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 t