Is Our Long National Nightmare Finally Over?

From Publius of Obsidian Wings:

Obsidian Wings: More Iowa: Random Iowa observations below the fold.... I tried to limit myself to non-obvious points... pardon the lack of polish.

Obama’s Ceiling:... Mathematically, [Obama's] victory has no significance. Politically, it’s too early to know.... But that said, the way he won tends to vindicate his candidacy’s argument... makes his case... that he possesses the most potential energy – i.e., he has the most potential to forge new political coalitions. In short, he risks a low floor, but promises a high ceiling. The way he won tonight... support[s] the latter... he expanded the pie, bringing in young and independent... [and] previously disengaged voters....

Am I Part of the Problem?: Many others have noted the ridiculousness of the Iowa caucuses... an event... whose importance is predicated entirely on the presumption of post-election spin and hype.... I have an easy defense though... it is THE story, so of course I’m going to write about it.... I contribute to the very post-election hype that I criticize and that allows it to exist... a classic collective action problem, from the media/blogger perspective.... [F]ix it... [by] changing... structural conditions... fight very hard to end Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status.

Hillary Ain’t Out: Obama’s win may well prove enormously significant. But don’t for a second think that Hillary is anywhere close to beaten.... money... organizational support... 49 states left to go... even though it’s the worst possible result for her... the Iowa loss now allows Clinton to play the underdog role, and shifts a lot of the spotlight (and scrutiny) toward Obama. It’s still obviously better to win. But the narrative will shift.... [T]he story will shift... to “can she fight back?” Doing well in later contests will allow her to seize the “Comeback Kid” mantle, which is the media’s favorite of all....

Change: For reasons I’ve stated with considerable snark, I don’t think Iowa shows us all that much.... Like any good, card-carrying liberal blogger, I’m skeptical of mindless praise of bipartisanship and unity and all that. But that said, the years 1994-2008 have been a nasty political era... there’s a broad sense of institutional failure, fueled in large part by Bush’s colossal failures and incompetence.... Though it might be hokey, Huckabee and Obama’s “Come Together” rhetoric works because (1) there is a thirst for it; and (2) they are more credible messengers because they haven’t been on the national scene. Accordingly, their victory tends to vindicate Mark Schmitt’s argument that Obama’s bipartisan rhetoric should be understood as an offensive political weapon rather than Broderish high wankery. (I’ve got a much longer post on this point in the queue).

Obama’s Code: I’m watching Obama’s acceptance speech as I type – and it’s very good. I’ve read a good bit about how Obama doesn’t really emphasize race and racial issues on the stump. But in listening to the beginning of the speech, I realize that maybe he does.... [H]e speaks with the cadences and phrase repetitions of black preachers... he uses language... simultaneously... (1) calling for political unity; (2) echoing the language of the civil rights struggle. In other words, he’s speaking to African-Americans without whites necessarily realizing it. Consider the following passage for instance, which I’ve already seen 5 times....

They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together. But on this January night at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.

True, he did mention Selma tonight. But take that for it’s worth. Note too that this passage is the intended soundbite, and it seems to work both ways...

Kudos to the Democratic caucus-goers of Iowa. They had a choice of at least five candidates--Obama, Edwards, Rodham Clinton, Richardson, Dodd--whom I or people I know and totally respect both know well and think would be likely to make superb presidents. A plurality chose Obama, with Edwards and Rodham Clinton gaining substantial support as well. This is a good situation--every serious Republican policy person I know would give at least one organ of generation and one eye and one toe to have in their current mix a candidate half as qualified as the least qualified of these three.

This is also a day which makes Thaddeus Stevens and Frederick Douglass kiss the sky and shout hosannas--a day for which they worked but did not believe would ever come. A day when the corn-fed white voters of a state--or at least the Democratic Party's enthusiastic faithful of a state--choose a Black man, Barack Obama, as the one whom they think is most qualified to be President of the United States of America.

This is a sign that our longest and deepest national nightmare may finally be coming to an end.

Thaddeus Stevens and Frederick Douglass would be ecstatic on the one hand, but on the other hand they would be sad that their party--the Republican Party--is MIA. And they would rain down curses on Richard Nixon, William Rehnquist, and Barry Goldwater, who turned the Republican Party into the misbegotten monster it is today, a monstrous horror that led Colin Powell in 1996 to recoil and give up before he started in his attempt to do on the Republican side what Barack Obama is doing on the Democratic side today.

