Olopade, I'm going to enjoy the laugh, but if there is an iota of seriousness in your reasoning, it's facrcial.

Obama had been enjoying white support in mainly white states.  He didn't get into trouble until ugly racial  and anti-American statements were put out on DVDs by on of his closest mentors.

His problems are not so much racial as political and cultural, and are heavily intertwined with Leftists beliefs and the fear that Obama might share the worst of them.

hee, hee,..

this is EXACTLY how old O'Channy and pccostello see an Obama White House...with Wright and Sharpton playing the sidekicks...

unless of course, he embraces '"the norm", eschews all racial "identity" (bad, bad thing that racial identity, should keep keep them dana-rus n-----rs from even thinkin' bout da White House)...

then he can earn the "trust" of all good Americans...

As I'm grateful for the shiny moment on center stage in Dayo Olopade's entry, I don't want to hog more space than my share.  But I'm confused as to whose "reasoning" you're challenging, Chan.  In any case I posted those comments long before (in political time) the Wright thing blew up.

In particular, as Dayo notes, the discussion here was in direct response to two or three TNR commentaries (Chotiner and Judis and ??) on the exit poll results in TX and OH on March 5, which did ask about race as a factor.  So it wasn't just dreamed up by someone in order to introduce a red herring.  You may regard "race" as a diversion from "exotic left-wing positions" or something, but that's another argument.  The exit polls could well have asked, was foreign-policy an issue? or were religious values an issue?  Why would respondents answer 'yes' to a specific race question if that wasn't true?

In any event, there was much discussion at the time over Obama's chances at breaking through to the white working-class voter and/or the older Democrat.  Again, this was before Wright.

I have heard many Obama supprters say that they would never vote for Clinton. I am the opposite, an older Democrat who would never vote for Obama, mostly because I do not like his advisors or his spiritual advisor and because he is too inexperienced, but also, as the campaign has dragged on, he has begun to strike me as being a cynical political opportunist, precisely what he says he is not.

His campaign has accused his rival of cynicism, but I see much cynicism in him and his campaign. I would like his supporters to explain in civil terms why courting super delegates on the part of Clinton's candidacy is more cynical than seeking to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida on the part of Obama's.

Furthermore, I am sick of the charges of racism hurled about by a candidate who claims to be "post racial". Smearing the Clintons with that charge, and not having the decency to acknowledge the courageous contribution of LBJ was the turning point for me. This race has made it crystal clear to me that there is more sexism than racism in the country.

I do not understand the irrational hatred of the Cliontons. Bill Clinton was the one and only successful Democratic President since Truman. Of course, it was the Democrats who destroyed  LBJ and Humphrey and got us Nixon. History is repeating.

r-ennis...

Pretty hard to be "post racial" when your opponents, Republican and Democratic, are strenuously trying to Swift N----r you at every turn...

r-ennis writes of Obama, "because he is too inexperienced, but also, as the campaign has dragged on, he has begun to strike me as being a cynical political opportunist"

Fair enough to have standards and object to a candidate who fails to meet those standards. However, it seems nearly, well, insane to reject Obama _in favor of Hillary_ on the basis of lack of experience and cynical opportunism. However you want to slice it, Obama has more elected experience than Hillary. That's a simple matter of fact. And it's just boggling that anyone could consider Hillary Clinton to be less of a cynical opportunist than basically any other adult American. To be a Democrat who supports Hillary is to believe that her votes on the most important issues of the last seven years have been cynical gamesmanship rather than expressions of her actual beliefs or intentions. Not even John McCain suffers from as great a contradiction between what his platform promises for the future and his past record of actions.

And I'm not aware of anyone asserting that it's "cynical" for Hillary to court superdelegates. Though I would point out that a significant percentage of Hillary's declared superdelegates are in her campaign's employ. Florida and Michigan made a deliberate choice to cast votes that would not elect delegates in the hopes that by voting before their permitted turn, they would gain disproportionate early influence and cause the race to be decided before other states had a chance to vote. Which is to say, they broke the rules in an attempt to disenfranchise everyone else, and their attempt failed, and now they want to be permitted to vote twice. And in fact it would be perfectly fair for Michigan and Florida to be allowed to vote a second time -- if and only if the rest of the states are also allowed to vote twice. Let me cast two votes, and I'll be right there with the Hillaristas in calling for Florida and Michigan to vote twice as well.

And as an aside, let me point out as an observer that the same crowd of Hillaristas who are now demanding that Michigan and Florida vote twice seem only to have discovered their commitment to this core principle _after_ it became the official public position of Hillary's campaign. Before, when by coincidence Hillary's campaign was simply calling for Florida and Michigan to have their delegates seated as-is, the Hillaristas here were calling for that, not for new elections. Purely a coincidence, I'm sure, and not the Clintonesque elasticity of principle that it looks like.

To steal a line from the late-great Superfreak, I wish I had four hands so I could give four thumbs down.

Will Hillary be running with Joe Lieberman? A couple of real "patriots," would make a perfect ticket for approximately 32 percent of the voting population. You know, the very old and the very stupid.

jaunty's right.  Americans want a non-threatening black friend in the White House.  They'll tolerate his love of basketball and his dancing abilities, but that's about as far as they want him in terms of ethnic identity.

r-ennis,

You write, "I would like his supporters to explain in civil terms why courting super delegates on the part of Clinton's candidacy is more cynical than seeking to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida on the part of Obama's"

I don't think that courting superdelegates is cynical at all, given that any candidate must have their support in order to win the nomination.  The issue that arises is how those superdelegates are being courted.  Two of the things that bother me are the irritating tendency of her campaign to say that the states they lost don't really matter, and the fact that she has all but endorsed McCain over Obama should she lose the nomination.

For what it's worth, I supported having new votes in Michigan and Florida, and I think that Obama should have tried to help make it happen.  I should point out that Hillary was initially adamantly opposed to a re-vote because she thought she could get the original votes counted.  Moreover, her own advisor, Harold Ickes, voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.  But I'm sure his change of heart was purely driven by some new urge to see that every vote counts, and not by the circumstances of the campaign.

You also write, "I am sick of the charges of racism hurled about by a candidate who claims to be 'post racial.'"  If you have any quotes from Obama calling Clinton racist, I'd love to hear them.  Don't confuse what a candidate says with what his or her supporters say.  Also, do you have any particular examples of how sexism has affected the campaign?

Finally, with regard to Bill, I completely agree that he was a great president, and I would gladly vote for him over McCain if he could run.  The problem is that Bill isn't running; Hillary is.  The two are very different politically.  Bill was far more of a centrist than Hillary is, and had a very different style than Hillary.  One of the major things that worries me about Hillary is that she can't work with people she disagrees with, even within her own party (I should add that I have this same concern about McCain).  Bill Clinton was able to govern effectively for 6 years with a Republican Congress.  I really don't think Hillary could do that.

I volunteered for the Obama campaign in Harrisburg PA this weekend.  I, african american, was STUNNED at the number of middle-aged/elder white persons who were there in support.   More than any college students or black folk.,,

Say what you will but I saw it with my own eyes.

Just beautiful.

jaunty, in attempting to caricature my perspective, and not actually reading what I've written, you emulate in a microcosm all the complaints you and others voice here about sound bite journalism, and Republican Swift Boating.

Since the stakes are nil here, I can hardly be upset.  But, it is amusing to see you play tarbrusher on these pages.

Having watched the video now, all I can say is, why isn't THIS dude running?  I like his shit.  I'd vote for him.

As usual, the Democrats ignore their best people.

Maybe the liberals wouldn't vote for Black Bush, but Republicans would most certainly vote for him.

He's got the right attitude towards the UN.  "UN, you've got a problem with that?  You know what you should do?  You should sanction me.  Sanction me with your army.  OH!  Wait a minute!  You don't HAVE an army.  I guess that means you need to shut the f**k up.  That's what I would do if I didn't have no army."

Black Bush for President!

It's not fair that whites aren't allowed to use the N-word. This gives us honkies a definite disadvantage in political satire and discussions. When my black friends express a preference for Bush(well, just one) I'm not allowed to say N***** please! Perhaps we could get something like "carbon credits"-we pay say $5000 to Al Sharpton or whoever and we get a certificate allowing N-word usage say, 5 times.

O'Channy,

I hate to tell you mate but with your bizarre racial perceptions, you are taking care of your self caricature all by yourself....

you just try to bury it with a cannonade of posts that I think try to overwhelm your intent, like the guy who slips a Hustler in a convenience store shopping bag with a comb, gum, toothpaste, newpaper, soda pop, breath mints, etc. But, standing out, like a sore thumb is the soon to be pawed and salivated on edition of Hustler...

jaunty and chan -- get a room (a chat room).

r-ennis, Who has called or implied that Clinton is a racist?  Not Obama.  Not his supporters.  In fact, she is not racist.  Nor is Bill.  But it's another thing to acknowledge that the pair will use any tactic including appealing to racists' fears to beat Obama.  The Clintons are good people but with the lackluster Hillary as the candidate they have to dig deep to score points.

One of the refreshing things about the Obama campaign and Obama the man is that he argues back in firm, measured tones without playing the whimpering victim of racism.  

Black Bush...Fuzzy Obama....Obama is our Black Bush.

Like on nation building and all other subjects,  Bush was fuzzy, and later, his great mismanagement of all subjects was the follow up.

