Just along these lines your readers may be interested in this or parts of it anyway: bloggingheads.tv/.../13742

Obama was born after the space age began, McCain was born in the midst of the great depression. I disagree with the contention that black children born during that time had zero expectation of having a black person as President. It was more of a hopeful time than McCain's depression. I do agree that Obama is far more about the future than McCain is. This is the hope vs. fear election.

A very convincing argument-- provided one believes that racial progress is more important to America in 2008 than national security, or managing the likes of China Putin Ajad etc.

I suspect that most voters, surveying the many and massive challenges facing this nation on nearly every f-p and economic front, will conclude that racial progress is not among the nation's most pressing priorities.

A very stupid argument. If General Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Ophra didn't not convince   the members of a black generation they they no longer  live under the yoke of white supremacy, I don't know what would.

Jacob:

You missed the point of Dr. McWhorter's argument. Reread it. Powell and Rice were/are high-ranking, highly influential, successful African-Americans. Those things aren't really new. We've had Justice Marshall, influential congressmen and women, business leaders, academics, etc. The difference is that the office of the presidency is singularly important and visible.

It isn't about making a good enough argument whereby one convinces black youth that the reality of white supremacy isn't all-encompassing. It is about living for nearly a decade in a world run by an American Negro. There wouldn't be an argument to be made. It wouldn't need to be. For the masses of young black Americans, it would just be a given.

That's how the culture would shift.

Now, the idea that an Obama presidency would mean that the yoke of white supremacy was broken over the lives of black Americans simply isn't logical. What it would mean is that the yoke would be viewed more accurately -- as A problem, not THE problem.

Chicago schools would continue to be miserable for quite a while. The children of those schools and communities would continue to manifest the unfortunate mediocrity for which they are being trained. But the cultural shift would likely lead to new ideas and behavioral shifts that, a generation later, would show real clear results.

McWhorter is not a conservative. He never has been. Sometimes he has felt the need to cozy up to them when the unthinking heat from the left has gotten too hot. And that is unfortunate.

What McWhorter is, above all else, is Ellisonian. His intellectual heritage runs through Ralph Ellison and those frontier-minded American Negroes (even some in cotton fields) who could not be convinced that they were not fully human and who, consequently, could not be overly impressed with our lighter skinned cousins.

teplukhin:

Racial progress isn't at issue here. It's personal progress. It's fixing a broken a community that McWhorter is after. You need a cultural shift to accomplish this. Government has never been and will never be up to the task. Voters are irrelevant then, at least for this discussion of the ramifications of an Obama presidency.

This has to be so insulting. Blacks kids will not study in school unless Obama is the next president.

This has to be so insulting. Blacks kids will not study in school unless Obama is the next president.

"Personal progress" for african-americans, sure. But why is this goal, as laudable as it is, more important in 2008 than electing a president who's solid on national security issues?

I'm voting for Obama in large part because of national security issues. McCain is about as solid as a volcano.

And Powell and Rice were appointed. As was Clarence Thomas, and being appointed by an executive is not the same as being elected by the people, certainly not in terms of "how far this country has come" type of stuff. Oprah's acheivement is much more impressive along those lines, but... you just can't beat President. "Can grow up to be President" is the example everyone uses for a reason.

What psanti said.

If the foreign policy crowd arround McCain doesn't scare anyone, maybe that person has not been paying close attention these past seven years. Except for big bad Dick Chenney, the rest of the gang have moved on to John "the white tornado" McCain. Maybe they see him as a useful idiot. Obama is simply the sane grown-up here.  And let's remember that bombastic rhetoric alone won't cow Putin, china, and the terrorist Inc.

jacob: perhaps you should send your kids to an inner-city black school and find out firsthand how much studying helps.

The problem with the Channy-jacobtl line of thinking is that it seems to contain an odd "shadow" argument lurking inside the main argument.  That shadow argument amounts to an implication that black political leaders at the top have to be Republicans if they are to be accepted as ok by white folks (I don't think Oprah is relevant here).  I would note that Chan in particular has a slightly rose-tinted fantasy of a Powell presidential campaign being able to neutralize race entirely.  I don't believe that would have been the case.  

