and he's from Illinois!

makes me proud to be from the land of corn and soybeans.

The most annoying phrases I hear pundits throw around are "this country is not ready for a woman in the white house," and "this country is not ready for a person of color in the White House." I say both those statements are bunk. This country is perfectly ready. Whether Obama or Hilary will get elected, well that's an entirely separate issue. Hillary is still a devisive figure and no one really knows anything substantive about Obama.

and he's from Illinois!

And the land of Lincoln a true Republican. I hope that "card" is all played out now.

I just want to say thank you for giving a shout out to the "mixed-race" folks. I'm hoping for a desi, mixed race, and other brown folks coalition to increase cultural representation of those of us who are racially ambigious according to the white/black binary race standards.

ahhh YEAH! and to think....i got to go to the oprah show january 12, 2005 to see him in person after writing a letter... i knew it the moment i saw him speak at the democratic national convention... he has the 'it' factor, and after seeing him in person, his charisma, character, and grit have won me over COMPLETELY!

obama 2008.

What is the over-under on the time someone comes up with a clever caption matching his last name with Osama? Most likely the primaries. If he makes it past Hillary, then some GOP mastermind like Rove will have a field day with that last name of his. Hopefully, the average American is smarter than that.

"If you’re a brown, black, diasporic, immigrant, mixed-race, or otherwise socially and culturally hybrid, globalization-era American, it looks like someone is seriously getting into the 2008 presidential race who has more in common with you, identity-wise, than any previous presidential candidate."

There have been black candidates for president before, Sid! Jesse Jackson won some primaries in 1984 and 1988 (in '88 he won Michigan). And Shirley Chisholm ran before that.

Jackson was a semi-serious candidate, but I don't think Obama is. He will have been a senator for not even a full term, and before that he was just a state senator. Besides, he admitted in his book to using cocaine, which will be a dealbreaker (Bush 43 probably used coke too, but he denied it, which was the only politically feasible thing to do).

The press will build Obama up over the next year or so like they did with Dean, who in the end won 1 primary (Vermont!) and didn't even (IIRC) come in second place in a single primary! After vats of ink were spilled over him the previous 18 months.

Why does this happen? Because political writers need something to write about, and Obama, because he's half-black and half-white (and a good speaker), seems like a more interesting topic than all the usual whiteys who run and win (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry -- and now, Edwards, Hillary, Biden, etc.)

Now that he's officially in the race, the Barackwater issue will get a lot more scrutiny.

If Democrats field Obama as the presidential or VP candidate, i think Republicans will most probably try to counter with Condi to split the minority vote.

"Hopefully, the average American is smarter than that."

Santosh...they're not...really, really not. And this is the problem. Democratics have to go with a centrist white male if they want to win...forget PR points...although if Romney gets the nod (very unlikely) then even Hillary could win.

whiteguy, you are right. but unlike jesse jackson, this guy has great potential to make it out longer. this news gives great hope and inspiration to many of us who've found our skin tone, ethnicity or creed to be an impediment in our advancement.

i'm very excited.

I like Obama but I don't think he'll be able to carry the party to the WH. He's vulnerable to all sorts of right wing assholery in terms of name and race. Plus, he's been involved in some annoying fights with activist groups on the left that the right could easily use to hurt him ("Obama claims to be a good Christian, but he's been endorsed by [radical liberal group] -- how can we trust him?!").

Also, he's a Senator (strike one) from Illinois, which has one of the most corrupt Democratic parties in the country. While I do believe he himself is clean, I am CERTAIN he has had to make deals with some sleazy charcters to get where he is. That's just how politics works in this state. That may prove disastrous if we run against corruption again.

I personally like Edwards' message and values better. But that's just me.

Such great news!

"The most annoying phrases I hear pundits throw around are "this country is not ready for a woman in the white house," and "this country is not ready for a person of color in the White House."

That totally bugs me too, Sriram. Being "ready?" And why wouldn't we be ready? Why should it matter if the Prez is a woman, black etc.? The fact that it does (matter, I mean), that ppl focus on it so much just shows we're a nation of sexists/racists.

Sid, a question: I can understand why someone of mixed race would identify with Obama, or someone who is black (although Obama has no ancestors who were US slaves), but why would someone who is desi identify with him? His mom is white and his dad is black -- what's the connection to South Asia?

Who cares if someone has more in common with me identity-wise than anyone else? If a political candidate shares my genetics, culture, geography, etc., it doesn't necessarily follow that the candidate will be better able to represent my interests within the government.

After all, who could possibly have more in common with me identity-wise than my own sister? Despite that, I wouldn't vote for her--not only do we hold divergent political opinions, but I'm not sure she'd make a good public servant.

Sure, if there were two candidates who were identical in all respects save race, I may consider that as a tie-breaker and vote for the more similar candidate. However, making a big deal of a candidate's race or sex distracts people from more substantive issues.

What is the over-under on the time someone comes up with a clever caption matching his last name with Osama? Most likely the primaries. If he makes it past Hillary, then some GOP mastermind like Rove will have a field day with that last name of his. Hopefully, the average American is smarter than that.

And his middle name just gives the noisemakers something else to play with as well.

Exciting news. Time to do some more reading.

"vote for him cuz he's also brown" ain't too far from "vote for him cuz he's also Sunni / Shia"

whiteguy, i don't see a sid up there. i think you were referring to me? i'll answer the question anyways. similarly to blacks to this day, some of us desis do still suffer from prejudice due to dark skin tones. and desi's have always identified themselves with and celebrate alongside the lives of fellow minorities. as you've seen in the previous posts. mixed race too is a hot topic in our everyday lives.

you too project37.

I would vote for him because he is brown and I am well......sepia..but I don't think he can win in the present climate.. :(

Man, this will singlehandedly restore global consciousness in America if he makes it as President. Overnight much of the damage to America's image around the world will be restored. Good luck Obama!

Obama may have a harder time winning the support of Black voters than non-Black:

Civil rights leaders who have dominated black politics for much of the past two decades have pointedly failed to embrace the 45-year-old Illinois senator who is considering a bid to become America’s first black president. At a meeting of activists in New York last week, the Rev Jesse Jackson, the first black candidate to run for president, declined to endorse Obama. link

Shlok,

I mean Siddhartha, who blogged the original post.

Obama may have a harder time winning the support of Black voters than non-Black

Vikram, if Oprah endorses him, America will respond with a "Jesse who?"

Ready, not ready, I don't know. I'm still not 100% clear on the man's politics, but I will say this- he recently visited New Hampshire, and was greeted as a rock star might have. In New Hampshire, people. What seems problematic to me is that he has no connections to the South.

Glass wrote: "I would vote for him because he is brown and I am well......sepia.."

No one here finds this unacceptable, or even troubling? This thread rips on white people for being reluctant to vote for a non-white candidate, and here we have a precise mirror image of that sentiment, and it's presented as noble. Isn't that a double standard?

Imagine the sentence, "I would vote for Edwards instead of Obama because he's white."

I can't find any data on what % of South Asian-American Democrats voted for Jesse Jackson in the '84 and '88 primaries. Anyone happen to know?

Whiteguy:

Minorities are often accused of practising double standards...and it's true in some cases.
But you can't just ignore the past that they've gone through..and expect them to make a decision based solely on the present.

I mean Siddhartha, who blogged the original post.

Oh, well then call me by my name, won't you?

As for the desi connection: Ultimately, everything is maya.

"WhiteGuy"

This thread rips on white people for being reluctant to vote for a non-white candidate, and here we have a precise mirror image of that sentiment, and it's presented as noble. Isn't that a double standard?

Nothing on this thread has done anything of that sort up until now. Quite the contrary, in fact (see Sriram #2, for example). Therefore, your statement is inflammatory and of a trollish nature.

Everyone: Please do not feed the trolls.

It is the independent vote that will key for Obama or Hillary in 2008 and a moderate GOP contender who could cause some of the far right not to vote.

I don't think terrorists are gonna say, there a brown person in office, so no more death to america

ya... he's so not winning...

Siddhartha wrote: "Nothing on this thread has done anything of that sort up until now."

Well, what about:

**"He's vulnerable to all sorts of right wing assholery in terms of name and race."

**"Hopefully, the average American is smarter than that." Santosh...they're not...really, really not. And this is the problem. Democrats have to go with a centrist white male if they want to win." (emphasis mine)

I don't understand your "everything is maya" comment, Siddhartha. Clarify for me?

Whiteguy:

If you find that acceptable, how can you then in the next breath criticize a white American for expressing the same sentiment?

First of all, I'd like to make it clear that I'm an Indian citizen and my vote counts in India, not here in the US. So you should read my comments as that of an 'informed' desi living in US (for the last 10 yrs)...who has interest in current affairs and politics.

I personally know a lot of people who'll vote for Obama because of his skin color...but I know a lot more who won't vote for him for the same reason.
Now to answer your question...Yes, I do find it ridiculous for someone to decide his/her candidate based on skin color.

Not trying to feed the trolls, but the original comment below does warrant some closer reading, perhaps:

it looks like someone is seriously getting into the 2008 presidential race who has more in common with you, identity-wise, than any previous presidential candidate

Elaborate on this. Does it have to do with the black/sepia connection, or does Obama have "more in common with you, identity-wise" for other reasons? Would it be possible to say the same something similar about Condi or Clarence Thomas, both of who I wouldn't want to have a damn thing -- identity-wise or otherwise -- in common with?

I think the nation's ready. Racism has been taboo for a long time now. I think we're at the stage where many whites will vote for a black man but won't let him marry their daughter. racism is complex, inconsistent, its not black or white.

But Obama too much of a newbie and too liberal, though a possible VP candidate. Stature matters in presidential politics even if its just perceived (like GHW Bush's stature rubbing off on W). The dems will demand a real anti-war candidate this time, edwards and clinton fail this test, so that leaves Gore...who has already won once. If he loses weigth that seels it. Americans repect nobody more than a weightloser. just look at oprah.

i predict gore vs. romney.