On the other hand, maybe our long national nightmare is not over. Remember John McCain's line about Chelsea Clinton--that she "is so ugly because her father is Janet Reno." Didn't do McCain any harm in the Republican Party. Didn't do McCain any harm with America's establishment press corps. It was bad enough watching the Freak Show in the press and the Republican Party go after the sleazy hick from Arkansas with the zipper problem and his cold castrating l------ b---- of a wife. Are we now ready for the to go after the Muslim terrorist n----- from Chicago?

Comments

[Matt]

In 1968, the Democrats fielded Eugene McCarthy, RFK, Hubert Humprey and George McGovern--great men all. This is the strongest field since.

On Obama, I find myself slightly embarressed by how effortlessly he pulls my emotional strings.

And Mark Schmitt is right as to the offensive character of the bipartisan rhetoric, and Paul Krugman (uncharacteristically) naive.

[allan_in_upstate]

Anyone who thinks that the wrecking crew will go silently
into the night is kidding themselves.
This is going to be a long, nasty 10 months.

[Adam]

Why is Biden missing from the list of qualified Democratic presidents?

[Adam]

Why is Biden missing from the list of qualified Democratic presidents?

[kevin quinn]

Thanks, Brad, for the paragraph on Stevens and Douglas. I am not especially prone to crying, but I listened to Obama speak last night with tears in my eyes, for just the reason you give: hope that it really could happen, the end of the nightmare.

[Kate G.]

Nobody ever went broke overestimating the hatefullness of republican rhetoric and fear mongering. The sky is the limit. When *any* democrat gets the democratic nomination we are going to see a torrent of hate filled, blood and guts, attacks that will make the accusation that John Kerry *shot himself in order to get a medal* look like a love tap. Halfrican? n--r, muslim?, terrorist manchurian candidate? dope smoking fiend, malcolm X wannabe? you name it they are going to say it.

Kate G.

[Colin Danby]

Yup, Kate, they'll say it and have already said a lot of it. E.g. HRC calling herself today the "most innocent" candidate. I am not making that up:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-claims.html

But. There's something to be said for being firm and standing up to bullies. This stuff *works* by getting you so scared you start doing their work for them by imagining the worst and frightening yourself silly.

[Lord]

The message, I think, is that people want positive future expectations.

[Delicious Pundit]

"Are we now ready for the to go after the Muslim terrorist n----- from Chicago?"

n-----...

Notary?

[Kate G.]

Lord,
Well, I have to disagree. "Some" people want to hear that you can magically get a positive outcome from a pretty lousy past and present. Lots of other people (if you were to combine Edwards and Clinton's votes) seem to think you might have to work a whole lot harder to get to the promised land. My beef with Obama is that I'm not impressed by great rhetoric or hopeful uplift talk. I want to see hard work to change some pretty hard realities. If I know how hard its going to be to even begin to roll back some of Bush's criminal usurpations Obama ought to know--he's a lawyer for *&^% sake--so if he doesn't make that pretty clear he's either lying to himself or he's lying to me. And I don't really need a dr. feelgood. I'm too old for it.

That doesn't mean I won't support him in the general. I will, but d*mn I'd like to see him admit that this is going to be mano a mano bloodshed to take this country back from the abyss.

Kate G.

[kharris]

I think the notion that one black man winning one caucus in one presidential election represents "our longest and deepest national nightmare may finally...coming to an end" makes odd use of the expression "coming to an end." Even if we did not face all the crap in the subsequent paragraphs, this would still constitute no more than an important (really important) step on the path. We have had women in the cabinet since when? Roosevelt? and women vote in higher numbers than men, but the power of elective office is still mostly in the hands of men. Just for fun, ask yourself when you think the country will be ready for a black woman as president.

George Allen was going to be the Republican candidate. Remember? This is just a step on the path.

I am uncomfortable with the thought, but it is a thought I can't escape - having either Obama or H. Clinton as president is so important, that it is more important that picking the best candidate for the job. I am uncomfortable with the thought because it seems loaded with bias - still a choice made due to sex or race. I am also not sure it is the right thought, because the US is too important in the world, and the damage done to the US in the world under Bush is so great that we need better than the best candidate for the job, and we can't afford to let redress of last racial and sexual wrongs stand in the way of that. A race between the first credible black candidate and the first credible female candidate for the presidency would be much easier to deal with if they were going to take over from a good predecessor.

[Kate G.]

kharris,
I think that's an interesting point. I agree totally that "our long national nightmare" of racism and sexism is hardly over, to even think we've passed the midpoint is kind of arrogant and unrealistic. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that voting for either Hillary, partly because she's a woman or Obama, partly because he's african american, might be a good thing on its own merits. There is no "best person for the job" because "the job" is really complex and multifaceted and people just aren't that all purpose. Gore Vidal wrote a novel years ago, the name of which I can't remember, where he parodied this problem by imagining an America with a President for TV and a President for Politics and a few others thrown in for good measure. I laughed then, but I was very young. He was right: under Bush II we actually disaggregated the Presidency into the President for TV (Bush) and the President for Presidentin' (Cheney).

