Very astute concept, Jonathan.

Wow, this is bigoted.  It calls to mind Chris Rock's routine on people who called Colin Powell articulate.  Of course, he's articulate.  He's a freaking general, what do you expect.

Well, Obama is a freaking law professor, etc., what do you expect?  Do you really think that citizens who hear Obama speak are really expecting him to speak unintelligently?  Of course, you don't expect that but those holding the "prevailing stereotypes" apparently do.  I'm very impressed that you can simultaneously attack both whites and blacks so effortlessly.

Aside from being ignorantly bigoted, you don't even get the facts right.  Gore and Kerry were simply unable to speak in a relaxed, conversational manner.  Not that they refused to.  Obama can and does do so rather often.

What's next?  A column that Hillary is benefited by her gender because she doesn't have to show emotion because the "prevailing stereotypes" about women are that they're overly emotional and irrational?

Fair comment, Jon.  You get to be nuanced at TNR and not tagged as a Ferrarista.

I think this is a very fair observation, and one I hadn't considered before. (And I don't detect a shred of bigotry in any of Jonathan's words.)

bigm: Expectations are subtle things.   Acknowledging, as does Jonathan's argument here, that they are so, and affect the thinking of many people is smart and appropriate, not bigoted.

I don't think it's right to have different expectations of people based on race.  I'm not proud when I catch myself doing so.  But I do, and so does everyone else I know, and acknowledging so, is the first step in mitigating the damage it can cause.

So, I think Jonathan makes an astute, not at all bigoted, argument here.

Smart call Chait.

Here's why I think it's bigoted.

Pollsters ask "would you vote for a qualified black member of your party for president?" and the result is always overwhelmingly high because people do not want to admit to a pollster (or maybe to themselves) that they are bigoted.  That is why pollsters also ask whether the respondent believes that others will vote for a qualified black member of their party for president and the response is much, much lower.  Pollsters belive that the second question is a more accurate measure of the respondent's own beliefs.

So too, Chait's assumption that the "prevailing stereotypes" about African-Americans involves speaking with less intelligence is a bigoted statement.  What does Chait really think that other white people expect to hear from someone in Obama's position such that the "egghead" words he says are so unexpected?

bigm, Isn’t Jon saying that because of the disconnect between the African-American stereotype and reality, Obama is allowed to be a sophisticated speaker more than say Al Gore?  I’m not sure I agree with Jon, but it is an insightful point. To your point, Obama is a more “relaxed” and “conversational” speaker compared with Gore and Kerry, hands down. But do you really believe that there is no disconnect  between the black folk stereotype and reality? That there is no disconnect between the women stereotype and reality? Of course there is, and because of this, both may benefit.  How they may benefit is obviously a contentious topic.

Actually, any bigotry in Chait's comment is towards whites---which is to say, there  is no bigotry at all.  He starts out by saying that white politicians, if intellectually inclined, are not free to be who they are, whereas Obama is, thanks not to the low expectations whites have of blacks, but of the ridiculous expectations whites have of whites.  "Would you want to have a beer with this guy?"---when that's the test, then it is a liability in white politics to talk like a reader of The New York Review of Books (let alone The New Republic).  Not so for Obama.

Man, I just keep thinking of the elderly black gentleman saying, "I'm here for Ashley."

Voters aren't stupid. Give us a guy who's hella smart and yet obviously is locked into democracy's shared, sublime values, and he can be black, white, herringbone, whatever--he will get a long look.

In Obama's case he can also articulate those values with a power that I have not heard since the heydays of Mario Cuomo and Ronald Reagan. We have grown tired of living on Tuna Helper, without the tuna. We need something more substantial. Whatever the task--pacifying the Middle East, pulling the economy out of its dive, pivoting 90 degrees on energy and the environment--it's going to take the taxes, patience, permission, and blood of millions of Americans. Whoever you are, running for office, you're gonna have to talk a whole hell of a lot of us into it and then get us pulling the sled at the same time, until we get out of the goddamn ditch.

You don't just stand up there and blah-blah-blah.  We will in that case surely misunderestimate you.

bigm -- we're not going to get past race/ethnic/religious/etc. until people stop flaming back with words like bigoted and racist when issues like the point made by Chait are raised...

Either way, Obama's command of the English language is both easy and authoritative and stands in distinct contrast to the bumbling non-sequiturs of another Ivy League grad in public office -- George W. Bush.