The Iranian economical mafia, the political tyrants of Qom are still plotting wars, and freely oppress their nation. No correct policy has been formulated.

Obama is the same, like Bush, fuzzy, and completely manipulated by his handlers and sponsors.

Obama has started to mismanage the policies on the Iranian junta, and has been displaying his half-baked nature. Completely contentless. Trade Mark Noam Scheiber.

He is probably already manipulated by Vali Nasri, Trita Parsi, Aslan etc. the great misinformers on Iran.

The great Columbia is the lobby for Iran.

Obama is a  Black Bush!

I would like to vote for a Democratic candidate. John Edwards was my favorite.

But I am completely opposing the Obama madness, and will vote for McCain.

lesserliz, your "carbon credits" proposal is brilliant.

stgla, I debate directly with roid and others far more than with  Jaunty.  And roid and others have a much more interesting patter.

jaunty, in his McCookie days had more variety in his post.  I suspect he's been distracted at work but will get back to his old self with a broader bandwidth and write more intriguing stuff.

I don't think Iran has a "junta" in the usual sense of that word, s4200.  The country is ruled from parallel tracks of political and religious leadership (neither of whom are monolithic by themselves) and they don't always see eye-to-eye.  Broadly speaking, the political leadership is also divided between blowhard confrontationists and those who are willing to look for other ways forward.  The former have the upper hand now, but in the late 1990s and early 2000s the latter had the wheel.

stgla, please tell me how the Clinton's have "appealed to racist fears" in order to beat Obama?  The press and Obama supporters love to accuse them of doing it, but how?  All I know of are a few stray comments from Clinton supporters, all of which have to be seriously deconstructed and re-interpreted in order to be considered "appealing to racist fears."   Bill's S.C. remark?  Nothing but an argument minimizing the importance of losing S.C.  Normal politics.  Hillary's MLK remark?  please.  Ferraro?  Stupid, but with a tiny grain of truth in it.  

It seems like if the Clinton campaign so much as mentions race, they're accused of "appealing to racist fears," while Obama supporters, in the meantime, are free to suggest that if Hillary wins, blacks won't vote for her because of her "racist" tactics.  But if a few off-the-cuff remarks is enough to convince you that "appealing to racist fears" is a tactic of the Clinton campaign, then it should be even more clear to you that smearing Hillary's character and integrity has been an integral part of Obama's strategy.  

hee. hee. are you saying I'm boring? Rats...

O'Channy, I do enjoy touching the swords with you...on anything other than race. Your pov on this particular topic really does bother me, irrespective of my warm feelings towards you iin general. But, then again, it is a free world and I never hold grudges against other posters. You are still one of my favs here in talkback.  I just really really disagree with you on racial issues.

I also love how you like to debate history. You should be Bush's media spokesperson. Unlike Perino, you would at least know about the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis...

That clip was hilarious!

irony writes, "...But I'm confused as to whose "reasoning" you're challenging, Chan."

Well, Olopade seemed to be wondering, 'all jokes aside, are older whites voting against Obama because they still harbor a caricature of blacks in their heads?'

And your satiric list underlined the same conjecture.

I can't speak for every last voter over 50.  No doubt some of them do playback head fantasies like the Black Bush video.

It is obvious to any observer, even we addled people who've been around more than half a centruy, that Senator Obama is not Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Snoop Dogg.

But, it would certainly occur to older voters that in their experience, people seeking the presidency have previously had a much deeper resume than Senator Obama.

And that includes Jack Kennedy who by the time he ran in 1960, had been in the Congress for 14 years, first as a representative, then as a senator.  He had been considered for the VP nom in '56.  And had first gained national attention with "As England Slept" when he was still at Harvard pre Pearl Harbor.

Of course, I would also argue to these older voters that Senator Clinton's resume is only slightly longer.  Unless you count her time as First Lady, which has never previously been counted as a political office.

It is clear from the success that Obama has had in many states with tiny black populations that few are holding a stereotype against him.

And, once again, I must point out the obvious, that his combination of being black and being a very impressive person have given him a large advantage over a merely impressive, but not black, person.

jaunty, you're no more boring, than any of us when we get too predictable.

I'm not quite so sure why I've set you off by saying what is true, not just for American's, but for people in all Democracies:  They elect people to high office who reflect their ideal selves.

Certainly Senator Obama, for instance, is qualified to represent an "ideal self" for a majority of Americans, most of whom will be "differently hued" than he.

Senator Obama only became harder to identify with when he seemed, in the Wright Affair, to be tolerating a very militant, rather retro view of America.  An, irrational collection of diatribes peculiar to a subset of the black population, and very alien to the views of the wider population.

You keep interpreting that as me saying that a presidential candidate has to "think white".  I'm just saying, a candidates mindset and ideas can't be violently at odds with the mainstream population.

When Obama was seen as exemplary manifestation of mainstream ideals, he was sailing along wonderfully.

When evidence suddenly emerged at odds with that impression, Obama faced a crisis.  As would any candidate of any color under similar circumstances.

Maybe what pisses you off is my other postulate that Anglo Saxon civilization is at the core of the immense success of the United States, and what has made it a beacon to the world.  And a magnet.  (You might also want to note, that England itself is such a beacon and such a magnet.)

To point out this truth is not to say I wish we were Australia 1957, with an overwhelming population of Anglo & Irish (or vice-versa).  

Clearly, the fact that our core virtues attracted the best of every culture to our shores from every continent has been to our immense advantage.  Even the people we brought here in chains have contributed profoundly to our unique success, whatever their justifiable resentments might have been or continue to be.

I do believe deeply in the out of fashion "melting pot" ideal.  That doesn't mean people are supposed to renounce their heritage.  It means people ought to embrace American civilization and American culture.  And let their heritage culture form their background, not their foreground.

I dislike the "multicultural" ideal because if followed, it would  destroy the very basis of our success heretofore by balkanizing us.  You need only look at the problems of Europe and the problems of most countries with unmelded cultures and languages (Canada, Belgium, old Yugoslavia, etc) to see why multiculturalism is a terrible idea for the United States.  (Canada was in danger of falling apart, as is Belgium now, and as did Yugo.)

And, yes, I know Switzerland with three languages does o.k.  But, we ain't Switzerland.

ChanRobt: This one really was for the laugh. But I do think the reasoning that equates an "exotic" (or what have you) biography with a sell-the-farm foreign policy is seriously flawed. American *strategy* abroad will always vary according to emerging threats and economies, and presidential priorities (see video @4:00). But American *interests* (security, supremacy, sustainability) change at a fairly glacial pace, if at all--and I think every past and present candidate for the presidency has implicitly demonstrated fidelity to these interests.

So why the Manchurian "yes, buts" for Obama? Wright can't be the beginning and end of it. Perhaps I'm being naive about the electorate. But to those who think Obama's biography (euphemistic talk for "blackness"/"foreignness") portends the "Leftist" "worst" in terms of ideology: since when are aesthetics a proxy for ethics?

Topical humor (Mars, bitches!) helps get at this illogic. Thanks, ironyroad, for the funny prompt.

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who thinks that calling someone "too old" and'or "too stupid" is a rational argument.  The "Swift N****r" charge was also ridiculous, as others have pointed out.

As to the charge that Hillary has no more experience than Obama, I say hogwash. Being in the White House for eight years counts for much and any honest person would acknowledge that. Additionally, Republicans have been impressed by her preparedness on the Armed Services Committee and have worked well with her, which allays my fears that they would not let her govern. Hell, even with a majority in both houses, it appears that they have trouble keeping an unpopular President in check, let alone governing.

I never said that Hillary was less cynical than Obama. Only that Obama is a phony a for portraying himself as something other than cynical.

On the charge that Hillary is not as Centrist as Bill, I concede that point, but only because Democratic politics have moved so far to the left that she has had to move with it, at least during primary season. McCain had (has) the same problem on the right, but these two candidates, and even Obama prove to me that, as usual, the center has held.

Nobody defended Obama's choice of political or spiritual advisors. It is on this matter that I find Obama most suspect.

Olopade, the American presidency is an office of such immense importance that people are understandably trepidacious about making a mistake.

Once the man is in, he's there for four years.  None has ever been forcibly removed.  One, after great trauma, was forced to resign.

People are not being inordinately sensitive or touchy in wanting to be goddamn sure that they are not putting into an office so central to the security of both this nation and the free nations of the world, someone who is not absolutely, unequivocally, and unambivalently dedicated to the safety of the nation.

When something like the Wright Affair emerges, of course people are going to be given pause.  And well they should.  

There has never in our history (well, since Aaron Burr, anyway) been a scandal touching a presidential candidate that raised so many questions about his true feelings, beliefs, and loyalties about and to the country.

Now, Senator Obama may well have answered to the satisfaction of the majority all such questions.  Or will have by November.

But for you to expect people to blithely ignore or quickly let pass something like the Wright Affair, just because you personally are sanguine about it, is asking a lot when we are talking about the president of the United States and the fate of the nation.

Glad to oblige, Dayo!

Chan -- your comments seem to be circling around a question that isn't the one raised by my original comment.  You have eloquently detailed the potential objections to an Obama presidency on the grounds of experience, implicit loyalty, and "marination in the American experience" (you had a phrase like that which I liked a while ago).  They are not at issue here.  I was trying to poke around in the race-based reluctance to vote for Obama.  NOT the reluctance based on other factors (which may also exist).