In any event, there is the question of a complete lack of any progressive political vision on the side of Rice and (to a lesser extent) Powell, arising out of their loyalty to a Republican administration that is unable to deal with real national problems and actively hollowing out the parts of government it doesn't like (most things apart from the military).  The issue is not entirely having a black face in the cabinet table or even in the Oval Office; rather, the problem is a suggestion that black faces at the center of a Democratic administration present two problems:  liberal policy, and racial otherness.  Whereas, curiously, in a Republican administration, not only is liberal policy not a problem (as one might expect) but race appears to have vanished too.  Only to re-emerge with Obama.  Odd.

scrubbyoak said:

"Obama is simply the sane grown-up here"

article.nationalreview.com

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

"perhaps you should send your kids to an inner-city black school and find out firsthand how much studying helps."

I see. Obama will  give vouchers to kids in inner-city black schools so that they can choose better schools.

McWhorter's assumption is that Obama would be a successful president. But suppose he turns out to be another Carter or worse? Then  instead of new levels of respect for a black man, we could have the parlous notion gain currency that he was a dud because he was black - setting race relations backwards. It seems to me there is great risk in having an inexperienced and achievement -ight black person run for and win the presidency, regardless of how smooth a tallker he is.

70% of the appeal for Obama is because he's black.  30% of the appeal is because he's anti-Bush.  You think grown, college-aged white men would be weeping in their hankies if Obama was white? Nah, he'd just be another oppressive, white man from privileged stock looking to keep the poor and the blacks down.

Prediction: Obama gets elected.  His presidency reeks of incompetence.  When his opinion polls drop, blacks rally around him equating criticism with racism.  We've seen it all before in Detroit (Kwame Kilpatrick), Newark (Sharpe James) , and DC (Marion Barry).

Oh forgot to add: Dinky Dinkins in New York.  What a s  hithole New York was before Saint Giuliani.

Obama's foreign policy message today:::

Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, Fla., Obama reaffirmed his early opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and said the strategy of sending in 30,000 additional troops last year had not produced the political reconciliation necessary to achieve lasting peace in the country.

This guy is either A) totally blinded by partisanship or B) just retarded.  Even Code Pinkos would be hard put to argue that the surge has not improved the situation in Iraq.  What will satisfy Obama? All Iraqis laying down their arms in a big bonfire and making love in the streets? How the hell can we even consider a president who even ex post facto refuses to acknowledge progress?

McCain (who I've been wary of) has been proved correct on 1) the surge (he was for it even before Bush) 2) Russia (he was against Russia being inducted into the G8 before the Georgia conflict), 3) ethanol (spoke out against ethanol production as alternative fuel in Iowa - the corn state!) The guy obviously has a head for military strategy, foreign policy, and will also stand up to principles even if it means upsetting voters on their home turf.

There should be a Godwin's Law equivalent for people who invoke the term "simply" before an unsubstantiated, pulled-out-of-a-hat assertion.

The "surge" improved the state of affairs temporarily in a situation which shouldn't have been permitted to happen in the first place.  If you have a serious illness, and you have what looks like a temporary recovery, you and your doctor can be pleased but it doesn't mean that the illness itself has been conclusively dealt with.

If the numbers of troops are related to the improvement in security, then there is still some tension ahead regarding the effect of troop withdrawals, but his applies no matter who is in the White House.

What's a Code Pinko?

Marty,

Are you absolutely sure you want an untested rookie in the White House, given that Russia is now trying to re-create an alliance with Syria? Now they're talking about anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles as well as a deep water base on the Syrian coast for the Russian Fleet. Russian military support for Hezbullah is a given:

Fear of new Mid East 'Cold War' as Syria strengthens military alliance with Russia

www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4573599.ece

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski has doubts about Young Obama.

Marty, what makes you so confident?

ironyroad:

What's a Code Pinko?

You know, those old grannies in pink underwear in San Francisco who protest the Iraq war and Bush at every possible turn.  They usually show up, sometimes nude with their sagging nasty itty-bitties hanging down, at protests and have a grand old time.