Уверено, уверено. Jon будет ханжой. Не!

Chait makes an excellent point.  The American public has disliked intellectual politicians who sound intellectual since before Adali "Eggheads of the world unite.  We have nothing to lose but our yokes" Stevenson.  When was the last time we had a President who was a constitutional law professor at a high ranking law school like Chicago Law School?  The trick for white intellectual politicians has always been to dumb it down.  Clinton was a master at this and Kerry and Gore were god awful on this point.  Chait is absolutely correct in stating that being black insulates Obama a great deal from the criticism of being too intellectual.  Can you imagine McCain successfully attacking Obama as an effete intellectual?  

Bigm - One, it is not racist to argue about the possible implications of the racist thinking of voters.  Two, just because I have a negative impression of the racial open-mindedness of my fellow Americans does not make me a racist.  Duh!

I was a strong supporter of Obama before this speech, as the candidate of the left most likely to win, as the candidate with the best tools, intellectual, rhetorical, political, to govern successfully.  My instinct about him was that he would do the right thing and be in fact a fine president.

Now I am a passionate supporter of Obama.  I desperately want this man to be elected.  He gets it all.  I never imagined that in my lifetime I would see such an opportunity -- let alone in the midst of all the dross and destruction of the Bush administration -- to see my country united and on the right path.  I have always figured that we would have to content ourselves with the least bad option never, ever having a good one.  Now we have a great one.

And I completely agree with Chait's observation about the electorate.  It cannot possibly be construed as bigoted.

LISAH-

Do I understand you correctly as saying that we will never get past issues of race if people call out bigotry when they see it?  Do you suggest that people either ignore bigotry or only whisper about it?

woland-

Where is there any evidence that any voters have "prevailing stereotypes" about African-American elected officials having lesser intelligence?  I am, like I'm sure most here are, a political junkie who reads copiously on this election but I haven't gotten any sense that there are any such stereotypes widely held out there.

So why does Chait make this claim about "prevailing stereotypes" of African-American elected officials being something other than intellectual equals with their white counterparts?  It could be that he is betraying some bigotry that he is projecting onto others.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe he just has a very low opinion of his fellow Americans and thinks that they (we) expect Obama to speak like Flava Flav because they are both African-American.  So maybe Chait's statement wasn't bigoted (against blacks, anyway).  Maybe it just reflects a startling level of elitism and detachment from society.

I'm not sure which is worse.

bigm, Obama is leagues more articulate that "freaking law professors" like, say, Alan Dershowitz.

And a lot more nuanced, intelligent, and persuasive.

roid, you and I have been bickering over this Rev Wright issue for a coupla days.

But, I agree with you about one thing:  Senator Obama is the most intelligent and articulate politician of this generation.  He has earned his passionate supporters.

I only wish I agree with him on certain key policies.

Stuff needs to be discussed, bigm -- and those discussions can't be held if people say bigot, racist, whatever, whenever  they get offended by reasonable points, and Chait raised  a reasonable point.

ironyroad, Obama's "command of the English language...stands in distinct contrast" not merely to G. Bush's, who admits this failing himself, but is far above almost any contemporary American politician I can think of.

He makes Kerry and Gore look like total idiots.  John Edwards look as shallow as a saucer.  Exposes Hillary for the extremely plodding speaker that she is, though she has a bookish intelligence.  

And he really exposes the fact, that I have repeated for a long time, Bill Clinton never gave a memorable speech in his life.  Let alone anything in the league of this one today.  

Although this is not to deny Bill Clinton's intelligence, though never put to a purpose greater than himself.

I hear you.  I understand what you are saying.  I don't like the idea of his blackness being deemed an advantage. His advantage is that he is very intelligent and interesting, while also appearing empathetic.   I think Clinton had this too.    So does Bill Maher.  

Some white people might be intelligent and boring.  That is their disadvantage, not their whiteness.

I don't think Bill Clinton or Obama have or will win over the anti-intellectual crowd nor does Maher look to that crowd for his ratings.  

Yeah... the ONE way in which being black helps him...

Right...

I agree Chan, Sirhc - Obama doesn't get a pass for being an intellectual because he's black, his credibility stems from his intelligence, his humanity, his individuality and of course his ability to inspire (overused for him, I realize, but still as true as it's ever been).  Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't inspire anyone if they tried, although Al is getting better over the years and I still love the guy.