This was just after TX and OH, and the exit polls generated a reading among primarily older white Democrats (and possibly Hispanics) that Obama's race -- again, I must emphasize, not experience, not exotic background -- had caused them to vote for Clinton.  Among other factors, of course, but race was clearly there too.

This was not invented by me or anyone else.  It emerged from these and other polls conducted at the time.

So my jokey questions were to try to understand what the fears behind that reluctance are.  There may be many other elements of the Obama package, so to speak, that don't impress people, or give them pause.  But my comments were to -- satirically -- suggest going deeper into the kernel of the problem that a section of the Democratic party (and of the nation as a whole, no doubt) has with Obama's racial identity.

irony, I'm coming off like I don't have a sense of humor.  (Visions of Hillary being told by advisors when to laugh.)  For what it's worth, I thought the video was a riot and your list of questions droll.

Of course, in a country of 300 plus million, some good sized segment of the population will have an imprint in their brains somewhere in the arena of your caricature.  And, even a Columbia and Harvard graduate with a prodigious intellect and peerless rhetorical skills will not disabuse them of their stereotype.

I just don't believe that is either the majority of the voters, or a large enough segment to change the outcome of the election, unless it is extremely close.

What is more true is that Senator McCain matches more closely the imprint of what a presidential candidate should be.  Long serving senator, distinguished military career, an actual war hero, independent thinker and not a hack party-liner.  And, for those who still care about such things, a distinguished family lineage of prominent admirals.

Now maybe it is wrong for people to be impressed by some old white guy with such a typical presidential profile.  But, there it is.

by the way, irony, some of your observations echo one of my ongoing themes:  that the rising Hispanic population is going to make black-white issues archaic.  

Or, to put it more bluntly, Hispanics, with their own problems and struggling to make their fortunes in what for many of them is a new and alien culture, are not going to give a damn about black grievances, past or present.

And, yes, there likely is more anti-black prejudice amongst Hispanics than among whites, if only because the Hispanic population is both less educated and less aculturated to (enlightened)mainstream American attitudes.

At the turn of the last century, the Irish, the Jews, and the Italians were not the least embarrassed by their ethnic animosities or prejudices.

r-ennis,

Let me put it even more bluntly: You decry Obama and his supporters for their dropping the "post racial ball" and my take is this: It is hard to do this when your opponents are trying to turn you into Wright, which really means that they are trying to turn Obama into an angry, dangerous n-----r, ergo the Swift N-----r charge. You say it is ridiculous. I say you are being willfully blind to reality.

Look at the language that is being used by many of Clinton's mouithpieces and the commentators on GOP media venues like FOX.  Look at what happened to Harold Ford and that infamous disgusting ad. Look at what is happening to Obama now. The context of these attacks, especially the conflatioin of Obama and Wright is crystal clear:  We cannot trust Obama because he is Wright and Wright is Obama. They are one in the same.  

r-ennis, you may have contempt for those who see this - to me - obvious strategy. All I can say is the contempt is mutual.

Chan, I think we're talking at cross-purposes somehow.  Again, at the risk of boring the pants off of everyone, I'm talking very generally about exit polls during the Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio that specifically answered in the positive to questions regarding whether or not Obama's race played a role in people's choices.  This isn't about McCain or anything else, and we're not, at the moment, talking about the electorate as a whole, just the Dem primaries.  The core matter was simply this:  if there are truly Democrats (seemingly older, seemingly white) who regard Obama with dislike or at least some suspicion because of his race (again, as suggested by exit polls, not by me), then what is it about his race that stimulates the suspicion or dislike?  What is it, in other words, that they are disliking or suspecting?

This isn't about policy.  This isn't about exotic upbringing.  This isn't even about elite liberals and their social penumbra.  This is about Obama being, in American terms, black and what that means.  If it wasn't that, why did the respondents assent to the "race" question asked by the pollsters?

And again, this was before Wright.

Jaunty, I called your post ridiculous, not contemptible. My contempt is reserved for people who call people" too old" and/or" too stupid" because they do not hold their views.

I assume you are black. I am Jewish. In Brooklyn in the 40's and 50;s where I grew up, we worshipped Jackie Robinson and were proud that the color line was broken there. My first friends were black next door neighbors. During the struggle for Civil Rights we Jews, especially our Rabbis,  were in the forefront. I never heard a single anti black word ever spoken by a Rabbi, Orthodox, Conservative or Reform and if I ever did I would hightail it out of that synagogue immediately, and I certainly would expect that of any co-religionist running for office who wants my vote. I expect all people of good will to stick to that standard. If that makes me contemptible to you, so be it, but we, at least, know where we each stand on the issue.

OK, irony, let me try to get precisely on point with you.  I will accept the poll results you describe:  Older white people are suspicious of black candidates.  

You ask, why is that?

One explanation is to put it in "brand" terms.  A brand is not a logo, it is an accumulation of impressions about a given company or product.  Coca Cola.  IBM.  Ford.  Jaguar.

This brand exists in our heads and is an aggregate of every experience we have had with the brand.  The product itself.  The way the salesmen treated us in the showroom.  What the operator (or operator robot) is like when we call the company.  Every ad and commercial we've ever seen or heard.  How the brand was placed in movies.  And what our father's opinion was of the brand.

So, take a white guy 55 years old, born in 1953.  What are his brand impressions of black people?  I invite you to make your own list in your head so that I won't be called a bigot by jaunty for writing out some of the negative stereotypes of blacks that an American would have seen since age 3.

Now, some of those impressionistic experiences would be Senator Obama himself.  To most people a highly positive impression.  But mitigating against that, would be a lot of less than wonderful images.  Not overwhelmingly, but a large passle of them.

We are not Mr Spock's with a rational computer inside making every decision based on what is true and logical and fair.

We are creatures whose basic survival mechanism is a stand or flee polarity.  Based on a collection of past experiences, we are programmed to make the instance judgements necessary for survival.  These are by necessity crude and inequitable, because reasoned consideration and deliberation would in our primordial past have meant instant death.

The Rev Wrights of the world perpetuate this problem by giving sermons that to outsiders, at least, don't have any context but "get me outta here".

But, maybe the simplest answer to your question would come from Jesse Jackson who so famously admitted that when he sees a black guy coming down the street, he often crosses to the other side.

Now this is horridly unfair.  But it is either based on actual experience, or a perception of what that experience might be.

In marketing terms, black people have a "brand" problem that is much improved from what it was 35 years ago.  But, if your polls are correct, needs more time to be fully "rehabilitated" if full, unequivocal acceptances is what is desired.

A lot of blacks might say, "f***k you.  I don't need acceptance on your terms.  You accept me on mine."

Which might be my attitude, if I were black.  But, it probably isn't Senator Obama's.  And, it's not the route to the White House.

Chan I'd like to touch on your position about multiculturalism for a moment and ,if I *read* you correctly, that Obama, represents a multiculturalism of America.

You say "I dislike the "multicultural" ideal because if followed, it would  destroy the very basis of our success heretofore by balkanizing us.  You need only look at the problems of Europe and the problems of most countries with unmelded cultures and languages (Canada, Belgium, old Yugoslavia, etc) to see why multiculturalism is a terrible idea for the United States.  (Canada was in danger of falling apart, as is Belgium now, and as did Yugo.)"

I suspect what you're saying by disliking the "multicultural" ideal is your dislike for diverging from the Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism that was the founding of the U.S. What many Americans base much pride on when talking to foreigners (outside and inside the US) is the myth of the melting pot.

I suspect your *dislike* stems from a sudden surge in Spanish as second language in Government documents, etc. That a government response to current (within the last 25 years) demographics to use something other than English as the sole language of transaction is in threat of devaluing the Anglo-Saxon foundation of American culture.

But I think your comparison of European multicultural troubles to the American version of multiculturalism needs rethinking. European countries, historically, have been ethnocentric far longer than America has existed, in fact most nations in the world are ethnocentric in the regard that trade across ethnic bounds was primarily limited to goods and technologies. Historically the movement of persons was limited across "state" boundaries as a result of war or slavery. You didn't have vast populations of Pakistanis moving to the Nederlands in 1880 or Irish moving to Spain escaping the potato famine.

The difference between the U.S. and the European examples you give is that America was by and large, developed and discovered by several nationalities and ethnicities where the common causes, ie. basic survival, rebuilding the family unit, escaping political, religious persecution, etc. trumped ethnic differences. While the U.S. has experienced the ill effects of ethnic marginalization but it hasn't resulted in the balkanization of ethnicities along state or county lines in the manner that it has in Europe. In fact, the U.S. has never stopped having an influx of ethnicities and cultures. But what makes the U.S. version of multiculturalism unique is the almost laissez-faire attitude of assimilation both by the native population and immigrant population. The ghettoization along ethnic / racial divides diminishes within one or two generations of that ethnic population and redefines itself along social-economic lines. By the end of the second or third generation that immigrant ceases to see themself as "(fill in the blank) first, American second" and simply as American. The ethnicity/culture becomes the secondary identifier for that person who sees themselves as American who is of Irish, Chinese, Kenyan, Chiliean, Japanese, or German descent. Where you see that balkanization along ethnic lines is the older generations and first wave immigrants.