Huh? I know there will be members of other racial groups that won't vote for Obama after the right runs through its playbook of manipulative tactics.

And there will be white people who vote for him solely because he's black too. The joys of democracy.

Siddhartha, if you would not consider it "trolling," I would be interested in your thoughts on the apparent double standard I pointed out above (that a desi can say "I would vote for X because he is brown," but a white person who said the same thing would be considered racist).

Gore in 2008? hell yeah that would be great. As long as that idiot Ralph Nader does't run again.

I think America is ready for a "non white-male" president. He already has a lot of exposure and if he can hold a positive image he might just have a good shot. Being a fellow minority is not a reason to vote, but the positive effect of a minority president for America is a good reason to vote for him. As long as he passes a few tests on his ideologies. He gives no reason for the white majority to be worried, does he?

Manju

Why do you think Obama is too liberal?

Personally, I don't think he's articulated any sort of well-defined ideological vision at all. Is it just the (D) behind his name?

but why would someone who is desi identify with him

Being non white, living in the US, he is sensitive to those issues that only a non-white is capable of experiencing.

Being President in the 21th century the job is more about foreign policy issues. Most domestic issues are now more the job of congress and the senate.

Whiteguy,

It is understandable that a space such as this will attract commenters whose worldview is mostly colored by their ethnicity (or, in fewer cases, by their identification as "people of color"), and many others to whom ethnic identity politics is legitimate (if not fruitful) but white identity politics is verboten. Isn't it illuminating that you were promptly marked as a troll for writing a rational and politely worded comment?

You may console yourself imagining a parallel universe called India, where at this very moment, folks frequenting a Muslim blog are piling on a poor Hindu commenter for daring to suggest that it is unfair that Muslims vote as a bloc.

I think Obama's magic is Bob Marley magic, and people will vote for him

Being of sikh background I was talking to my uncle who came back from visting India. He said despite a sikh being the Prime Minster he didn't see how things were any different in India.

Why do you think Obama is too liberal?

I based that on various rankings of his voting record, like this form the NY Times:

According to a ranking by National Journal, Mr. Obama’s voting record is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate, compared with 79.8 percent for Mrs. Clinton. The American Conservative Union gave him a ranking of 8. By comparison, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, received a ranking of 83.

But I could be wrong. It could be pre-mature as its important to look at the details and the hot-button issues. He has plenty of time to reject the kennedy wing and position himself as mainstream.

He is the Kennedy wing; RFK all the way baby

Sisyphus :

You may console yourself imagining a parallel universe called India, where at this very moment, folks frequenting a Muslim blog are piling on a poor Hindu commenter for daring to suggest that it is unfair that Muslims vote as a bloc.

A bit offtopic:

In many repects, Muslims and women are fairly well represented in the Indian political system as compared to the US system (for blacks and women).
You'll not hear debates in India discussing "Is india ready for a women prime-minister" or a "sikh prime minister".

RFK all the way baby

And he really looks like RFK. He needs to invade Cuba like JFK to show he's moderate.

Sisyphus,

I'm not saying it's unfair for South Asians (or any other group) to vote in a bloc if that's what they want to do. All I'm saying is that it seems like an obvious double standard to then turn around and say that whites can't do the same thing, which was the clear implication of several posts upthread.

Siddhartha took exception to that interpretation, but I don't think he'd say it's OK for whites to vote in an ethnic blog. Again, though, I would be interested in his thoughts on that.

WhiteGuy (regarding #31):
I do think the average American is smarter than you give them credit for but they have these issues:
1. A dearth of decent moderate candidates for President (as evident in 00 and 04).
2. Inclination for emotional manipulation specially when it comes to god and country.
3. Propensity to go with the tried and tested guy (read: regular old white guy Bush, Clinton and other 40 something guys before them) over the unknown candidate with potential (woman: Hillary, colored guy: Obama, colored woman: Condi).

It will improve. I just dont see it happening in 08.

Manju, you sully the name of a good man by casting politically motivated aspersions ;-)

believe in the dream

No one here finds this unacceptable, or even troubling? This thread rips on white people for being reluctant to vote for a non-white candidate, and here we have a precise mirror image of that sentiment, and it's presented as noble. Isn't that a double standard?

F all the he said she said. Obama 08. Nuff said

LOL at Sisyphus. I knew most of these Hindu right wingers were just like their counterparts in America. Muslims are some of the poorest people in a poor ass country like India. Desis in America are some of the richest in a rich country. Very different comparisions. I don't even think Whiteguy is even a right winger,hes just asking a logical question to which nobody has given him a straight answer.

The reason people say it's normatively wrong is that when majorities form ethnic voting blocs, it usually leads to Really Bad Things happening to minorities. This country had 200 years of experience with that, which almost erupted into open violent resistance if not for the heroic efforts of Dr. King, and it would, like, really suck to go back to that.

Minorities don't have the same social power. Even if all of us banded together to vote for a candidate (HIGHLY unlikely), there would be no way to get him or her into power without at least engaging with the majority group.

Santosh--

I wasn't saying that the average American isn't very smart it my post #31, I was quoting Glass Houses from her/his post upthread (#10). There were a lot of quotation marks floating around which made that unclear.

I don't see any reason why Americans wouldn't vote for a well-qualified woman and/or black person. Sure, some whites would vote for virtually any white candidate over virtually any black candidate, but a lot of whites champ at the bit to elect decent black leaders since it alleviates their white guilt to a degree. But Obama is way underqualified to be president (so was our current president, though, so that's not really a data point in my favor!).

Harvard Law degree on merit, and he's underqualified? Does he need an IQ of 170? He might have one anyway

He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run. JFK, a bit more. Lincoln didn't have a strong resume coming into office, and he turned out to be a great president.

Also Grant, Ford, Johnson. Not great examples of strong presidents, maybe, but they also reached office with limited experience.

I don't see any reason why Americans wouldn't vote for a well-qualified woman and/or black person.

Aye, as my friend the melancholy Dane once said, there is the rub.

Much lies in what we don't see.

Harvard Law degree on merit, and he's underqualified?

Neal,

Then by your logic, when America becomes less than 50% white in a few decades, whites may then acceptably vote as an ethnic bloc?

Emiliano Zapata '08

I don't see any reason why Americans wouldn't vote for a well-qualified woman and/or black person.

See my above reasons. That is exactly why they wont vote for such a person.

Underqualified in what sense? Does he know how to play the political game? He probably learned plenty in Illinois, there are few places where politics is not more bruising. The underqualified label is a red herring which has no substantive basis. Intelligence-wise, he is up there with few of the people running, and political acumen-wise, he has more than enough of a proving ground

I could be wrong, but I'm feeling some anti-Obama vibes from the black liberal civil rights establisment. Obviously, Sharpton's not too happy and is looking to take away some black votes with his vanity campaign. Harry Belafonte and Jesse Jackson have said some negative stuff. I haven't seen harry this annoyed since communism fell.

I think he's looked upon as a bit of an outsider, maybe even "not black enough," like cory booker. so some of the "grass roots" excitement we're seeing on this thread does not extend to his natural base. I think, demeanor wise, he's much more palpatable to white liberals and desi liberals...ie, he's culturally a cappacino sipping ivy-leaguer. In this way, american desis have much more in common with white liberals than anyone else, no matter how much we protest otherwise. Its really the liberal press thats gone ga ga.

but maybe in this day and age Oprah's endorsement means more. I recall JFK's and RFK's strategey was too host tea parties with their mom to win the womens vote...who then turn around and tell their husbands who to vote for. Oprah is the modern day rose kennedey tea party. Arnold and W know this.

Then by your logic, when America becomes less than 50% white in a few decades, whites may then acceptably vote as an ethnic bloc?

Not if they are still the largest ethnic group.

Kobayashi, you clipped my post disingenuously. In the very next line I added the precise nuance you're claiming I missed.

He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run.

RFK was the attorney general of US and then a US Senator before he considered Presidential run.

That too an attorney general during civil rights movement, and height of mafia crackdown. Also, a Cuban Crisis veteran. Both of them along with being a goodlooking Kennedey had already made him a household name.

Kobayashi, you clipped my post disingenuously.

What to do? It's the only part of you available for clipping.

zapata vive vive, la lucha....

Then by your logic, when America becomes less than 50% white in a few decades, whites may then acceptably vote as an ethnic bloc?

Well, first of all, while minority growth in the US is growing such that it is possible for white people to be reduced to a 'mere' plurality instead of a clear majority in a few decades, the numbers of registered voters who feel safe participating in the process will take far longer to reach that point. Especially with serious abuses of power like the 2000 Florida election depressing registration and turnout. And, of course, holding a plurality still makes you the largest single ethnic group, so the argument I made above still applies.

And it will take even longer for the great mass of non-white Americans to accumlate anything matching the economic or cultural representation of white America.

Given the history of this country (what with the slavery, concentration camps, lynchings, ghettoes, and the like), it is likely that anyone who proposes a political party or movement based on "white unity" will be denounced as a racist. That's just how it is. Our history shows that the greatest threats to pluralism and equal rights have come from such movements. That may not be "fair" from a detached, idealistic perspective, but from a pragmatic perspective it makes perfect sense.

Santosh, I take it you mean reason #3 in post #50 because the first two reasons aren't specifically race/gender related? If so, then I see your point but I don't think it's enough to keep out a well-qualified black or female candidate. I could be wrong, but we recently came within

I didn't mean Obama was underqualified in terms of education or intelligence, I meant he doesn't have enough political experience at a high enough level yet. Senators generally don't get into the White House anyway, and a first-termer? Not gonna happen for Obama, at least in '08.

No one's mentioned the cocaine thing besides me, but that's a big ugly political problem for him. And it's right there in detail in his book, so he can't backpedal.