Not that it matters, but my sense is that Obama is appx ten to twenty times smarter than Al Gore or John Kerry.  

You either have it or you don't, race isn't relevant - at least in this case.  

I noticed at the very beginning of this speech he acknowledged that some people will chose never to be satisfied with his response and that he accepts that. That's where I'm at with this speech too - if you went in to it not wanting to hear him, you probably didn't.  

A historic speech.

Chan, I was thinking that the following presidential candidates (three of whom were elected) in my lifetime deserve mention for their expressive talents:

JFK:  the convergence of passion and intelligence, and the irony lurking between the lines -- a generational thing, I think, born of common WW2 experience and the realization that we had to get a handle on the nuclear confrontation if we were to have a future.

Reagan:  the ability to hit the right note with confidence, and to deliver a joke that was often at his own expense, and crucially the ability to make conservative content sound natural and mainstream.

Bill Clinton:  ditto, except for him it was the ability to make liberal/progressive content sound natural and mainstream.

[ Barack Obama ]:  like JFK, passion and intelligence, and the irony that comes from grappling with a kind of internalized tangle of identities and nonetheless achieving a sense of self (imo you don't feel the tremor of "who am I really?" insecurity that sometimes haunted Kerry and haunts Edwards).

Negatives embodied by other candidates/presidents:  preachiness (Carter, Gore); querulousness (both Bushes); over-assertive defensiveness (Nixon).

LBJ is a bit of a conundrum.

Don't agree with you here.  I think it is Obama's superior skills as an orator that allow him to speak intelligently without putting the listeners to sleep.  Gore was a bore and Kerey moreso.  Bill Clinton could do the same and he was white.

With this speech the Obama campaign takes this year’s historic election to a newer and higher level and a deepening level of discourse. It stands in stark contrast to his opponent who seems never to miss an opportunity to manipulate divisions and fears. Obama confronts America’s distractions and diversions head-on; and gives all Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American) a dose of reality and the real challenges that are at stake in this period of our history. Again, one cannot help but to be impressed with the contrast against the shallowness of the other campaign.

At least he doesn't sound like a cackling woman.  We can't have that now, can we?

I am happy that he is bright and educated. I am not happy that all those primaries past without the nation being made aware of all his past, which is seeping out drip by drip. I am happy that he is a great orator. I am unhappy that those glowing words are just that: words. He reminds me of William Jennings Bryant for those of you who remember. They fainted at his speeches too. Too bad reality is different from idealistic  blather. Either he gets real, or the Republicans will make grass out of him.

irony, we're in rough accord.

JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are the most effective  political speakers of my lifetime.

Jack Kennedy remains my favorite because he had the most sophisticated taste in writing, and because of his irony and fast on his feet wit.  

Reagan was, of course, extremely effective.  But, always a little corny for my taste.  He had some great historical moments, though.

Clinton is a mesmerizing personality in a one on one interview.  He has a great stage presence.  But, I think his actual rhetoric stinks.  He never gave a memorable speech or cast a memorable phrase in his career.  Exceptions being only the notorious ones, "I did not have sexual relations with..."  "depends on what the meaning of is is" etc.

Obama doesn't have JFK's irony and easy going wit.  He is more earnest.  But he is capable of hitting some very stirring notes.  And his rhetoric is infused, at least in today's speech, with great insight, understanding, and intelligence.

He sounds like he writes his own stuff.  Which none of the other three did.

These are not "just words." In the past, Obama's speeches have been inspirational, which is important in itself for someone who seeks to change the course of a nation. This speech was different. It as nuanced an analysis of the racial dynamics in 21st century as you are going to find anywhere. It confronted and examined the complexities of racial identity in this country in a way that few others have been able to grasp, let alone articulate. Pundits may fault it for being to cerebral; but in an increasingly pluralistic and multicultural society we will find ourselves returning again and again to the complexities and contradictions that Obama has laid out for us today.

Obama stands in stark contrast to the shallowness and political opportunism of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In one sense, all that really matters is that this moment in a highly charged campaign is a transcendent moment. It will have historical impact (win or lose) long after this election is over. Obama has turned an atmosphere of race-baiting and dirt-mongering into a uniquely "teachable moment." We will see what comes of it in political terms, but its real implications are far bigger than mere politics.