However, for many Americans, that expected assimilation into American culture is a default and unsaid expectation to act as WASP as possible. Sure it's great to take pride in your heritage, i.e. wearing an Irish flag lapel pin, the Italian horn around one's neck, the cross, etc. but any outward display of non-European ethnic pride is ipso facto "Non-American" in a narrow view of the American melting pot ideal. So when I hear people take an " I believe in the melting pot ideal but people need accept the American culture or get out mentality" stance I begin to question the authenticity of their melting-pot ideal and what they meaning by "American culture".

This isn't to say that adapting English as your second language is wrong or adapting to certain norms of behavior is wrong either. In reality it's the very fact that America has been laissez faire in not enforcing a "culture" upon it's new citizens except the expectation that they learn English and express some overt pride in their nation. The very fact that one can wear a burka and take part in the daily activities without hindrance to one's person in public spaces says much about America as a whole. Why? Because each person understands that they too have the same opportunities in modern America to succeed, do what they want or not without regard to fitting into a particular cultural framework. You can be Ethiopian and American just as an Irish-American can be. But American's tend to forget that our culture does not stem from a singular place (England) but has always been an amalgam of many cultures.

English became the default language in America as much as a result of expediency as it was the language of the ruling class considering that even in the early 1800s English speaking "natives" were telling German immigrants to give up their mother tongue and become more American. As such...the default nature of American culture is as much a result of marginalizing minority ethnicities for the sake of America as it was because of ethnic distrust of mainland European populations.

So what IS American culture? It's just about anything and everything you can think of...George Washington, baseball, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, hotdogs, Tex-Mex, fortune cookies, Bourbon, Faulkner, Edward Abbey, Pocahontas, Jackie Wilson, the Declaration of Independence, Levi's, Manhattan clam chowder, gumbo, crawfish boils, jazz, French fries, pizza, bluegrass, rock n' roll, Columbus day, Cinco de Mayo, and every other ethnic festival or food that we've Americanized. That's our culture. It's singularity resides in its multicultural adaptation of every food, celebration, and person who comes here.

ChanR:

"There has never in our history (well, since Aaron Burr, anyway) been a scandal touching a presidential candidate that raised so many questions about his true feelings, beliefs, and loyalties about and to the country."  

I think you describe perfectly how this will be interpreted by much of America and why it matters, but I think its totally unfair and possibly, even racist.  However far we've come, our culture and society is still fundamentally shaped by our long history of racism.  People can be angry about this - even to the point of seeing racist designs even where they might not be - and still be unequivocal in your dedication to American security.  Some people believe that American culture is deeply infected with materialist and secular - or worse, liberal - values.  Some of them see wierd conspiracies brewing in or out of the government to promote atheism or homosexuality or whatever.  They often rail against aspects of America that they think are "evil," but thier dedication to America's security is never questioned.  There's a double standard here and its all about race.  

singlespeed, I don't see Obama as "multicultural".  Far as I can see, he has pretty much embraced mainstream American culture.  His English is better than impeccable.  His education is goldplated American elite.

What I mean by "multicultural" are the people who insist that ballots be published in 10 languages, schools be taught in two or more, history be taught more heavily from the grievance perspctive than from a perspective that emphasizes our many, many attributes.

And, inasmuch as our core strengths are built on a bedrock of Anglo Saxon political thought and practice, followed closely by the hallmarks of Western Civilization that account so much for Western freedom, I think that ought to be emphasized.

There is an active movement on the part of many "multcultarilists" to commit a lobotomy on national memory.  This is what I oppose.

singlespeed, in the past we had new ethnicities come here in large numbers.  They were heavily rebalanced the demographics of the country.

But, it would never have been entertained in the past by the government to issue its publications in an alternate language to English to accomodate people who had begged to get into the country.  And those people would never have expected it.

They came here to be Americans.  They could hardly wait to become American citizens and to have their children grow up as fully acclimated and integrated Americans.

The sudden insistence of new immigrants for America to adjust to their needs, rather than they adjusting to their new country offends the hell out of me.  

And, I don't see the good to be gained by any action that would make us multilingula.  Or that would impede the process of "Americanization" that is one of the keys to our success as a nation.

newdex, waving the bloody racial shirt in the Rev Wright affair is just so much bunk.

It was the incredibly inflammatory content of the Rev Wright's sermons, distributed by the Rev himself on DVDs that created the firestorm.  This, plus the fact that Obama characterized the Rev as his closest spiritual mentor, and had attended his church for 20 years.  

A black preacher in Harlem made the same point from his pulpit over the past weekend

If any white candidate had sat still for similarly inflammatory sermons by his own white pastor and for twenty years, and it had been disseminated by said pastor on DVDs, are you going to declare with a straight face that voters would ignore that?

What people really (rightfully) resent is being accused of "racism" when they question declamations such as the Reverend Wright's.

Senator Obama fully understands that.  And never hid behind the "racism" claim.  To his credit.

r-ennis.

I appreciated your post. No, I am not black but I am brown and an Obama supporter (but I do think he has not shown the capacity to carry big states, close the deal, or respond proportionately to his attackers).

As for your story, I hope you were listiening a few weeks ago when Barack spoke to the black-jewish coalition and how, over the years, it has frayed quite dramatically. This is evident. He also called for all people, esepcially blacks and jews to work to repair that relationship, that historical alliiance that uplifted this entire nation and brought it closer to its professed ideals.  Based upon your life, it sounds to me like this was a message and goal that should touch your heart.

Chan...as regards the issue I raised about Obama representing the multiculturalism of America, you said in a later post that Obama has raised "questions about his true feelings, beliefs, and loyalties about and to the country."

For a vast majority of people, regardless of ethnicity, have a subconscious distrust of Obama as a candidate for POTUS because of his non-traditional American name, skin color and recently, his association with Wright. That mistrust of Obama stems from a perceived rejection of the "American culture" comes from, in what we must honestly say, a racial bias as some have indicated. Yes, the reason most older, white American's trust Hillary or McCain is because of either brand recognition or because of skin color. This fact most likely holds true for a large segment of older, ethnic minorities in America as well and a mistrust of "blackness".

But I really have a hard time understand why people consider Obama's perceived otherness as a way to gauge his Americanness. Is it because he doesn't have a WASPy post-slavery last name, is too black for some, not black enough for others, has freckles, smokes, and / or was ministered to by Wright?

I suspect that the Wright episode is yet another reason/excuse to marginalize a candidate with exceptional qualities. Which, in essence we are so doing by debating his judgment to associate with Wright for 20 years (and Wright's rather recent inflammatory remarks about America). Yet, by association we can question anyone's Americanness by innuendo and distortion. McCain is an exceptional candidate from an historical WASP pov but he has a adopted child from another country! "Aren't American babies good enough for McCain?" Clinton raises money from questionable Chinese business men. "Clinton is really a in league with Communist China and is anti-American worker with her support of NAFTA". Both examples are absurd but their "whiteness" immunizes them from having their Americanness questioned.

I think for many people, Obama represents the changing face of America as not being entirely of one ethnicity. His struggle to embrace all sides of his upbringing and embracing one over the other because it offered better opportunities is no different than what many European immigrants did by Americanizing their name so many generations ago. For many, Obama scares them as a candidate, regardless of his policies, with which they may agree, because his name is neither American nor Americanized so much so that his name enforces an otherness because he doesn't deny his multi-cultural upbringing but embraces it as being very much American.

When I see Obama, I don't see a representative of otherness, I see an American who is running for America and who happens to not be WASP and I find it thrilling that America has progressed so far so quickly despite or nation's sordid past with race, gender and treatment of all minorities that we are actually realizing our 'melting pot' ideal at the highest level. And yet, I also find it frustrating to see so many people scared of that very same prospect that they can't get past their unwarranted biases.

Chan, I agree with you in many respects about the "brand."  All I would say is that the peristence of a brand that imprints one's evaluation of an indivdual on grounds of racial identity, when that evaluation is at variance with one's perception of that individual based on other things than his racial identity, is what we call racial prejudice.

I don't say "racism" because I think there's a line to be crossed between the existence of unworked-out feelings and notions and the aggressive application of those feelings and notions in the real world.  Or, to put it another way, the brand is racist but the people hosting it are not necessarily so.

My question was really, can people observe and understand their own prejudices so that they can get past them, and not simply let them take over?  Or are they in thrall to them?

irony, a lot of people have demonstrated not only that they can vote counter to their prejudices, but they are eager to.  Hence the many victories by Obama in predominantly white regions.

However, it would be foolish of people to be so eager to prove their fairmindedness, that they did not subject a candidate seen to be of a racial minority to the same rigorous scrutiny as a white candidate.

Meanwhile, in American cultural terms, Obama really is "white".  His father was African and not a descendant of slaves.  His father did not raise him and left the country before he even knew him.  He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother and attended an elite prep school in the notably multi-racial state of Hawaii.  

Prejudice is not unknown in Hawaii, but people go even further out of their way than most Americans to eliminate it as a factor.

Outside of his skin color, Obama has had to go well out of his way to establish his "black" bonafides.  Mainly by moving to the South Side of Chicago and joining an umistakably "black" church congregation of the old style.

Chan...

I agree that the vast waves of immigrants that came to America came here to become American. There is no denying that. But your assertion that "The sudden insistence of new immigrants for America to adjust to their needs, rather than they adjusting to their new country offends the hell out of me." would be acceptable if such were the case.