The way you do politics seems to be to have people accept you in increments. People know about his faults, they have the next few weeks or months to decide if that disqualifies him

KarmaByte writes:

"Not if they are still the largest ethnic group."

KB, then if a country is 40% ethnic group X, 35% ethnic group Y, and 25% smaller groups, Y may vote as an ethnic bloc but X may not?

I didn't mean Obama was underqualified in terms of education or intelligence, I meant he doesn't have enough political experience at a high enough level yet. Senators generally don't get into the White House anyway, and a first-termer? Not gonna happen for Obama, at least in '08.

At what level of experience is neccessary? Sitting on committees year after year where your views become calificied and you don't have the chance to get up the verve to really change the direction of the country? Name me a long-term Senator who made a good president and I'll buy you an Obama 08 bumper sticker

No one's mentioned the cocaine thing besides me, but that's a big ugly political problem for him. And it's right there in detail in his book, so he can't backpedal.

not sure it's going to hurt him. b/f clinton an affair was political death. everyone knows W tooted and no one belives the denials. dems will pull an effective tu quoque if repubs bring it up. small issue at best.

but you're right about inexperience. stature matters at this level. he knows it. he's playing for the vp ticket. but he looks presidential, whatever that means.

Sahej, you're preaching to the choir with me on this point. I'd love to term-limit Congress and fill it with a new round of schoolteachers and doctors and such every few years instead of the same corrupt career politicians. But the presidency is different -- you do need to hold some high-level political jobs for a while. The only exception to that is a general in the military.

And my car sucks (do NOT buy a mid-90s Jetta, people), so don't bother with the bumper sticker.

whiteguy...

in case you haven't noticed, there's a obvious racial power structure in our society. there's a reason "all the black kids sit together in the cafeteria". people of color want to support each other b/c most of us have been systemically marginalized. i don't think siddhartha is saying we should vote for obama purely b/c he's another poc. rather, he's someone we should consider, because as a fellow minority, there's a higher chance he'd be more empathatic and knowledgeable about our issues. on the other hand, minorities constantly find themselves having to "expain" themselves to white people. an obvious example would be you.

check this out:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html#daily

most notably #10
"I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race."

Name me a long-term Senator who made a good president and I'll buy you an Obama 08 bumper sticker

I know this one will cause some controversy, but I'd argue that Lyndon Johnson was at least a decent President.

YES, YES I KNOW, VIETNAM. Granted. But there are good things too (at least from my admittedly liberal perspective). Medicare is huge, and he also started major attempts to get a handle on issues like environmentalism and poverty. But the biggest positive things were the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. I think the legal end of segregation at least balances the idiocy of escalating Vietnam.

To win the Presidency in this climate, you must belong to the brotherhood of white, male and preferably, "born again," Christians.

That effectively eliminates Barack, Hillary and Mitt Romney. (Mormonism is an American religion, but is still considered weird and/or cultish by a large body of Americans.)

Its up for grabs. Perhaps the right good old boy has yet to emerge.

Given the history of this country (what with the slavery, concentration camps, lynchings, ghettoes, and the like), it is likely that anyone who proposes a political party or movement based on "white unity" will be denounced as a racist.

I agree.

White guy,

You know very well that white numbers are declining in such a manner that before long, they will represent a "mere" plurality of the peoples of the republic. As such, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to be at work articulating common values of citizenship for the Babel that America has become, rather than retreating into ethnic resentment, which you know has precious little support among most whites anyway? Or are you counting on an increase in resentment in the future?

You could say LBJ was a senator while being president; putting into practice the ideas generated from the Kennedy years. Although maybe he was the impetus behing the Great Society idea, not sure

I could be wrong, but I'm feeling some anti-Obama vibes from the black liberal civil rights establisment. Obviously, Sharpton's not too happy and is looking to take away some black votes with his vanity campaign. Harry Belafonte and Jesse Jackson have said some negative stuff.

I think he's looked upon as a bit of an outsider, maybe even "not black enough," like cory booker.

Jesse actually has said good things about Senator Obama. And I'll add that it is innaccurate to look at Sharpton and Jesse and other so called black leaders as representative voices of black america. I commented on this somewhere else:

I think my biggest issue with Senator Obama is that he has been completely mum about issues on race. And understandibly so. If I were white, I’d probably be enamoured with him too. But I wonder if he really has ANY thoughts at all on race in this country. That said I understand the double edged sword: Identify with the culture of victimization that has taken hold in the black community and he will undoubtedly lose the support of white voters… but start saying anything that sounds remotely conservative (and I’m willing to bet he leans right on these issues) and he may as well be Justice Thomas to black folks. He’s being safe, but that’s leaving me unsold as well.

That aside, the conversations I've had among black people are that 1. they think its too early and white liberal america is setting our boy up for failure and 2. they fear for his life if he actually gets elected.

I am hoping for an Obama-Edwards ticket-- although I would love to see a good liberal woman (more liberal than hillary although i like her) become president, too. The public will fault both candidates for being political 'neophytes', but I believe we can benefit from their idealism and move forward as a nation.

The key is for the Democratic party to present a unified platform in 2008 and demonstrate full support of the candidate that wins the primaries. We should be fearless in embracing true liberalism and unyielding in our quest for economic and social equality for all.

He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run.

RFK was the attorney general of US and then a US Senator before he considered Presidential run.

That too an attorney general during civil rights movement, and height of mafia crackdown. Also, a Cuban Crisis veteran. Both of them along with being a goodlooking Kennedey had already made him a household name.

I'm not saying his inexperience is on the same level as Obama's. But RFK served as a senator for as long as Obama will have in '08. Also among Obama's accomplishments was a stay in the state senate of Illinois.

The legacy of LBJ is almost comparable to FDR.

A small synopsis from PBS

Born: August 27, 1908; Stonewall, Texas... Lyndon Johnson was the first president to appoint an African American to the Supreme Court. On June 13, 1967, Johnson named Thurgood Marshall, the great-grandson of a slave, to sit on the highest court in the land...Visions of a Great Society swallowed up in the quagmire of Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson exploited his mastery of the legislative process to shepherd a collection of progressive programs, rivaling those of FDR's New Deal, through Congress with astounding success. An unpopular and costly war, however, eroded his political base and left him an exile within his own White House... Died: January 22, 1973.

Oh, sorry Manju, I slightly misread your comment. I'm still annoyed at this article.

Risible wrote:

You know very well that white numbers are declining in such a manner that before long, they will represent a "mere" plurality of the peoples of the republic. As such, wouldn't it be more prudent for you to be at work articulating common values of citizenship for the Babel that America has become, rather than retreating into ethnic resentment, which you know has precious little support among most whites anyway? Or are you counting on an increase in resentment in the future?

Risible, are "common values of citizenship" enough to hold a country together? I don't know, which is why I favor ending illegal immigration to the U.S., reducing legal immigration, and returning to an assimilationist model instead of the multicultural model that's been in place since the 1960s.

I don't think "retreating into ethnic resentment" is a fair characterization of my posts on this thread. I am pointing out what I view as a double standard in our political discourse and engaging in civil discourse with people who are attempting to show me that I am wrong. I am not big on white nationalism, but I do wonder about the correctness of the assumption that a multiethnic society can exist peacefully without an assimilationist model of immigration.

As someone pointed out on the thread yesterday, Steve Sailer has a thought-provoking cover story in the current American Conservative about this called "Fragmented Future: Diversity Without Community".

I think my biggest issue with Senator Obama is that he has been completely mum about issues on race. And understandibly so.

yeah, that's it oneup. but beyond the issue of appealing to whites while not wanting to lose blacks, i think he needs to be careful not to demote himself down to the level of jackson and sharpton or buchanan...vanity campaigns that were meant to further a particular interest group. he's being taken very seriously now, like colin powell a few years back.

He's been very good at appearing presidential...talking about war, peace, and prosperity.

Barack:

like Oprah, only BETTER :)

I am such a fan.

I just hope the media don't build him up to be the saviour of all of America's ills and then tear him down (a la Blair). He looks a lot more sensitive than Bill Clinton and I hope he's treated well by the press.

So, so, so time for a CHANGE :)

Oh, sorry Manju, I slightly misread your comment. I'm still annoyed at this article.

no prob...i can see why you'd be annoyed.

But I wonder if he really has ANY thoughts at all on race in this country. That said I understand the double edged sword: Identify with the culture of victimization that has taken hold in the black community and he will undoubtedly lose the support of white voters… but start saying anything that sounds remotely conservative (and I’m willing to bet he leans right on these issues) and he may as well be Justice Thomas to black folks.

I think you're right, any minority candidate that wants any political future has to diffuse race to an issue of the past, and tow the "We're all red, white, and blue!" line anything less would completely alienate the white voter block.. which surely exists.

WhiteGuy,

KB, then if a country is 40% ethnic group X, 35% ethnic group Y, and 25% smaller groups, Y may vote as an ethnic bloc but X may not?

white people for being reluctant to vote for a non-white candidate

here we have a precise mirror image of that sentiment, and it's presented as noble.

And I don't think anyone made that out to be noble! That's just a convenient word for your argument. But that sentiment is seen as practical, though I myself don't think it is sensible.

Whiteguy,
Nice agenda. Listen in on the chatter of the poor, unwashed masses. Provoke them just so much. Just enough so the majority can cry - "Now look who is the victim?"

I am a self-proclaimed Obamamaniac.

If Hillary gets in the race too, though, it becomes a which "first" is more important -- the first woman president or the first non-white president? I've been annoyed by this debate with friends, particularly those in the Hillary camp. Some argue that a white woman has a better shot at this point than a black man to be elected president in America.

I say that if America was ready for Colin Powell (who decided not to run in 2000 because his family thought he would be assasinated), it's ready for Obama.