I do agree with you that the surge should have been in place at the start and that they should never have attempted war on the cheap.  It was moreso a shift in strategy rather than the increased number of troops really that effected positive change.  I just find it really distasteful for Obama to find fault wherever he can.  It's like the annoying grievance monger who bitches and moans about the situation and has nothing constructive to add to the situation.  I mean, what's his solution - yank everyone out? Yeah, that'll REALLY improve things there and get the political ball rolling...

tep, fyi, Russia always had a close relationship with Syria, as it did with Egypt until that country changed sides under Sadat.  The mere fact that there are other countries in the world, including large ones with agendas that don't necessarily reflect ours, should not be considered a danger in and of itself.  You can't stop alliances being created -- they can be hindered or ultimately altered, however, if required -- and to suggest that the red lights are flashing just because an old alliance gets dusted off is to create the danger of seeing everything as an emergency.  And if that happens, you miss the real emergency.

Beyond Russia, there are the following issues:

1.  The fact that our strategic energy policy at the moment consists of either crossing fingers and cussing out evil corporations (D) or pretending to a credulous American public that rises in oil prices didn't come as a result of inexorably rising demand in the world market (R).

2.  The fact that our expensive and inefficient private health care system is ultimately dogging our competitiveness and eroding our ability to function as an advanced nation.

3.  The fact that we have an over-stretched military (army and usmc, at least) involved in two wars, neither of which offers a clear victory, even if one could define victory.

4.  The fact that our credibility and claims to moral leadership are being openly laughed at across the globe, due to the hypocrisies and diplomatic fumblings of the last few years.

5.  The fact that we've had, in respect of Iran, an administration that has favored macho posturing and complicated evasions rather than getting to grips with the real problem -- the longer-term relationship between the U.S. and Iran.

6.  The fact that our economy has been distorted by fraudulent types of income and prosperity that are too fragile to withstand the ups and downs of the market.

Looking around me, I see only one candidate who at least RECOGNIZES these problesm and is prepared to roll up his sleeves and try to do what any president can do to get a handle on them.  The first requirement is, however, the act of recognition, and I find McCain's continual invocation of the solutions of the 20th century to try to confront today's major national and world problems anything but reassuring.

I'll take a rookie if he shows intelligence and a capacity to learn fast.

jwl,

"70% of the appeal for Obama is because he's black."

How do you know this? Maybe you are the one with the race-colored lens since you brought up just about every failed elected black leader and equated them with Obama. Don't you know any successful black leaders, and why not mention those instead? Following your line of thinking, you might as well equate McCain with George W Bush and any other white male politician that failed miserably. Do you think blacks are the only ones that fail in their jobs? And what is it about Obama that's so racial? He's been working hard at not running a race-tinged campaign, yet many Republicans --not so much McCain himself -- have been trying to drag it down to race because they see an advantage there.

And since you brought up race and presidential elections, I'll ask you this: of all our former presidents, which do you think would have been elected if they were non-white? Now do you think it's fair for me to claim their race put them in the White House?

You and I are of different political bent, still, I find myself in agreement with you sometimes. However, that post of yours is uncalled for.   It's not fair to Obama, or to those of us that support him regardless of his color. There are many more good reasons other than race to vote Obama instead of McCain. You don't have to agree, and that's why we have elections.

Peace.

jacob,

You should know better than to put up a national review link on anything about Obama. Come on.

Also, it was you that brought up the lack of good educational performance by black kids, so I was just simply suggesting that maybe you should subject your own kids to the same inner-city school environment and see how that works out for your family.

I couldn't care less about his (or anyone's) race. My concern is that he's not ready for the White House.

Tep:

Peretz' post was about one case for Obama. Not THE case for Obama. You can decide for yourself on which bases you make your decision. For me, as an African-American who grew up in a poor enclave outside of Chicago, next to a wealthier suburb, the stark difference between quality of life for the masses of blacks around here and the masses of other races is a source of pain.

I believe in the fundamental idea that American Negroes can compete as well as everybody else. We are not competing very well right now.

If Obama's presidency might move that ball forward somehow (as the post above suggests) then it is a valid point to consider.

And I have considered it. And I am voting for Barack Obama.

Tep, anything to say about the six major issues I outlined above for which imo McCain hasn't a single convincing idea?

mb - I respect your logic and experience, and would vote the same way if I were in your shoes. My Irish forebears felt the same way about JFK. Obama deserves every afr-amer vote he can get. I wouldn't begrudge him a single one. All the best,

t

irony - no.

That's a pity.  I thougt you were a solid issues guy at base and hadn't much time for woffling about cloudy indefinables such as "not ready for the WH" which can be played any which way for both McCain and Obama.