Right now the government publishes documents in different languages depending on the majority minority of the population in a particular area. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. It  expedites business and helps recent immigrants transition sooner. As I said before, the first generations tend to lag on either their willingness or ability to *Americanize* by learning English, whereas the 2nd and 3rd generation *Americanize* right away with the 3rd generation losing the bilingual connection to the first. Your objection to multiculturalism seems to stem from your rejection of multilingualism being used as tool for assimilation. Our experiments with assimilating Native American culture with a generation of children by government policy in order to *Americanize* them resulted in their learning English but also negating their culture to such a degree that Native languages were practically wiped out. Is one policy more humane than the other, yes I believe so. Is one more effective? I believe it is when it comes to transitioning people more quickly and without lingering resentments.

There have been examples of larger immigrant populations asking for government documents to be translated into the majority minority population but were summarily refused both under the argument to expedite *Americanism* but also out of ethnic biases.  This occurred in Virginia and Pennsylvania with the German  populations there and was rejected to force Americanization.

The multilingualization of public schools that some people object to is a misunderstanding of what the intent is for offering children such classes. It affords them the best chance at assimilation by affording time to acclimate and reinforce comprehension than by simply learning street English or the expectation that they'll learn just by talking to them in English.

You'll find that many minorities when arriving will initially ghettoize themselves as much as a result of finding cultural support as for initial comfort. The younger generations will quickly move on from such balkanization whereas the older generations will remain because of their comfort level.

Our collective reaction to Hispanic immigration and language infusion reflects much what we went through with Italian, Chinese, and German immigration issues of the previous century. It also reflects a regional response as well. For those who grew up the Southwest, a Hispanic presence is not alien yet in  West Virginia it is.

The printing of multi-lingual documents isn't a slippery slope to the watering down of American culture anymore than nachos at the ball park represents a Mexicanization of football. What it does represent is a flexible government that understands that ignoring particular populations linguistically doesn't result in them functioning in society any faster than providing basic information in the majority minority language. Does this mean we create documents for all the languages spoken? No but I think we're a far  cry from highway signs being multilingual and our national anthem being sung in English and Spanish.

singlespeed, I think you say a lot that is decent and fair.  And I'll address more of it later.

But, in the past, the government has not seen any reason to accomodate new arrivals.  Early immigrants were sufficiently and rightfully grateful to be here.  And they showed their gratitude by adjusting themselves to American ways.

I doubt if there is another country on the planet that puts itself out the way we do for the convenience of new immigrants.  (Many of whom were not invited.)  Possible exception, Canada.  But, then, they're very nice people.    Not the scourge of the planet like us.

Jaunty, I do not normally engage in extended dialog but you hit on a key point concerning the rift  black/Jewish relations that pains me very much. Sure, there are individual Jewish racists, but there is no institutional racism in any part of the Jewish community. I attribute the rift that has developed to leaders in the black community, Muslim and Christian, religious and secular, like Wright and Farrakhan who have demonized Israel and Jews.

The black community is entirely too steeped in victimhood. The saddest thing about this is that the greatest harm is done to the black community itself. Instead of dwelling on the sins of whites, these leaders should be encouraging those in their community to get educated or trained and make it despite the racists.

Jews have the highest income of any ethnic group in the country, no thanks to those who sought to keep us down. Brown Asians come close as do yellow Asians. Nobody did them any favors either. My friend Dick Grey, a black retired Professor in NJ who made it way before before Civil Rights eased the way, tells me that living well is the best revenge.

I have recently developed a friendship with Bill Strickland who is black, and with sheer will power dogged determination obtained substantial help from white businesses and churches and created the Manchester Craftsmens Guild to help disadvantaged high school kids, mostly black, to pursue careers in the arts and crafts and has trained unwed mothers, junkies, homeless people and other people that society has given up on to perform meaningful, even technically challenging jobs in local companies such as Mylan Labs and Bayer. I salute him and people like . The Wrights of the world have my contempt. Obama cannot have it both ways.

singlespeed, you write, "...For a vast majority of people, regardless of ethnicity, have a subconscious distrust of Obama as a candidate for POTUS because of his non-traditional American name, skin color and recently, his association with Wright. [it] stems from a perceived rejection of the "American culture" comes from, in what we must honestly say, a racial bias as some have indicated."

Since you bring this up in this way, I will quickly give you my thesis on this topic which I've posted on these pages before:

Historically it is rare, in not unprecedented, for a person whose family has not been on these shores for several generations to become president.

In Obama's case, he is particularly "exotic".  His father is not only African, but he disappeared after only two years returning to Kenya.

Obama was then taken during his childhood by an Indonesian stepfather back to that country where he spent, I believe four years, and attended a local muslim school.

Later he returned to the Hawaii, attended an elite prep school in Honolulu, and then attended a small, well-regarded private college in Los Angeles.

His "exoticness" was then increased on the other end of the scale by attendance at two highly elite American universities, Columbia and Harvard.  Both characterized by heavy leanings to the Left in the Liberal Arts faculty.  Harvard, for instance, does not allow ROTC on campus.  I pretty certain Columbia does not either.  Not an agreeable indoctrination for a future POTUS.  

Obama also appears to be further to the Left than anyone heretofore elected to the presidency.  And, now his "exoticness" in presidential terms, is heightened by the Rev Wright association of two decades.

The vast preponderance of Obama's "exoticness" is not racial, it is cultural and political.  These are just not the characteristics of any previous president of either party.

Given the very sensitive nature of the presidency, and that the president represents all the people, voters are understandably conservative in choosing the POTUS.

I reject the thesis that this is about race.  And, if you changed Obama's hue from black to white and his father from African to a an Indonesian of Dutch ancestry who converted to Islam, he'd have comparable "exoticness".

I invite you to go the the White House website and read the biographies of every president from the current one back to Washington.  You will not find anyone remotely as new to America remotely as "exotic".

If Alexander Hamilton had made it to the presidency (I'm not sure if he was eligible or not, his birth pre-dating the Constitution) that would be the closest you could get to Obama.

r-ennis, I made a similar point to yours in the last post on another string.  If blacks still stuck in the underclass put as much energy into obtaining an education as they do into decrying the injustices done to them in the past, and supposedly to this day, their status would be dramatically reversed.

This has been proven most impressively by Obama himself, and by the members of the very substantial black middle class of which we hear little because they're too busy pursuing lives like the rest of the middle class.

TO MAKE MY POINT CLEAR IT SHOULD HAVE READ, "...If Alexander Hamilton had made it to the presidency (I'm not sure if he was eligible or not, his Jamaican birth pre-dating the Constitution may not have made a difference) that would be the closest you could get to Obama."

"Exotic". I think ChanRobts arguments above about "brand" are very perceptive, and do help explain people's reaction to Obama and the Wright "scandal". But I just don't buy the argument that race is not important in making him seem "exotic" to the voters. (I think the rest of the argument is quite reasonable). In fact, I think it is quite clear from many of the reactions to Obama before and after Wright that race is, in fact, central to his "exotic-ness". I do not believe for a minute that some of the ridiculous claims about Obama's supposed lack of commitment to America (no lapel pin, whatever his wife thinks, even Wright's HIV conspiracy theory or "God damn America"), would have had the slightest bit of traction without people's racial preconceptions.

Someone pointed out a while back (weeks ago) that the teflon effect in politicians is based on likeability. People liked Reagan, and very little stuck to him. Many people also like Obama, and for them, nothing sticks to him. But especially in the last couple of weeks I have read numerous posts, editorials, and blog entries from people looking for excuses to oppose Obama. Prejudice is the anti-teflon: it makes everything stick. Can anyone read the thread of comments about the article on Michelle Obama and NOT find much of the negative comments dripping with vile racial prejudice?

Note that although I am talking here about ChanRobt's theory of the voting public, he has made it clear enough how his own views are distinct from what he thinks others are reacting to. And, of course, I don't mean to imply at all that any criticism of Obama is automatically racially-based or racist.

Alexander Hamilton was considered aristocratic and a monarchist by some (and he proposed a monarch as head of state in the discussion of the Constitution), but I hardly think he was considered particularly "exotic".

Chan,

Well I try to be fair or at least let folks have an even shake of the stick from time to time. I think your post about Obama's  "exoticness" stemming from his family's newness as an American is both fair and interesting. I'm wondering if most Americans consider a long family history within America as a more relevant metric of one's Americanness and therefore presents, for some and those of the Daughters of the American Revolution persuasion, a reason to pause concerning fitness for office because one's family hasn't been in America for 20 generations.

I'm not sure that I wholeheartedly buy your argument that if Obama were white and had a Dutch-Indies  father named like Van Klerk who dabbled in Islam that he'd have an equal measurement of "exoticness".

I'm not saying that his exoticness stems only from race but that for some, his skin color acts as a signifier of his exoticness in a way that is different than Jesse Jackson. I think it's for the very reasons you expressed...his non-traditional upbringing, his education abroad and here in the U.S. are all very much not your standard American politician success story. The fact that the first rumors of Obama that surfaced were about him being a closet Muslim stemmed, certainly not from his skin color, but from his name. A decidedly non-WASPy name as there ever was. His very left of center position on policy issues is cause for concern for many, just as a decidedly far right position on McCain's part causes pause as well. I don't think Obama's liberalism and progressive stance equate to exoticness though. As for ROTC, I don't buy the line of thinking that military service automatically qualifies one for office over another. I think healthy respect and understanding of the military and the service men and women are just as valid without necessarily direct service. Bush *served* and he is certainly not a reasonable example of duty served.