As for whether Obama has enough of the traditional civil rights support, that's an esoteric issue for the punditry to debate. I think it's hard to imagine that he loses significant numbers of black voters to a Hillary or a John Edwards. His bigger problem will be in generating support among diehard Dem partisans (who worship the Clintons), because his talk so far is very "post partisan," along the lines of rising above partisanship and finding common ground. That makes it tough for him in the primaries.

Ok, I tried to stay out of it but have a hard time when it comes to posts about my man, Barack Obama. :)

If Hillary gets in the race too, though, it becomes a which "first" is more important -- the first woman president or the first non-white president? I've been annoyed by this debate with friends, particularly those in the Hillary camp. Some argue that a white woman has a better shot at this point than a black man to be elected president in America.

I say Barack would make a great running-mate, whether for Pres or VP. Let him pull in the "purple" great lake states. What do John Edwards or Hilary bring in terms of electoral votes? Not much. I am still rooting for running a Dem governor instead of a (ex)Senator :)

I'm not saying it's unfair for South Asians (or any other group) to vote in a bloc if that's what they want to do. All I'm saying is that it seems like an obvious double standard to then turn around and say that whites can't do the same thing, which was the clear implication of several posts upthread.

It's not a double standard. What shared experiences do whites have that could justify a unified platform that's distinct from other ethnic groups? In fact, what common experiences do whites have period that aren't definied as a negative. i.e. whites as a group are not profiled at airports, whites as a group are not jailed disproportionately to their population, whites as a group are not denied jobs because of the names on their resumes... please do not bring up AA.

The only true "stereotypes" levied against whites is they can't rap or shoot the jam. Hardly issues to warrant a distinct voting block.

obama would be a great candidate in '12, but i don't think he's that qualified now, especially on matters of foreign policy and national security. if gore runs, a gore-obama ticket would be strong (but i'd still prefer gore-clark).

WhiteGuy,
You remind me of guys in blue shirts who form support groups against Indian programmers who take their jobs. Welcome to a changing world. Try to tell us what your gut feeling is about immigrants and "others" and we will listen. Don't use reflection/deflection/refraction to prove your points.

Sid, a question: I can understand why someone of mixed race would identify with Obama, or someone who is black (although Obama has no ancestors who were US slaves), but why would someone who is desi identify with him? His mom is white and his dad is black -- what's the connection to South Asia? - White Guy

It's a shame that a very valid question has been dismissed as trollish, Well this blog is a master at double standards. Its charter says it's strictly South Asian but the bloggers frequently depart in their posts to accommodate Persian Muslims, Blacks, Palestinians and other such supposedly disadvantaged people. It's all about the us ( people of color ) vs them ( White Man ) parochial mentality. The insecurity that the White Man will play us against one another. The very assertion that I, a desi feels culturally much closer to a White person than a Black person is anathema to many here. You'll be made fun of for saying that. Just glance at a few recent posts - no opportunity is wasted here to somehow revise anthropology and make us believe that we are actually Black.

This is the second post on Obama in as many days. It's not the first! What charm and political skills does this man have that many other in public life don't? Actually it's the color of his skin that is his single biggest plus point. And who are the people cheering him the most - Whites. Still on this site you'll hear to no end about the rampant racism that's devouring America.

What about Obama's... um... gorgeous factor? Seems like studies have shown that people pick the best-looking person unless the other candidate has some overwhelming qualification. I'm thinking of Kennedy v. Nixon, where the people who heard the presidential debates on the radio thought Nixon was smarter but the people who saw them on TV... well, they fell in love with JFK.

Seems like his gorgeousness (both physically and personally) will trump Hillary. Is there any way to guarantee that the Republicans run a really fugly guy?

Lest I am accused of being shallow, remember, we're the country of American Idol now, where looks are everything. Once he's in, he can start changing the world. Until then, let's make sure he gets the best photo ops possible.

obama would be a great candidate in '12, but i don't think he's that qualified now, especially on matters of foreign policy and national security.

Yeah, that's the standard refrain I keep hearing from my well-intentioned Dem friends. But, it's undeniable that Obama has that special charismatic, inspirational "it" factor that the other major candidates lack. I think those magnetic qualities are perhaps the most important thing to voters, especially at a time when we feel so betrayed by our leaders.

As for ability to handle foreign policy and national security, all presidents are briefed on a daily basis by people much more knowledgeable than them about these issues. I want the decision-maker to be smart at analyzing the facts presented and understanding the world. Obama has exhibited those qualities. I'm no foreign policy expert, but just as a child of immigrants who traveled to India frequently as a child on trips to visit family, I often feel that I (like most of the people on this board) probably have a better understanding of other cultures and the world than the people involved in making the decision to invade Iraq, and then attempting to impose American-style democracy in the Middle East. Granted, that's not saying much, but still, a great President doesn't have to have been chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in Congress for decades.

On Gore, to his credit, he did win the election in 2000 (even without the charisma). But Gore had his shot. He needs to keep doing what he's good at -- championing environmental education and reforms.

I want the decision-maker

I think you meant 'decider'.

Dude, if "hottie-factor" is an issue then why is everyone ignoring Edwards?

The very assertion that I, a desi feels culturally much closer to a White person than a Black person is anathema to many here. You'll be made fun of for saying that.

You'll be made fun of for saying you communicate to Jimmy Hoffa through a rotten pinneapple as well. whats your point?

feels culturally much closer to a White person

barack hussein obama is technically an apostate :-) (i.e., his father was a muslim, ergo, he is a muslim)

whats your point? - HMF

I can't preach to the hidebound. My point's clear to those who have their minds open and who are not beholden to " we the people of color " mentality.

It's a shame that a very valid question has been dismissed as trollish, Well this blog is a master at double standards.

I can't preach to the hidebound. My point's clear to those who have their minds open and who are not beholden to " we the people of color " mentality.

Terrible, you're against the "we the people of color" mentality, but you're hanging out on a site called Sepia Mutiny, one on which the password is brown.

Now, I know the internet is tiny, and there are hardly any other pages for you to while away your time on.

But, really, what are you doing here? What are you looking for among a self-selected society of the "hidebound"? It's a bit like proclaiming abstinence on the set of a porno-film (which I've done and which, I'll tell you, is unbelievably frustrating: they just wouldn't listen).

Wow, Terrible, can you please talk about what "White" culture means?

which I've done and which, I'll tell you, is unbelievably frustrating: they just wouldn't listen

Sure it wasn't your abstinence that was causing your frustration ?

It's a bit like proclaiming abstinence on the set of a porno-film (which I've done and which, I'll tell you, is unbelievably frustrating: they just wouldn't listen).

Actually, if your preaching abstinence, the folks on the porno set would make appropriate targets...albeit a hard ones.

Based on what? Affluence? I CANNOT think of any other reason

Socialisation. Acculturation. Environment one grew up in. Friends circle. Tastes. There could be MANY reasons.

Actually, if your preaching abstinence, the folks on the porno set would make appropriate targets...albeit a hard ones

Hard to preach to the "porn again" crowd...they've already experienced the "rapture"

do you think the fact that he is mixed-race will detract votes from a substansial portion of the minority community?

With a name like Barack Hussein Obama he seems to be destined to solve the intractable arab-israeli problem:

Barack as in Ehud Barak the recent Israeli Prime Minister (wonder why no one mentions this)

Hussein as in the recently hanged Saddam Hussein, secular nationalistic arab hero and enemy of Israel

Obama as (almost) in Osama bin Laden, iconic leader of the fundamentalist muslim jihad against the West (aka crusaders and jews)

Seriously, this is not the time in history to shoot for the first black or the first woman president just to begin evening the score against white males. I recommend Rudy Guiliani for Republican candidate in 2008, to run for the Presidency against Al Gore. Could happen. If Rudy wins (which would be my bet) he would become the first italian-american president, and the second nominally catholic one. That would be a score against anglo domination too.

Part of Obama's attraction is his christian beliefs. Here's someone whose father and stepfather were both muslims and who is now a christian. That must warm the heart of many an evangelical. Hillary too is playing up her protestant christian faith. Guiliani as a liberal/freethinking catholic would be a breath of fresh air.

cc said, "He has just as much experience as RFK did when he was considering a run. JFK, a bit more."
What are they teaching in PoliSci these days?
In 1960, the country didn't think it was a great idea that JFK's barely 35 year old brother should be AG, but the new elected President quipped, "I don't know what's wrong with Bobby getting a little experience before he goes out to practice law."
When JFK was asked by a famous reporter what he had done (in a governmental sense) for the women of American, he replied, "Well Mrs. Gray, I'm sure I haven't done enough."
Until you make friends and enemies for what you do, not for what you are, you haven't done enough in politics.
There's a great book, Being There, by Jerzy Kozinski. The 1980 movie starred Peter Sellers in his last role. It was as prescient of the current situation as that other Peter Sellers' film, Dr. Strangelove.
My take on Obama: while he's obviously of particular interest, most of the candidates for president haven't made much sense. Certainly he's better than the current inhabitant of the White House. In order to get to that level in politics requires extreme compromise of any ethics and honesty. I know whereof I speak. But that could be true in many professions--it is just that politics affects so many more people potentially. Only the most sociopathic make it that high.
speaking of which...
Back to RFK. Aside from growing up in a family that was determined to put at least one member in the White House by 1960, RFK, by the time he ran for president, had served as counsel during the 1950s in a senate sub-committee on organized crime. He did it aggressively enough to make permanent and mortal enemies of J. Edgar Hoover, Jimmy Hoffa, and much of the criminal underworld, not to mention ostensibly "legitimate" upper-world pols. Once JFK won the presidency, RFK promptly and tactlessly dropped all Mafia connections. Giancana, Roselli and et. al: They no happy.
Three years as Attorney General, which included the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement, and forestalling nuclear war.
Whatever one may have thought of RFK, experience he did have by the time he ran.

