still doesn't get it so I'll try another. Rather than avoid running a black man for president due to worries over a racist electorate, I suggest running a black candidate that is a concensus good to great candidate in order to put that idea to the test. I don't recall suggesting that all people that might vote against him would do so due to his race though some surely would. Nor did I ever suggest, as that harpie witch giddyup (this is even more fun than the other way!) intoned I did, that an Obama loss would prove racism. I only said that, if racism was a concern, I'd be happy to run a great black candidate no matter how many racists might not judge him on his merits. I'll go one further though -- there is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of racists vote Republican if they vote. Those votes would not be lost ones because hard core racists would almost never vote for a Democrat as they view that party as being in favor of affirmative action, political correctness, various forms of welfare and social services and other things that are anathema to racists. This next bit is strictly opinion, but I have a hard time thinking of a single candidate from either party that would run a better, more thoughtful, more exciting campaign than Obama. That doesn't mean that if someone disagrees he's racist. It just is what it is. You'll note here that giddyup (that witch!) again plays the victim. Having upped the ante by turning my colorful language into sexual innuendo about gay people -- with a smilie, no less (harpie!) -- he insinuates that there's something especially wicked about me saying he fetishizes a thing he has shown weirdly steady appreciation for over the years (that sissy!). giddyup admits he has posted somewhere around 12 of these silly things, outpacing anyone else on this board by more than 1,000%. Not to mention the fact that, in each case, he has kept each of those silly threads alive for pages, insisting that people argue the merits of chain mails that have been soundly debunked by snopes.com and others as bogus propaganda, telling fake stories written under fake names. Not only that, but he goes further and mocks snopes as unreliable even while that site's reliability has never been questioned anywhere else. In fact, he is just so desperate to believe in and argue totally debunked fakery that he suggests maybe the exposers of that fakery are the actual fakes. To him that is not extreme. But then, to him, neither is Ann Coulter. In summary, for the many reasons cited above and in the past, giddyup is an incredibly weird dude. And, dammit, I think we're lucky to have him around. This place wouldn't be the same without his bizarre contortions (oh, who could forget the Ted Nugent stuff? If only we had classic D&D moments!) or the Babelfish translations of our own ROXRAN. This place is the greatest.
Oh, and before giddyup gets upset again, I would like to point out that maybe harpie, witch and sissy were terms of endearment where I grew up. I mean, they might have been...