That Obama does represent for some or perhaps many, an exoticness that is decidedly against their vision of a traditional American running for president is unquestionable. Obama very much is a multicultural entity because of his "exotic" background. That Obama doesn't fit into the typical "Black Presidential Candidate" framework, his familial newness in America, and precisely because he doesn't fit into any perceived catagory creates trepidation on many average Americans' parts. That doesn't make them wrong or right  per se.  Of course, going back to search for exoticness amongst a phalanx of WASP presidents isn't exactly a valid measure to go by. Perhaps Kennedy comes closest with his Catholicism but even that would be a stretch considering his Irish-American roots. If there were a mix of males and females of many non-European backgrounds on the list of past presidents I could humor the attempt to look for more exoticness. But looking for exoticness amongst all those "old, white guys" is tough.

Another question might be how many ex-Presidents are 2nd or 3rd generation Americans? Is familial legacy in America a legitimate metric for measuring Americanness? Is Obama's mother's side of the exotic equation ignored in the assessment of Obama's newness? Do we punish Obama by saying he isn't American enough because his father left when Obama was two or raised abroad in Indonesia for a few years? Those circumstances being beyond his control do we then apply that to every candidate? On the question of "exoticness" based on upon upbringing perhaps the closest one can get to an "exoticness" in upbringing abroad would be John Quincy Adams but having John Adams as your father pretty much insulates you from being judged "exotic" by nature of your education. Of course, being what the times were, white males weren't considered exotic unless they sported a whaler's tan and earrings from crossings into the southern oceans.

It's ironic that at one point, it was considered presidential to be worldly in one's learning and upbringing and now it's considered almost un-American to exhibit any sort of upbringing that strays from a community college view point of the world and an insular travel history relegated to Montreal for baseball games and Tijuana for "entertainment". By that I mean so many Americans want the President to be like an average joe or bobbi sue that we almost wish to negate any realm of exceptionalism in our candidates. I would like to think that the majority of Americans are unsure of Obama's exoticness because of his unusual and non-traditional American upbringing and skin color played no part in that equation. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the name and color present the "whole" picture to some folks.

I'm taking my non-exotic, 3rd generation American butt to bed now and dream of my non-existent exotic life abroad as a Wild Kingdom cameraman.

It seems to me that Obama's capacity to think objectively and critically about the problems we face, and moreover to communicate that kind of thinking to people, could well be dangerously exotic for some folks.  And that's a great pity, because we really need that capability.  We absolutely require critical and objective thinking in the Oval Office, and we also need to have average Americans grasp that such thinking is necessary and not a morbid sign of liberal ideological contamination.  In our broader future as a nation, we need presidents to be able to openly think, and not have to pretend that they're not doing so in case somebody in a trailer park or a suburban living room or, come to that, a university seminar feels threatened by it.

The world is now too complex and too porous and too unpredictable for this folksy indulgence in anti-intellectualism to drag our politics down even further than is the case already.

JEFF FREY, I characterise Hamilton as "exotic" in that he was foreign born (Jamaica) and a bastard.  (the circumstances of his birth, that is.)

He was not an aristocrat by birth, but he was by nature, attitude, temperament, and beliefs.  He was also a visionary financier, perhaps the first in the modern mold in the United States.  

Hamilton was also something of a bounder-- almost a Tom Jones character.  Except for his many serious accomplishments, including serving on Washington's staff during the Revolution.

I still respectfully submit, Mr. Frey, that you are in denial on this issue.  

If you would simply imagine a white man with a background in perfect parallel to Obama's (I described above how that might be) and the man would be catching hell for a Wright-like association of equivalent intimacy.

The black church that Obama belonged to is reminsicent in many ways of white fundamentalist style "holy roller" churches that catch every kind of derision from the Northern based media.

White members of such churches are considered to be baroque Southern primitives.  Even charming, intelligent, and articulate sorts like Mr. Huckabee are seen to be regional, and I would submit, too "exotic" for the office of the presidency.

Jimmy Carter, after he got in office and details of his decidedly not Episcopalian style of protestantism were revealed, was much derided and his election much regretted.

So, just imagine a double Ivy League educated white guy with a foreign father who disappeared, four years of his childhood spent in a muslim school in a third world country, and belonging to a fire and brimstone church where the wild eyed evangelical, giving his sermon before the camera, called down damnation on America for its sins against decency and humanity.

Can you really attest to me with a straight face, Mr. Frey, that such a white man would not be held to be at least passing strange?  And perhaps not the right guy to be President of the United States?

singlespeed writes, "...I'm wondering if most Americans consider a long family history within America as a more relevant metric of one's Americanness and therefore presents, for some and those of the Daughters of the American Revolution persuasion, a reason to pause concerning fitness for office because one's family hasn't been in America for 20 generations."

I would answer, no, of course not.  At least not most Americans, and certainly not consciously.  In fact, they would be embarrassed to harbor such an attitude.

But, I submit to you that the proof is in the pudding and the people we do elect president have been here for generations.  

Partly because it usually takes generations for a family member to be in a position to seek the presidency.  

But, also, I believe, because we unconsciously expect that sort of lineage in a president.

And, I don't think it is entirely irrational or unfair to want our presidents to be thoroughly marinated in our history and culture.  Aged like a ham in American smoker.

singlespeed writes, "...As for ROTC, I don't buy the line of thinking that military service automatically qualifies one for office over another."

Nor did I make such a claim.  But most Americans find the Ivy Leagues outright hostility to the military offensive.  And their banning ROTC from the campus-- a vestige of the Vietnam War kept alive by Lefty professors-- is an insult to the nation.

While he's at it exposing his grandmother's racial fears, I'd like him to denounce the Ivies for their irrational fear of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force.

JEFF FREY, I think from some of your line of conjecture and inquiry about whether lineage ought to be a conscious metric for president that you miss my point.

I am not maintaining that we ought to impose such a metric.  I'm saying, that historically speaking, we do.  That Obama-- by his own description and admission-- is a giant departure from what is an unspoken, and certainly unwritten tradition.

But, because the presidency is so powerful and so sensitive and so central, it is at least understandable that American tend to typecast their presidents this way.

They not only tend to, they do.  I haven't done the research, and I will.  But, I am quite confident that we have never had a president who wasn't at least third generation North American.  (Obviously the early presidents were none of them born in the United States.)

irony writes, "It seems to me that Obama's capacity to think objectively and critically about the problems we face, and moreover to communicate that kind of thinking to people, could well be dangerously exotic for some folks."

Well, of course, Americans are famously distrustful of intellectuals and eggheads.  One thing that kept Stevenson out of the presidency.

But, Jack Kennedy was by many definitions an intellectual (my definition, a man of ideas).  But, he was also enough of a guy's guy to be acceptable anyway.

I'd say Obama fits that mold, as well.  His intellect has hardly been a handicap.  It's what's gotten him as far as he's come.  He din't have a tycoon father, that's for sure.

irony writes, "...we also need to have average Americans grasp that such thinking is necessary and not a morbid sign of liberal ideological contamination. "

Uh, I hate to challenge your perceptions, irony, but there are intellectuals on the write as well.  They just "think different".

ChanRobt, intesresting replies. With all due respect, I think you are pointing the denial finger in the wrong direction. You have been propounding your "exotic" theory since well before Wright. So that is a separate issue.

I see your point regarding Hamilton's illegitimate birth; that would have been a social impediment relative to the gentlemen who were the dominant political figures of the time. Although it certainly did not precent him from being among the movers and shakers (and being one of the founders of the first political party in the US). Hamilton had other scandals and troubles as well, so that my the time he might have considered running for President, if he was eligible (and my memory is that he wasn't considered eligible based on the Constitution, but I don't really know for sure), there were ample reasons other than his out-of-wedlock birth to prevent him from making a run. And was his loyalty to the US ever seriously questioned *because of his birth/heritage* in the way Obama's has been? I'm not aware that it was, although I don't claim great expertise about the period. So I am not sure his example really counts as a comparison.

As for the guilt-by-association, I think you are oversimplifying. There appears to be little or no penalty for GOP candidates who associate with extremist religious figures, including those who include condemnation of America (e.g., Robertson and Falwell) for being an open and tolerant society, and those whose theology includes racial exclusion (e.g., the folks at Bob Jones University). I do think that race plays a role in this double standard.

singlespeed asks a couple of very good questions:

"Is Obama's mother's side of the exotic equation ignored in the assessment of Obama's newness? Do we punish Obama by saying he isn't American enough because his father left when Obama was two or raised abroad in Indonesia for a few years?"

Especially the first one. If Obama's father was a Dutchman, I just don't think it would be nearly so easy to call him exotic, regardless of his early schooling history.

Chan, it is getting late even here in the Antipodes, but I do understand that most of your arguments on this topic relate to to what we do, rather than what you think we ought to do. I get your point, and I agree that you have pointed out what we do (as far as past trends go). But I disagree with you about why. I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that race is not at issue here.

One more thing on the question of "newness" or "exotic-ness". A few years ago there was (idle) talk among some conservatives of amending the Constitution to remove the natural-born citizen rule for the POTUS, with the idea that this would allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. I doubt that anyone took the idea too seriously, but clearly "newness to America", an exotic foreign accent, and a foreign name do not automatically make one suspect in the eyes of Americans.