All in all, I think Obama, even with scarcely any credentials, is still a better choice that W. After all, the nation is sick and needs a doctor. And the Hippocratic oath states, first, do no harm.

Just glance at a few recent posts - no opportunity is wasted here to somehow revise anthropology and make us believe that we are actually Black.

Hmmm, Krishna and Rama were black-skinned as in shyama sundara (black and beautiful). As was Veda Vyasa the architect of hinduism as we know it, who arranged the Vedas and wrote the 18 Puranas including the Mahabharata (of which the 'hindu bible' the Bhagavad Gita is a part).

Yes in America blacks are those who look like they have some african in them, even someone as light as Colin Powell. But, objectively speaking, black skin color isnt only limited to Africans. It is also common in South Asia, some Pacific Islands, Australia etc. So the american use of the word black as a racial classification is nonsensical. Ditto for white, since many if not most east asians are "white" skinned.

WhiteGuy,

I don't see any reason why Americans wouldn't vote for a well-qualified woman and/or black person.

Risible, are "common values of citizenship" enough to hold a country together? I don't know, which is why I favor ending illegal immigration to the U.S., reducing legal immigration, and returning to an assimilationist model instead of the multicultural model that's been in place since the 1960s.

On one hand you claim americans are color & gender blind and vote based on qualification. You also claim "common values of citizenship" are not good enough to hold a country. In the same breath you accuse people here of voting based purely on race/color. Explain the double(triple ?) standards.

P.S: I read yesterdays thread after it was closed. It was funny to see a Gandhian influenced White supremacist telling brown folks on MLKs birthday "Be the man"

Whatever one may have thought of RFK, experience he did have by the time he ran.

ooookay. And what about Lincoln? Seems to me, the two are comparable as far as "prior experience" is concerned.

ooookay. And what about Lincoln? Seems to me, the two are comparable as far as "prior experience" is concerned.

By 'the two', I meant Lincoln and Obama.

desi's have always identified themselves with and celebrate alongside the lives of fellow minorities

The very assertion that I, a desi feels culturally much closer to a White person than a Black person...

Also, the comment

desi's have always identified themselves with and celebrate alongside the lives of fellow minorities

Bye.

I can understand why someone of mixed race would identify with Obama, or someone who is black (although Obama has no ancestors who were US slaves), but why would someone who is desi identify with him? His mom is white and his dad is black -- what's the connection to South Asia?

Just read Obama's autobiography. He is the son of an educated immigrant who attended university in the US. He is us.

Obama's autobiography, Dreams from my Father, written shortly after he served as the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review.

He is the son of an educated immigrant who attended university in the US. He is us.

His Kenyan father abandoned him and his white american mother when he was still a baby, and went off to Harvard leaving them in Hawaii. He was not an immigrant since he went back to Kenya for good.

That reminds me of another very prominent and very adored american who was also abandoned by his foreign student father: Steve Jobs of Apple, the Leonardo Da Vinci of american technology, who was hogging the limelight just last week. His biological father was arab.

Interestingly, Leonardo Da Vinci, the genius par excellence of the Renaissance, was also part-arab.

#122,

desi's have always identified themselves with and celebrate alongside the lives of fellow minorities

- this comment is somewhat similar to

The very assertion that I, a desi feels culturally much closer to a White person than a Black person...

i fail to see any correlation.

isn't speaking for me or all desis.

so you are?

Bye

brimful --

What seems problematic to me is that he has no connections to the South.

I don't think the road to the WH for Democrats goes through the South anymore -- it's by thinking that it does that Democrats have fallen short, because they simply can't win in the deep South no matter who they nominate. Rather, the key for Democrats is, um, well, the Midwest. ;)

Doordarshan --

If Rudy wins (which would be my bet) he would become the first italian-american president, and the second nominally catholic one.

He also would be the first one in awhile who is truly, certifiably insane.

I'll vote or not vote for Obama based on what his views are in a number of different areas. It has nothing to do with his skin color, or his ethnicity. If somehow these things play a part and make him a more "appealing" candidate to me, then fine, but it makes sense for me to vote based on the merits of his qualifications.

Sad the amount of beating up that non-desis get on this site. Even a little is unacceptable. We sepias shouldn't get a free pass.

i am joining obama's campaign. this man has my heart AND time. obama obama obama 2008!

though it comes from two different ends of the spectrum. However, I notice only the second person gets picked.

There were multiple attempts to get him to explain/expand on the statement, but he declined. Again: what exactly does "white" culture mean? What specific experiences unite the great mass of "white" people?

Without explaining that, the second statement comes down to: "just don't associate me with 'the blacks'". Which, yes, is going to be a problem when the subject of the post is "DUDE OBAMA ROCKS, YEAH!"

We of the TV generation have made the inevitable error of choosing our leaders based on sound bites and their TVgenic personalities rather than their actions and performance. But that's the nature of television. It compresses and oversimplifies.

The bright minds that populate this site are not of the TV generation but the Internet generation, and the internet is such a handy tool for researching and digging the facts on a candidate, by which I mean his voting record in the senate and his actual stance, not purported beliefs, in issues. So why is this Internet generation so hung up on this guy's "it" factor. I haven't read anything factual yet about Obama in this thread.

Ultimately the election will still be decided in TV land, because people would rather watch than read, but in this day and age of instant research, it will be very sad if Obama wins only because his "common man story" succeeds in catching a hundred million voters on the rebound from the present administration and there is no informational counterbalance provided by the Internet generation.

the subject of the post is "DUDE OBAMA ROCKS, YEAH!"

I am sorry that it appeared this way. In no way am I endorsing or cheering for a damn thing. I am a working journalist and for the purposes of a public site I have no political affiliation. My point is that the presence in the presidential campaign of a person who is at once mixed race, second gen immigrant, person of color, only half American origin, and middle class/highly educated, with a very strong chance of going far in the campaign, should make for some interesting new developments that will be relevant to the South Asian community. What developments, and how, and with what consequences, is something that the coming months will show. Feel free to agree or disagree, and if you disagree, I don't respect you any less for it.

"ooookay. And what about Lincoln? Seems to me, the two are comparable as far as "prior experience" is concerned."

Lincoln? This post is bringing out my pedantic side, as all my history classess come flooding back in a host of unrepressed memories.... Before Lincoln and the Civil War, the phrase was, "the United States ARE..."
After the Civil War it was "the Untied States IS..."
A fundamental change had occurred in the sense of American identity during those years. In 1866, many concurred, it was as if they were living in a different country than it was six years earlier. I do think something like that is happening now, though without war on this turf.
Obama is what he is, an original, and that fires many peoples' imagination. He doesn't need comparison with any other candidates of any other time or place.
But should I be pressed to compare: more appropo might be a young and brighter, Ronald Reagan, before he'd been governor of California for a full 10 years. People saw him as charming, attractive, conciliatory and a good communicator.
Lincoln was born in a cabin and spent his early years sawing wood and teaching himself to read by firelight. He was rustic and awkward throughout his life though he did like a good suit. He was not popular and was relentlessly caricatured as a "baboon" in the press. Obama had a reasonably privileged and cosmopolitan upbringing and went to accredited schools. Just him being him seems to bring him accolades in the right setting. He is popular. He is a celebrity.
Most people taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency have had experience in world class politics, world class being defined by the times. In 1860, the U.S. was not involved much in the international arena, but there had been bloody conflicts between abolitionist and non-abolitionists in Kansas and other states over slavery during the 1850s. Not to mention the economic interests, in which England played a meddling part, as always, and which probably ended up deciding in favor of war. America was already a shattered and divided country. This is the sort of thing Lincoln was confronting in a personal and visceral way during the years leading up to his election. There was also enormous hand wringing among Americans over immigration, as it was believed the superstitious Catholic Irish could not possibly assimilate into a free thinking, Protestant dominated democracy.
There are some interesting analogies between our times and Lincoln's, but you have to ratchet up the stakes about 1000 times.
back to Obama,
Well-educated desis, especially native born citizens, identify with him. Of course they do, just as a lot Irish Catholics identified with Kennedy even if they didn't care for him much once he got in. Human nature.
This sort of sectional interest is inevitable in a "democracy."

I wasn't thinking of your story, only the 131 posts following it. I concur that the mere fact he is on the presidental election radar is a small advancement for people of color or saddled with any other trait that makes them a minority. Jesse Jackson accomplished the same thing when he came within striking distance. Oprah is doing it everyday, and yes, all the desis accomplishing little things in their chosen professions are adding to the growing pool.

Terrible:

I can't preach to the hidebound. My point's clear to those who have their minds open and who are not beholden to " we the people of color " mentality.

Mr. K:

Terrible, you're against the "we the people of color" mentality, but you're hanging out on a site called Sepia Mutiny, one on which the password is brown.

I'm with Mr. K on this, and in addition, why assume that those of us who's minds aren't "open" reach that way out of some kind of deep ignorance. (Ohh, if only we gave the poor whitefolk a chance!) This is America, you couldn't get away from mainstream/white culture if you tried. That's why it's called mainstream. And myself, I've lived in US cities where people of color were just rumors.

I agree with you, Neal, on this:

I know this one will cause some controversy, but I'd argue that Lyndon Johnson was at least a decent President.

In my estimation, Johnson displayed a manner of foolishness over the escalation in Vietnam that no leader of a superpower (Johnson, Brezhnev, Dubya - take your pick) has yet been able to steer clear of. Given what we know about the Gulf of Tongking incident, blame for Vietnam should really be laid at the doorstep of that Democratic clothes-horse, pretty-boy and sex-machine (nothing wrong with sex though) named JFK! It is valid to wonder how many of the great JFK-era ideas were really RFK's initiatives...

it's no secret that any group or list, SM included, would be clique-ish in order to survive and be cohesive but it was really interesting (and damned annoying, to put it mildly) to me how WhiteGuy was marked as a troll (by the original poster, no less) and then banned while Brown Folk on this very list have asked no less legit questions, at least over the past month or two that I've been reading this blog. I wonder if it had anything to do with WG's initial faux pas (arguably unforgivable) at calling the OP "Sid". NOT a Good Move on SM. ;)

as for Obama -- whether or not his name could lend itself to spurious misinterpretation, I smell a Perot (only, with oodles more charisma and an actual, possible, future in US politics; just not in '08).

siddhartha-

I understand and respect that. However, you are at least expressing that Obama is a valid candidate, and one who deserves to be taken with respect. The racial attitude I detailed above would obviously not be welcomed in any forum which took that premise.

Although I dunno. SM did not have similar posts for any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates. Nor has it really explored any of the candidates' past positions relevant to South Asians. That's fine with me, but perhaps it makes this post seem more "yay Obama" than you might have intended?

Neal,

Siddhartha's post could have been clearer, perhaps, but don't you think that the rise of Obama -- as a "brown" (someone with a third world background, and a status 'in between' white and black in American life) has a certain resonance for desis?

It doesn't mean we have to vote for him -- not at all (hell, I might still vote for Hilary!). But it is worth discussing whether or not we might be able to IDENTIFY with him, though he doesn't actually have a desi background.

I actually had a dream about Obama last night, where he was giving a public speech that (in the dream) I had written for him. He was even speaking in my voice! So I guess I identify with him at least.

"Again: what exactly does "white" culture mean? What specific experiences unite the great mass of "white" people?"
Oh dear. And you wonder why people get their knickers in a twist and go "trolling" as you call it.
What is "white" culture, indeed? or "black" culture? Asian culture? "yellow" race culture. "red" race culture? "brown" race culture? Be careful when denying any people have a "culture" (as eminently a silly statement referring to people of European "white" background as it would be if referring to those of Indian "brown" background) because they will then embrace it with a vengence and that makes for more division. That's what all this multi-culture stuff is about.
Working in a government agency and straddling several ethnic worlds myself, including Cape Verdean, Celtic, and American Indian, I wouldn't count on anybody not having "solidarity." It depends on the situation, the economics and how secure people feel. "Whites" have at least as much as, say, Moslems in India. After all, they invented trade unions and nation states. Organizing is a part of their "culture" I would think, if you'd like one prominent trait, although the Japanese are supreme at that. This country is changing fast, so nothing, absolutely nothing, is a given. When people remember their own history, they concentrate on the positive. When they remember "others", they concentrate on the negative.

Look around you. We are all here because of our "culture" and what our fellow ethnics, immediate and distant, did. Many former enemies now reside in the same electorate. Politics makes unlikely bed fellows so expect the unexpected, but also expect the expected.
Americans tend to be very parochial no matter what color they are. We seem to live in a Truman Show bubble, trying to figure out what is real and what isn't.

Amardeep-

Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with this post. I approached it exactly the way you did, and I like it (and yeah, I'm not totally sold on voting for Obama either).

The problem for me was that people were making racial statements and then acting shocked that other people would be upset about it. My point was that if you are posting in a thread that is generally positive about Barack Obama, you should probably expect that people will not be receptive to arguments like "Desis should not identify with black people".

I don't think that anyone should feel uneasy in writing a positive post about Obama. This is a blog, not a mainstream media outlet, and it's a blog coming at things in a very specific way.

Hey I never accused anyone of trolling either.

I'm not saying "white people have no culture". I'm saying that there has been very little historical or political reason to unite all white people under a single definition of "culture" independent of a general, multiracial/multicultural "American" culture. Instead, white subgroups tend to be oriented around things like politics or class. Very few white people make "being white" a major part of their identity, and society tends to frown on the ones that do (for good historical reasons).

Those divisions occur in minority racial groups too, of course. But they are also all shaped by their relationship to a majority. There are many, many arguments about what "brown" culture means, and many argue (accurately, IMHO), that it doesn't really exist in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc... It exists in the West because it's formed in reaction to interactions with a separate majority.

Obama on the cover of Time with Joel Klein's article inside:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546362,00.html

i agree with Sriram, no one knows anything substantive about Obama precisely because he has not really been saying much beyond the usual rhetoric of carefully-worded, wilfully delivered, politically-correct multicultural schmooze; the rest we colorfully fill in to appease our own agendas..

I'm scared, I'm really scared. I'm scared that he's not ready. But you know, I'm oh-so-excited. This means a LOT for American politics. And the new blood and new perspective that he brings to it...oh, I can't help but quiver a little! Have a go at this article, too, my friend.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me so much that he is the next President or not. His presence in the pool is taking the discussion of race and power in America from theory to reality in a way that can't be seen as on the margins.

I'm most interested in seeing how his opponents (from all over the political spectrum) handle the issues that are raised and hope that the person I eventually feel is the best candidate wins. And if not, I hope that that person at least gets a whole lotta votes. No matter what the next Presdent will be forced to consider the views of Americans who don't feel race and gender are primary factors at the ballot box.

Obama is a little scary. His hyper public religiosity makes me nervous. Come to think of it, the only two post Watergate democrats to be elected President were pretty comfortable in religious speak too.

I long for a non-religious serious presidential contender.

Obama is a little scary. His hyper public religiosity makes me nervous.

Does this really scare you AMFD? What legislation is the religious left going to pass to impose their morality on others? Or are you just concerned about a gerneral culure of religiosity?

I don't see much of a threat to secularism here in the US. The religious right, for their part, are more or less responding to secularists trying to impose their view via the courts...roe v wade in particular.

Hyper religiosity? Come ON, the brother makes one vaguely "religious" speech to a bunch of liberals in which he endorses standard Democratic ideas like a minimum wage, increased access to healthcare, and a social safety net, and suddenly he's tagged as being a friggin preacher. Do you really think his religion will impact his style of governing in the way that, say, Bush's does?

I long for a non-religious serious presidential contender.

I dislike religion, too, but what good will it do us to have a non-religious president ruling a seriously religious (and religiose) country?

I'd settle for a handful of atheist senators, but even that doesn't seem to be happening in a hurry.

Hyper religiosity? Come ON, the brother makes one vaguely "religious" speech to a bunch of liberals in which he endorses standard Democratic ideas like a minimum wage, increased access to healthcare, and a social safety net, and suddenly he's tagged as being a friggin preacher.

Yikes! So this is how he intends to impose his morality on others. The religious right is much safer. Since they believe Jesus was a capitalist, they naturally want to leave everyone alone. Laissez-faire.

I highly recommend reading Obama's first book "Dreams from my father" if you'd like to swoon more about his intelligence, eloquence, and compassion.

If he runs, I'll vote for that in a minute. If it's a Gore-Obama ticket, I'll gladly vote for that too. It would be nice to see someone (of any color or gender) in office who approaches the country with unification and strength in mind, not further devision and preying on weakness and differences.

Obama '08!

I long for a non-religious serious presidential contender.

Keep longing.

I'd settle for a handful of atheist senators, but even that doesn't seem to be happening in a hurry.

An atheist cannot get elected dog-cathcer in the United States. Sez Harold Bloom - though there is a black Buddhist in Congress now.

Does this really scare you AMFD? What legislation is the religious left going to pass to impose their morality on others? Or are you just concerned about a gerneral culure of religiosity?

Yes, I am more concerned about a general culture of religiosity. So maybe scary is not the correct term. I guess I find his religiosity more nauseating than scary per se. His preacher talk reeks of charms usually found in snake-oil salesmen and I am turned off by the uncritical, unabashed public promotion/expression of his faith.

Manju-

Well if you want to take that position, fine, but he's no more "dangerous" than any other Democrat.

Well if you want to take that position, fine, but he's no more "dangerous" than any other Democrat.

I was probably being a little too cryptic, Neal. My point is that many politicians beieve in things for religious resons but these things nonetheless serve secular purposes. The religious right is not something to fear that much when you look at it this way.

BTW, this is VERY applicable to MLK.

Well, but I'd draw a distinction between politicians using religious faith to justify a secular policy (eg: civil rights, national healthcare, invading a country to "spread freedom") and politicians making actual conversion to the faith by non-believers a policy goal. It's that use of the government as a direct prosetylizing tool that makes me fear the "religious right".

It's that use of the government as a direct prosetylizing tool that makes me fear the "religious right".

I agree with you in theory, but in practice where is this happening? The only thing I can think of is examples(like voluntary bible study in public schoool) where government as a direct prosetylizing tool for secularists and the religionists want equal access...but are denied b/c of a particular interpretation of the establisment clause. (I agree w/ the religious right in this regard that to deny them access is actually a violation of the free excercise clause.)

Anyway, the single most galvanizing issue for them is abortion and roe v wade. w/o that, there would hardly be a religious right.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice where is this happening? The only thing I can think of is examples(like voluntary bible study in public schoool) where government as a direct prosetylizing tool for secularists and the religionists want equal access...but are denied b/c of a particular interpretation of the establisment clause. (I agree w/ the religious right in this regard that to deny them access is actually a violation of the free excercise clause.)

Evolution? Government information on sex, and sexual education being curtailed? The age of the Grand Canyon not being handed out? Bible groups meeting in very important Pentagon spaces, and high ranking officers who are part of those groups making disparaging remarks about non-believers?

Living in NYC you'd never know what goes on. Come on out to the "real America" and you'll see a lot more of it ...

I was probably being a little too cryptic, Neal. My point is that many politicians beieve in things for religious resons but these things nonetheless serve secular purposes. The religious right is not something to fear that much when you look at it this way.

BTW, this is VERY applicable to MLK.

Tis applicable to Swami Vivekananda also.

It's that use of the government as a direct prosetylizing tool that makes me fear the "religious right".

I agree with you in theory, but in practice where is this happening?i>

Why, in Kenya!

The herders of this remote mountain village know little about America, but have learned from those who run a US-funded aid program about the American God.