One could argue that the Governator represents a classic immigrant success story, and what is more American than that?  I would agree that his story is one version of the immigrant success story (an unusual one, certainly, and even more so if you ever saw "Conan the Barbarian"). So if he was not automatically disqualified by the Consitution, would ChanRobt's "too exotic" theory apply to him?

r-ennis,

If you're still there - and haven't thrown your hands up in the face of the O'Channy cannondade - I certainly agree that part of the responsibility for the rift btw blacks and jews rests at the hopping size 12 of people like Farrakan and perhaps Wright (I don't know enough about his right now to totally equate him with Farrakhan) but to totally absolve jews from their share of responsibility in the rift is either willfully blind or misleading. Farrakhan's demonization of Israel and Judaism in general - "gutter religion" - is and remains despicable. Obama has no nexus to Farrakhan though, unless you find yourself caught in one of O'Channy's or pccostello's wilder fantasies...

The hostility of some conservative jews to the evolution of civil rights legislations, especially the neo cons like Norman Podheretz and others like Charles Krauthmammer has been part and parcel to the rift. Also, to be brutally frank, the words and provocations of this magazine's former owner, mperetz, have not helped one iota. Part of that blame can be placed right at the sour old grouch's gnarled, yellowed toe nails. Still, marty's embrace of Obama is a step in the right direction and for than, I applaud the man.

So yes, there is enough blame to parcel out to many folks, I agree but let us avoid these ridiculous one sided explanations.  Obama speaks of moving forward and repair. I concur.  So, apparently does marty peretz...

Chan, agreed on JFK -- who in a sense managed to make complex ideas sound both stylish and substantial.  He made people want to reach up and out a little, and not always down and and into the reptilian brain.  Obama can do something similar.

However, I have this feeling that adventurous thinking is less popular among ordinary folks than it was back in 1960 (when I was a very small kid, I hasten to add, so it's purely speculative).

I agree also that there is conservative intellectual work, conservative thinking, but whether conservative or liberal or left, *critical* thinking involves interrogating one's own premises, and not just setting them out as axioms and moving quickly on.

ChanR: If you're still with this thread, I want to re-express the point I tried to make to you way up there.  I wasn't trying to say anything so obvious as "black people have a right to be angry."   I was trying to say it's not right that being angry about racism, even obsessively angry, is automatically equated with being anti-American.  

Jeff Frey writes re Hamilton, "...And was his loyalty to the US ever seriously questioned *because of his birth/heritage* in the way Obama's has been? "

Given that he served on Washington's staff during the Revolution, his loyalty was never questioned, no.  Although in those days, politics was so rough, who knows what he was accused of by opponents.

Aaaron Burr, was a revolutionary war hero, and served under Benedict Arnold(!)

His loyalty came into question when he was associated with a plot to raise an army to invade Mexico and set up a new nation there under his rule.

Jeff Frey writes, "...As for the guilt-by-association, I think you are oversimplifying. There appears to be little or no penalty for GOP candidates who associate with extremist religious figures, including those who include condemnation of America (e.g., Robertson and Falwell)"

This analog is made over and over and it doesn't wash.  Republicans sought out or at least were happy to accept the backaing of people like Robertson and Falwell.

But the were in no instance members of their parishes, let alone for twenty years.  Nor, did any of them ever characterize either of those preachers as their "closest spiritual mentor" or "uncle" or "like a father" etc.

Since very vote counts, few politicians are excessively diffident about where the votes come from.  As long as it's not the Neo-Nazi Party or something.  Certainly Democrats are glad to accept a Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson recommendation.  And both of those men are pretty disreputable.  Sharpton indisputably so.

Jeff Frey, re singlespeed's question, "...Is Obama's mother's side of the exotic equation ignored in the assessment of Obama's newness? Do we punish Obama by saying he isn't American enough because his father left when Obama was two or raised abroad in Indonesia for a few years?"

If you go back to my "brand" thesis (I think its in this thread) every detail of a brand or contact with it, affects our total perception of and feelings about the brand.

Everything I'm talking about here in the "exotic" theorem is presumed to be not so much a conscious calculation as a semi-conscious collection of impressions.

For some people, Obama's white Kansas mother would be "mitigating".  For others, the fact that she married a black man would be off-putting.  NOT MY OPINION, FOLKS, I AM SIMPLY ANALYZING POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY HERE.  That he had an Indonesian stepfather and was taken to Indonesia at an impressionable age and attended Muslim schools there, how could that but not add to the "exotic" side of the ledger, no matter what Obama's color?

Several of you seem to be of the impression that because I am holding out this "exotic" thesis that I am stating this description of impressions as my opinion.  Or saying that it ought to be factored into voters' opinions.

What I am saying is that whether you think it is right or not, rational or not, every detail of Obama's personal biography will be factored into voters' assessment of him.  

And, I am saying that for the office of the president, which holds such power, is so sensitive, is the head of state, and can decide our mutual destinies, that people have a right to scrutinize a candidate with extreme care.  And have a right to judge whether a man in his totality is absolutely and unambiguously loyal to the country and its ideals.

Now you may just continue to insist that this is chauvinist, racist, or some other perjorative.  But the United States are not the United Nations.  They are the United States of America.  And Americans have a right to expect someone who is in their judgement "fully American" as their president.

newdex writes, "...  I was trying to say it's not right that being angry about racism, even obsessively angry, is automatically equated with being anti-American."

I absolutely agree.  An American citizen can certainly be angry about aspects of American history or current American policy and not be anti-America.  Quite the opposite.

But, I think we have a right not to want as president a man who as you call it is "obsessively angry" about America.  Such an obsession would, or certainly could, cloud the judgement of a president.  And at a critical time.

Voters hold candidates for the presidency to a higher, or at least more demanding standard than an ordinary citizen.  

I think a lot of people in these debates are not differentiating between the right of an American citizen to hold any opinion, and the expectation of voters that the president be of temperate disposition and not hold opinions which most Americans would consider extreme or outlandish.

ironyroad writes, "...I have this feeling that adventurous thinking is less popular among ordinary folks than it was back in 1960 (when I was a very small kid, I hasten to add, so it's purely speculative).

Irony, I don't think Obama has problems for adventurous thinking.  Quite the opposite.  All his mileage can be attributed to his extrarodinary intellect, his superb rhetorical skills, and his executive skills in overseeing his own campaign.

I don't think the content of his slogans has been especially "intellectual".  But, it has certainly been first rate political propaganda, using platitudes that feel uplifting, and sound smarter and more original than they actually are.  "Yes we can."  "We are the ones we are waiting for." etc.

As to your conjecture that people are less open to adventurous thinking than in 1960, I doubt that's true.  

I remember the election of '60 very well.  The main difference between then and now is that politics was not as excessively polarized as it is now.  

People were very excited about Kennedy because he was smart, fresh, young, and good looking.  The last two were also liabilities as well.  Though he had far more national experience than Obama.  And was only slightly younger than Nixon.

Kennedy didn't really build his campaign on notably bold ideas.  The only one I can remember now is the "missile gap" which was totally made up.

But, like Obama, he spoke in a fresh way and was not tied to earth with banalities.  Nixon was plodding and not very inspiring.

But, as I hasten to remind people, especially when Obama is compared to JFK, Kennedy only won the elction by a hair.  And, if as alleged, Daily stuffed the ballots in Chicago, he didn't actually win at all.

Chan, is this not racism or at least prejudice?: "For others, the fact that she married a black man would be off-putting." I think so. And I continue to assert that your exotic theorem makes sense only if when race is accepted as a significant factor in people thinking him exotic. So I think you are fine as far as explaining what people are doing, but not when it comes to why.

I found your  brand theorem to be an excellent explanation, and I have no quibbles with it.

Chan:

First, Wright is obsessively angry, not Obama.  But I agree.  I wouldn't want Wright to be president.  I wouldn't want someone like Jerry Falwell to have been president either, for the same kind of reason.  Jerry Falwell was a person who denounced aspects of America he thought were evil, and said things that many people considered hateful.  But he was also a legitmate religious leader.  Politicians could associate with him without being accused of sharing all of his views.

Jeff Frey writes, "...Chan, is this not racism or at least prejudice?: 'For others, the fact that she married a black man would be off-putting.'"

Well, of course, Jeff, for those whom intermarriage is a problem, that reflects what we now call a racist attitude.

I have not argued that there is zero racist component anywhere in any heart or mind in this election as it regards Obama.

I have argued that where he does have problems, the preponderance of them have to do with either his Leftist background and policies (Columbia, Harvard, the U.S. Senate) and in his "exotica" and newness to America (numnber of generations on his father's side).  This, latter in historic terms is unprecedented for an American president.

Every time any evidence arises that Obama may with some portion of the population have a "race" problem, you jump up and say ah-ha, see, it's all about race.

that would be like a Romeny supporter saying, "aha, see, it's all because he's a Mormon."  Romney's problem with a certain (minority) segment of the population was his religion.  His broader problem with most people was a sense that he was kind of a "plastic" candidate, a "Stepford canddiate", something inauthentic and programmed about the guy.

the Obama candidacy is complex, as Obama, smart guy that he is thorougly understands.  Race with some people plays against him.  With a lot of people it plays in his favor.  And, in fact, if he were not black, he would not have had that factor-- the desire of many voters to prove we are a fairminded country and a black can become president-- without that factor, his other qulaifications and attributes would not have brought him this far.

I keep bringing up the "exotic" factor, and you keep saying that is code for "he's black".  I keep showing you where "exotic" is not just black, although I'll concede that for some people "black" goes in the "exotic" column.

Now, Jeff, if you are incapble of making separate columns, one labled Race, and one labled with my term, "Exotic" or your own equivalent, then you are simply insisting that Indonesian schooling, Foreign Father Who Disappeared, Indoneisan Stepfather, Rarified Left Leaning Education, Hoily Roller Preacher-Mentor Spouting Anti-American Drivel, are race, wholly race, and nothing but race.

One more time, boiling everything down:  on his father's side, Obama is first generation American.  

Historically, we have not elected a president who on one side of his family was first generation.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't elect such a person.  I'm just saying that this, combined with the bunch of other "foreign" factors make Obama entirely unprecedented.

To me the "foreign" or "exotic" factors are much more about what's different about Obama than his race.   I keep going back to Colin Powell.  His parents were Jamaican.  But, outside of that, he was much more in the mold of American presidents with his high end service in the military and the cabinet.  

Colin Powell, I don't believe, would have had many problems to do with "race" if he had run, because even Jamaican parentage would have been perceived as much less exotic than four years in local schools in a third world Asian country.

Havbe I parsed this enough to separate the racial quotient away from the exotic quotient, Jeff?  Or do you simply not agree than they are separate perceptual issues?

newdex writes, "First, Wright is obsessively angry, not Obama."

From all indications, newdex, you are probably corrrect.  Obama asserts that he does not share any of Wright's disturbing views.

But, do you truly believe, newdex, that is bizarre of people to wonder, "well gosh, if he didn't share Wrights' obsessive hatreds, how could he sit in the man's pews for twenty years, and bring his wife and young children to the church to listen to these at least occasional diatribes?"

You are asking other people to give a man running for the presidency the same benefit of the doubt that you are.  

But, for people who don't know Obama well, who realize that he is not long on the national scene, and wants the most powerrful, important, and sensitive office we can bequeath, you are asking a certain leap of faith.

You have every right to give him that benefit of the doubt.  But, how can you so blithely wonder that other people may not be ready to?  It just seems very unrealistic to insist on this.

Chan, but you have argued that race and racism have not been important in making Obama "exotic", but instead that he is simply exotic due to other factors. Please reread your posts. I'm not referring to issues involving Wright here, but to the general arguments you have been making.

I am also not trying to claim that race is the only factor at play. Clearly it is not. But whether you meant to or not, you have argued that factors like a few years of schooling in Indonesia when he was a kid were important in making some people consider him exotic, but that race was not.

I have been careful not to mention Obama's political views here, because I fully understand that some will consider him "too liberal", and prefer another candidate for that reason. Ditto for the question of his experience. There are many reasons why people prefer a candidate, or don't like a candidate, that have nothing to do with race, gender, etc. There is no reason why Obama should be any different than any other candidate in that regard.

I agree with your point that Obama would be unprecedented as POTUS in being a first-generation American, on one side of the family. But of course his family, in total, has a long history in America. I accept your point that some people will ignore the one side because of the other, but even if both of his parents were immigrants that would be no reason to doubt his commitment to this country. Tell me, do you think that if one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's kids ran for President, he would have his American-ness doubted by some simply because his father was an immigrant? I would be very surprised if anyone made an issue of that. Even if Arnold had dumped Maria and run back to Austria.

Well, let's try this yet another way, JEFF FREY.

Let's say Obama were from a conventional African American family, descendants of slaves on both sides, on American soil since the 17th Century, ascended solidly into the middle class since 1964.  A family something akin to Condoleeza Rice.

Let's say he was raised in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, or the Bay Area.  Like Obama, he had a superb intellect, was an excellent student, was handsome, charismatic, and had a magnificent gift for rhetoric.

As a result of all these smarts and talents, he attends first a small private college in L.A., then Columbia, then Harvard Law.  He becomes the first black to make Law Review.

He decides, rather than go for the big bucks in a prestigious law firm, to move to Chicago and help people working in the projects.  He joins a black church on the South Side.  It is a prominent church, very much in the African American tradition.  Only its charismatic preacher doesn't happen to go off on rants against his country now and again.  Or, if he does, he doesn't put it on DVDs and sell it in the gift shop.

Continuing our story, this parallel Obama, whose name is something usual like William Jackson, catches the eye of local pols and he makes it to the Illinois Senate.  And, with a bit of a break, gets to the U.S. Senate before he's 40.  

So impressive is Bill Jackson's speech at the '04 Democratic convention that he is catapulted to prominence, a rising star in the Democratic party.  And in 2008, with the Republicans at a nadir, he decides, young and new as he is, to make a run at the presidency, against the powerful wife of a former president.  And he does very well, outdistancing her by 150 delegates by the middle of a long race.

OK.  No African father that neither he nor anyone else knows.  No Indonesian stepfather.  No four years as a child at a Muslim school in Indonesia.  No embarrassing preacher-mentor.  And his well educate wife never says something dumb like "first time I was ever proud of my country...etc."  And, just to make his run easy, he's semi-centrist like Bill Clinton, with no Left Ivy League stuff and no perfect Lefty voting record in the Senate.

In other words, he's a Democratic male Condoleeza Rice.

In other words, JEFF FREY, William Jackson is highly talented, BUT HE'S NOT EXOTIC.

Are you going to tell me that such a man would not be embraced, even more than Obama has been?  With nothing in his background to raise these weird little doubts, that even many Republicans would be openly declaring for this impressive, brilliant, centrist Democratic black man?

That's my point.  Race is not Obama's problem.  It is all the other elements that have conspired to create problems for Obama.  And, he's still doing extremely well.

But, I have not a doubt, that if he were essentially a male Democratic version of Condoleeza Rice, with all his other talents, he would be unstoppable.  He may be unstoppable anyway.  

It is only the "exotic" parts that are slowing Obama down.  Not his race.

So it was the lack of a flag lapel pin all along?

Come on, Chan. You don't think that in your scenario, certain people wouldn't focus instead on whatever his cousin DaMarcus said about white people, or an old photo of his uncle with a Black Power T-shirt? When the same scrutiny of minor details and spousal utterances is applied to all candidates equally, then I will be prepared to buy your argument.

Recall that Harold Ford, Jr. was running in a very close race for a lesser office in 2006 (Senate), until the Republican party ran an ad featuring a blonde actress saying she met Ford "at the Playboy party" and asked him to "call me." Ford was not EXOTIC. He wasn't a male version of Condi Rice politically, but his politics were not the reason this race-baiting ad was made or aired. Nor why it was effective. Many of the things that you say raise "weird little doubts" only do so because of an underlying factor.

I simply do not believe that the following statements can be true, except as indicators of a more deeply-held feeling that the speaker does not wish to express (or acknowledge). The quotes are fictional.

"I would have voted for Obama, but the Indonesian step-father was just too much for me."

"Anyone who went to school briefly outside the US just might not be a true American."

"I'm not voting for him because he often doesn't wear American flag lapel pins."

I guess we will have to disagree on this.

Jeff, I don't know where the lapel pin joke fits into this.  I don't believe in wrapping yourself in a flag either.  But his intellectualized comments on why he chose to remove the lapel pin, or whatever was just bum politics and would have gotten any politician in a slight bit of trouble.

As to all your hypothetical quotes at the end, of course people don't put voice to those kind of things.  They store them away, in their semi-conscious.  It's a collection of impressions.

When enough of them raise too many questions, an opinion reaches a tipping point and falls over into the "no" column.

That's how "branding" works in marketing terms.  A series of many different kinds of impressions of a product or company.

If you want to interpret all of these as an excuse people use to get in touch with their inner racists, then you're right, I don't know any other way right now to explain this concept.

But, when I come up with one, I'll be back.

And re the Harold Ford thing Jeff Frey, that whole thing was so crude and stupid that either

a) Mr. Ford had other liabilities that are not well known outside the regions.  Or

b)  That region is populated by such a collection of dumbass Gomers that there is no way he was going to win their anyway.

Those kind of tactics would only backfire in a general election if used against Obama.  Obama's people could only wish that the GOP would be that dumb.

Chan, I don't think all the semi-conscious impressions are always connected to prejudice, but prejudice does feed there in the semi-conscious as well. I have seen many statements along the lines of these "little things", here on Talkback and in other place, from posters who also have made other statements that are clear indicators of prejudice. Not saying the two always go together, but you have to admit that for some fraction of the people they really do.

I think the makers of the Ford ad knew exactly which aspects of Ford's "brand" they wanted viewers to think about. Tennessee is a fairly conservative state, so a Democrat would have a hard time anyway, and perhaps Ford did have other liabilities. But as I recall, polls had him ahead before the ad, and behind once the dust had settled from that. It was a close race, so turning even 2% of the voters, or energizing 2% more of our base to turn out could have been the difference.

I agree that such crude tactics most likely would backfire against Obama in the general; especially if he had time to respond. If his opponents want to race-bait, they will need to be more subtle than that.

And, Jeff Frey, I'm confident John McCain will not race bait or even come close.

Third parties are likely to take a shot and I guarantee you, McCain will repudiate them loudly.  He is a very honorable man.  And he has publicly scotched, for instance, any attempt to question Obama's loyalties.

Although my entire "exotic" inquiry is meant to be kind of an academic political exercise, if anyone on his staff made such conjectures, McCain would fire that person. The context there would be entirely different from these discussions.

Chan, I think you are right about both McCain and what third parties would do. He certainly has his faults, but a the core he is an honorable man.