A Christian God.

The US government has given $10.9 million to Food for the Hungry, a faith-based development organization, to reach deep into the arid mountains of northern Kenya to provide training in hygiene, childhood illnesses, and clean water. The group has brought all that, and something else that increasingly accompanies US-funded aid programs: regular church service and prayer.

Evolution?: agree w/ you on this. should not be taught in public school. but parents should be allowed to opt out of public schools with vouchers. as it stands, christians are being forced to finance evolution. and that's unamerican.

Government information on sex, and sexual education being curtailed?:no problem with this. why should they be forced to distribure info they disagree with.

The age of the Grand Canyon not being handed out? I gotta think more about that one.

Bible groups meeting in very important Pentagon spaces, and high ranking officers who are part of those groups making disparaging remarks about non-believers? this can be serious. but the military, by its nature, must accomodate religions. the soldiers have their lives on the line and many can't do that w/o religion.

Come on out to the "real America" and you'll see a lot more of it ...

Nice slam. ouch!

I went to a public school in Florida and there was a church-sponsored "required assembly" every month or so. They would always be on ostensibly common values (eg: don't do drugs/join gangs/skip school/chew gum, kids), so dissent was muted, but they'd always end with big 'shout outs to my man JC'. There were also teacher or administrator-led prayers before lunch. You were not required to pray, but lets just say that those of us who didn't were definitely able to make easy eye contact across a huge room of bowed heads.

On the national level you've got even more examples of this, with Virgil Goode providing the most recent outburst. The many, many commentators on the national scene who talk about America being a "Judeo-Christian" country are also good examples. One great instance very relevant to browns was the massive backlash against the first Hindu to give the opening prayer in Congress. I just don't see the religious left reacting this way.

I have to say, I've never seen the kinds of "enforced secularism" so many people talk about. I know those cases exist (ACLU usually defends the Christian student too), but it's never been relevant to my life. Quite the opposite.

christians are being forced to finance evolution. and that's unamerican.

Wha...?

I highly recommend reading Obama's first book "Dreams from my father" if you'd like to swoon more about his intelligence, eloquence, and compassion.

How did you read my mind?...

Bring on '08. Does anyone feel though that running for Vice Prez this time next to Clinton and then going for Prez after that would have been better?

Just a bit worried that this might not be the best time for him to be President, and would be great if he could win not just one but two terms. Just thinking long term...

While everything about how he presents himself is pretty solid, from a political standpoint, he really hasn't done anything significant. The guy is pretty green and has moved from a state legislator to a federal senator pretty fast.

With all the flash and bang, I'd like to see more substance in his positions and actual things he has accomplished as a senator/legislator/politician.

I'm not saying he isn't a capable guy or doesn't have the potential. Just that it's too early to tell how much quality is backing up the projected image. Even though he may be a person of color, a minority, or someone who looks cool, personally, that isn't enough for me. I've always been wary to be caught up in identity politics based upon race/color/party for various reasons, one being that it is quite easy to get caught up in the whole white/vs every minority thing without even knowing it until it's too late.

Strategically, being a media darling this early doesn't bode well, either. Guys who flash this early tend to fade later on. In the next 2 years, he may accomplish things of substance, but it's awefully hard to do so in the US Senate (cushiest job in governance).

This next election is going to be a slugfest, especially with the top three candidates being senators (McCain, Hillary, and Obama).

The US government has given $10.9 million to Food for the Hungry, a faith-based development organization, to reach deep into the arid mountains of northern Kenya to provide training in hygiene, childhood illnesses, and clean water. The group has brought all that, and something else that increasingly accompanies US-funded aid programs: regular church service and prayer.

I see your point risable. But the govenment finances all sorts of secular groups that have their own agenda, some of them anti-religious, and one i remember that went as far as submerging a crucifix in urine. so if government is going to finance such groups, they must do it viewpoint-neutral or not at all (unless the viewpoint hinders the service). religious groups are just getting their fair share of the liberal expansion of government.

"Very few white people make "being white" a major part of their identity, and society tends to frown on the ones that do (for good historical reasons)."

And you know that...how ... Neal(with no e)? I used to think Indians (South Asian), were all mystical, nerdy, or Gandhi like, etc., or that they were divided into different castes who did not socialize, and paradoxically, that out of their country they would just meld into the rest of non-Indian society. So I started talking with them, hanging out and listening to them; guess what--they have a strong identity as Indians and they come in all types. Even if they live in India! Amazing!
History doesn't stand still. It's written by the winners, and eventually revised by the losers. It is always a work in progress, and we are all progressors.
"Culture" is something you do not see when you are sitting in the middle of it. You don't know it's gone till it's removed, and nature does not tolerate a vacuum. That hollow, homesick feeling, stranger in a strange land. So many immigrants have felt it. Stranger yet, it is also the experience of those who have always lived here. We native born so are so rarely challenged to look at America from without, we accept what we have received and do not know what it really is, and yet feel it is not what we think. Every single person who has ever lived in it, will have a different take on it.
Being no reliable apologist for America, I've seconded countless laments about the "McDonald" aspects of American "culture" taking over. But since when did a hamburger and a clown signify culture? The golden arches just don't do it for me in France or Hong Kong, or the Cape, or New Delhi. On the other hand, the benefits of modern plumbing are pretty welcome.
Banners, real or metaphorical, in post-911 America have left many cold, and Obama may be an antidote. Culture is about being very aware of where one comes from. Aware in a deep and factual way, not just mythological. The misunderstandings that fly when ethnic groups talk across the lines--I have recently emerged from just such a meeting--are astonishing.
It's been an interesting topic. Bring on Obama. As I said, he could only be an improvement on what we've got now. If he can live down the drug history -- and why not, others have -- he may be a viable candidate.

Yikes! So this is how he intends to impose his morality on others. The religious right is much safer. Since they believe Jesus was a capitalist, they naturally want to leave everyone alone. Laissez-faire.

The american religious right is a travesty. Jesus taught worldly renunciation, yet these evangelical frauds insist that "God wants you to be rich"! These guys worship Mammon, not the God of Jesus. Here is what Jesus taught:

"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,"

"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,"

"go, sell what you have, and give to the poor."

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And Jesus taught charity towards your fellow man, not selfish greed. The righteous man is judged by such acts:

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."

It is about time someone exposed these right wing "christians" for what they really are. If the candidacy of Obama
accomplishes only that, it will have done a great favor to America.

Sigh, well then I'll put it to you again, inside the beltway: what makes something "white" culture, as distinct from "American" or "Western" culture, which claims to be multiracial/multiethnic? Examples?

OT:

Is -> this created by a regular reader/visitor here? Just curious.

Is -> this created by a regular reader/visitor here? Just curious.

not by me. in case anyone suspected.

This is kinda bitchy, but I just COULD'NT RESIST a bit of cut and paste.

From the group 'conservativeindians'...Cheers Boston Brown...

Description: This is a group created for Conservatives of Indian origin in the United States, India and all other countries, because sepiamutiny is too liberal and is highly censored

Group info Members: 2 Activity: Low activity Language: English

Bring on '08. Does anyone feel though that running for Vice Prez this time next to Clinton and then going for Prez after that would have been better?

a woman and a person of color on the same ticket?
is america ready for it?

(i'd rather have obama as president....can't stand hillary)

I think the correct question is..

Is America ready for a short president?

The question is rhetorical of course, the median height is 5'11". Before we start talking about the first black or female or eskimo or ninja president, how bout a few more short ones?

a woman and a person of color on the same ticket? is america ready for it?

Or another political 'family', again?

Bush Sr. (4yrs) Clinton (8yrs) Bush Jr (8 years) Clinton (say if she wins, min 4 yrs)

It's already been 20yrs of executive leadership between two families, tack on another 4-8 if Hillary comes in.

Dunno, but I'm kinda tired of political families. I'm not a fan of it in India and it doesn't appeal to me here, either.

Bush Jr. is definitely not Bush Sr.
Hillary ain't no Bill, either.

FRESH MEAT. WE WANT FRESH MEAT!!!!

Oh man I would vote for a ninja President in a second.

"a woman and a person of color on the same ticket?
is america ready for it?"

Not hardly.....Chickpea...Let's never forget. Bush did not get elected in a vacuum. His (Rove's)consolidation of corporate, bible, and neo-con interest was sadly masterful. Those of us who pray for a more liberal day and age have to be cautious...There is some rumblings in the country for change but we can't assume that it is greater than it is. Now if Iran comes into play :( We might see some anger. But...neocon rhetoric still has a stifling hold on electoral bodies in the red states. We ignore it at our peril.

Oh man I would vote for a ninja President in a second.

Vikings and Pirates will be in the mix, too.

What would really throw voters a curve ball is that if the ninja was cope chewing texan (not from any movie), the viking was an african american (NOT the NFL Vikings), and the pirate was a japanese american (NOT a baseball player).

Who would the desis vote for????

"Very few white people make "being white" a major part of their identity, and society tends to frown on the ones that do (for good historical reasons)."

Being white shapes my identity whether or not I want it to. That's all I'm going to say about that because I don't want this to turn into a repeat of the Amit/Aasif/Barack thread. But I am consciously and continually aware of being white, and what it means, and how I read to other people. And what I am "expected" to do as a white person, and what happens if I do not fulfill those obligations.

(It also means, btw, that I'm going to retreat to lurking again for a while; I've been reading SM for months in prep for an upcoming semester in India -- a better gauge of what's really going on than Bollywood films, right? -- and I jumped out last week to start posting, and have realized that for a little red-headed girl who's not at all desi, though trying to become educated, it's better to watch. Thanks for letting me play.)

Re: the thread topic: Obama w00t!

But I am consciously and continually aware of being white, and what it means, and how I read to other people.

I'm very curious as to what causes this, or even, what exactly do you mean by it?

Oh man I would vote for a ninja President in a second.

What this country needs is a president who isn't soft on Decepticon.

...in prep for an upcoming semester in India

Wrong DJ Drrty Poonjabi. What America needs it the great "Megatron" as it next leader.

What this country needs is a president who isn't soft on Decepticon.

I've always kinda been a fan of Deceptacon.

(Man, with all the stuff I want to respond to in this thread, I come up with that?)

So much to respond to in this thread, but let me start with this.

Oneup sez:

I think my biggest issue with Senator Obama is that he has been completely mum about issues on race. And understandibly so. If I were white, I’d probably be enamoured with him too. But I wonder if he really has ANY thoughts at all on race in this country.

I'm really not sure where this comes from. His first book, his memoir "Dreams of My Father," is subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance" and deals quite a bit with his own identity struggles as a "black" man who grew up with his white grandparents. His newer book, "The Audacity of Hope," has an entire chapter, some 50-odd pages, that discusses the issue of race. This is someone who worked as a community organizer in South Side Chicago before going to law school, and who turned down prestigious clerkships and lucrative job prospects to return to the South Side of Chicago to work on voter drives and community outreach in the black community there. He started a civil rights/voting rights practice there, while representing a largely black district in the South Side in the Illinois Senate. Despite his fancy degrees and such, I'm quite sure he has plenty of thoughts on the issue of race -- in fact, he's written about them.

Now I don't doubt that the way the press covers what he says might suggest to some that he doesn't discuss race -- unlike many other minority candidates, he talks abaout all kinds of issues, not just minority issues. That, in fact, is a huge part of his appeal. And obviously, Obama is different from most other African-American politicians. He's of course biracial, and he grew up with the white part of his family. Also, his Dad (who he never really knew) was African and not American, and so his experience is different from that of the "traditional" African American politician. But to suggest that he has been mum or might not have any thoughts on the issue of race is way, way off the mark. The press may not cover his thoughts on the subject, but he's written about race in two best-selling books, so it isn't like he's dodging the issue.

The most annoying phrases I hear pundits throw around are "this country is not ready for a woman in the white house," and "this country is not ready for a person of color in the White House." I say both those statements are bunk. This country is perfectly ready. Whether Obama or Hilary will get elected, well that's an entirely separate issue. Hillary is still a divisive figure and no one really knows anything substantive about Obama.

I think even more annoying are questions like "Is this country ready for a woman in the white house?" or "Is this country ready for a black president?" which really should be considered outright politically incorrect. Its insulting enough already that these are legitimate problems even in the 21st century.

Anyway, down with Clinton, Obama all the way!

Funny picture of obama in highschool:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/18/181128/082

I think even more annoying are questions like "Is this country ready for a woman in the white house?" or "Is this country ready for a black president?" which really should be considered outright politically incorrect.

Why? On the Republican side people are wondering if we're ready for a Mormon President or a thrice divorced one. The electorate sure as heck isn't ready for an openly atheist one - that's the line of death for a candidate. Certain attributes matter to voters. It's a fact, whether bigoted or not.

In Hillary and Obama, democrats have two great VP candidates, people who can ease into presidency after getting people use to them in higher office. Unfortunately I think neither of them can win the presidency untill unless republicans keep digging a bigger hole for themselves. If they do, then 2008 will be an excellent time to push the barrier for minorities/women.

I was away at work and could not post. Here's my response to HMF's question at #131.

(deep breath...) okay.

To many white people, being "white" means being "default" or being "normal" or being "right" or whatever it is that causes discrimination, insensitivity, etc. and the perception of so-called "non-white" people as the mysterious/dangerous/ignorant "other." We see that all the time, and people who aren't white notice it and feel it a lot more than I do.

And there are people, like myself, who understand that being white is not the "default;" that "white" is just a name attached to certain people in the middle of all the people who make up America and who make up the world.

So if being white is not simply being the default, then what is it?

Once it is removed from the idea of "default" or "normal" (with the word "non-white" then meaning, at least subtextually, "non-normal") -- once that idea of white/non-white is removed, what's left? A word -- white -- that does not even remotely come close to the color of my skin. There's no word in the English language for this particular color, because for so many years it was simply called "flesh-color" (like the Crayola crayon).

Still, okay, I'm white. Can't ever change that. But once it's removed from "normal" or "standard" or "majority," it leaves a void behind. And so... what am I? As other posters have mentioned, there's no real shared culture or identity. There's what's defined as Western culture, sure, and the mish-mash of advertisements, fashion, and TV shows which make up American culture (which, of course, until recent decades featured solely white faces and even now is not very integrated or multiculti) -- but that's not something I can put my back against.

What I mean to write is that since I've figured out that I am one person in the middle of a very large world and that being white does not entitle me to delude myself that I am "normal" or "default," I've got to figure out something else for being white to mean. Perhaps I don't; perhaps I can just be a person, for better or for worse.

But still, there it is, on my face -- and so when I stand in a classroom in front of a group of students, for example, I've got to figure out how to relate to them as a white woman, particularly when saddled with a language that defines half of them as "non-me" and trying always to negotiate around the fallacies of English, trying always to draw everyone in, to include all experiences and identites. I've also got to figure out how to be a white woman amidst the rest of the world, and what that means -- and very soon, how to be a white woman in India.

Shodan, I am very familiar with desipundit. It's almost as awesome as SM! :)

American politics bores one to tears. Why can't it have a serious but colorful proto-fascist party, as in France?

Instead we are invariably numbed by two hyper-religious wankers who claim they talk to God and whose positions on social and economic issues are essentially half a degree apart on the political spectrum.

Why can't it have a serious but colorful proto-fascist party, as in France?

Imagine how gussa Amreekans would be if a candidate went to the beach in a bikini. Sacre bleu! I don't know who's best but go Segolene!

RHG:

Thanks for your response.

To many white people, being "white" means being "default" or being "normal" or being "right" or whatever it is that causes discrimination, insensitivity, etc. and the perception of so-called "non-white" people as the mysterious/dangerous/ignorant "other." We see that all the time, and people who aren't white notice it and feel it a lot more than I do.

This admission alone is rare. I remember telling a white girl in college that I liked rap, she replied with, "eww. yea but you like normal music like Live and red hot chili peppers too, right?" You didn't mention the privelaged implications of the "default-ness" of being white, and there's no need to go into it here, I'm sure you're aware of it.

I've got to figure out something else for being white to mean

This reminds me of a Malcolm X anecdote, a white coed followed him from Boston to NYC and asked, "I'm a good white person, who's not prejudiced and racist, and agree with a lot of what you say, what can a good white person do?" Malcolm replied, "Nothing"

After his separation from the NOI and formation of the OAAU, he later regretted the remark, he felt a white person who genuinely was interested in a fully colorblind society, devoid of institutional barriers could educate their own people on some of the truths you've touched on. I'm not one to define anyone else's reality, but perhaps that's what being white could mean.

Just wanted to reply to DTK:

I'm really not sure where this comes from. His first book, his memoir "Dreams of My Father," is subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance" and deals quite a bit with his own identity struggles as a "black" man who grew up with his white grandparents. His newer book, "The Audacity of Hope," has an entire chapter, some 50-odd pages, that discusses the issue of race.

Acknowledging that you are part black and talking about how race has affected your life is a far cry from actually having plans and policies that will make a difference in the black community. The liberal policies that democrats put out to help the poor do not neccesarily help poor black people. The legislation the Dems hope to push in their first 100 hours is an example of this. Moreover, one could argue that liberal policies actually hurt black america more than they help. Is he just going to do more of the same?

This is someone who worked as a community organizer in South Side Chicago before going to law school, and who turned down prestigious clerkships and lucrative job prospects to return to the South Side of Chicago to work on voter drives and community outreach in the black community there. He started a civil rights/voting rights practice there, while representing a largely black district in the South Side in the Illinois Senate.

Registering people to vote is great... but there are a lot of other black owned groups out there doing the same thing. Lots of black people go into civil rights work... again, not that special, and not that much of a change in what we already have.

Not to mention this whole "omg, look at what I gave up to help you degenerates! Just be grateful!" attitude is disgusting. While I'm sure that Senator Obama doesn't think like this, it sucks that you do.

Now I don't doubt that the way the press covers what he says might suggest to some that he doesn't discuss race -- unlike many other minority candidates, he talks abaout all kinds of issues, not just minority issues. That, in fact, is a huge part of his appeal.

I think its great that he talks about issues that aren't specific to the black community (I think more black people need to think about politics outside the black box). But he definitely doesn't talk much about the issues that are. What's his stance on affirmative action? School choice? I know he wants welfare reform, but what's his reform plan? Like I said, if I wasn't black I'd feel fine about voting for Obama... but there are WAY too many black people at the bottom of the ladder for me to fawn over any candidate that isn't actively trying to help. ESPECIALLY a black candidate.

Obama may be part african, but his heart is in the old country, which is why he sleeps with..not brown or white..but black. As a proud Black Man, thats good enough for me.

I mean. what does a Black Presidential candidate have to do to convince blacks that he is the real deal? Promise to dole out reparation payments for slavery. Dont get me wrong, IMHO Black African slavery was the mother of all crimes against humanity. The Jewish folk had only 12 years of an attempted genocide..we had 400 years, plus Tasmania.Even as I write our continent is being ravaged by greedy, desperate thugs from all over the world, including the continent itself.I hope Obama wins the Dem nom at least..that would send a tough message to everyone that one day the worm will turn and the African will have his day.

RAMIIE

My fear, people will get carried away by the "Change" talk.. and I say carried away, because honestly I do not see substance I see talk with Barrack but I'm still hoping there is substance.. the fear is that Barrack wins the nomination and in the end it's McCain against Barrack and the next thing you know McCain wins because, believe it or not, there are individuals here in this country, the reigning superpower of the world, where people will just not accept a black president with the middle name of Hussein.

I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that.

--Barack Obama