But my point is really this: the good that electing a woman or an african american does operates at the same time, on a different track, than the good that electing a different ok presidential candidate (because they are all "ok" on the democratic side) for his various good qualities. Its an additive good, not an instead of good. I myself prefer Edwards because his populism appeals to me and I'm tired of trimmers. But I could be mistaken about Obama and in any event his election has some other potential good aspects too it that Edwards' doesn't if he is elected by an excited coalition of new voters, young voters, and former republican voters *and he doesn't blow his chance big time* after he is elected. And the same goes for Hillary. If she can get elected we've ended up choosing a moderate (too moderate) militarist, cautious candidate who also will break the glass ceiling for millions of talented women one of whom may eventually replace her with a more progressive program.

There isn't going to be a "best candidate" in this flawed world. But some of our pretty good candidates have the potential to really shake things up for large portions of our population and that is a great thing.

Kate G.

[Colin Danby]

"but d*mn I'd like to see him admit that this is going to be mano a mano bloodshed to take this country back from the abyss."

So what he's not giving you is a lot of mixed apocalyptic metaphors?

[Kate G.]

Well, is "mano a mano" impossible at the "edge of the abyss?" I don't think its a mixed metaphor, though it is a teeny bit excitable. A mixed metaphor would be "going nose to nose with the mills of god."

And, in re the subject of the first post:

Why, speak of the devil:

From John Amato at Crooks and Liars:

Here’s a sample of the kind of attacks Obama will be facing because of his win in Iowa. It’s pretty disturbing.

"Did the weakest Dem candidate for the general election won tonight? I think so. By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.

Hussein’s exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope.

I think we as Republicans should be celebrating tonight at the coronation of Hussein, in whose presence millions of Democrat women, from elementary school teachers to journalism majors to law school grads to dykes on bikes will go weak in their knees.

As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.

God Bless America, Land of the Free."

[Charles]

Kate, you're hung up on the personal invective. GOP dirty tricks are a lot more inventive than that.

Remember how they ransacked Clinton's passport file, and tried to turn a staple hole into a renunciation of American citizenship? Remember how Bob Dole created hysteria around gays in the military while Clinton was celebrating the holidays? Remember the phony scandals-- Whitewater, Filegate, Haircutgate?

I don't agree with HRC on much, but I agree with her that Obama is not prepared for the mud machine.

[agricanto]

just as I thought I was sunk in middle aged jaded cynicism and bitterness fermented by eight years of national shame, I watched Obama's speech. Three of us watched it. Two of us are jaded cynics. One is a true beleiver. All three of us got downright verglempt when we heard him sound like nothing we had heard in decades. It was contagious. All those young white kids standing behind Barak and looking like a Robert Kennedy moment. Dang, is it possible? Can the gringos correct course when their starship is lost in space? If so, then the 21st century really just got started this week.

[Colin Danby]

And the fact that you can find a posting like this on a blogsite like that, if you look, tells us what, exactly, that we didn't know?

This lurid fascination with other people's capacity for smearing is a little weird. I repeat, this stuff works by getting you to their work for them by imagining the worst and frightening yourself silly.

[AP]

Quibble: there're only 48 states left. Michigan doesn't get to play this time.

[John Emerson]

Hopefully Clinton will lend her smear-response team to Obama if Obama ends up as the Democratic candidate. Carville's rapid-response team was very, very good, even though Carville himself is one of the most disgusting of mercenary opportunist parasites.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Swiftboating and negative campaigning will be less effective this time, for two different reasons: (1) Simply because it is a long campaign, the negative techniques will become emotionally tiresome to the voters, and there will be more time to backfire on the perpetrators. (2) The national media now includes the web, and so lots more people will be watching and getting the word out.

[So, Lee, are you ready to play your part?]

I think this campaign is likely to have a much more substantive discussion of the issues than we have ever seen before, and, given that the issues are complicated and even a little daunting, while the voters as a whole have been voting emotionally and in ignorance of some basic facts, this new longer campaign season is good for the country.

[Colin Danby]

I think that's right, agricanto. It's partly a larger generational moment, but his is the political talent to bottle it. If you look at the entrance poll crosstabs that's the one thing that really stands out.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/9AgeDemlarge.php

Perhaps younger folks have internalized less of the crap that we're seeing upthread.

His Selma speech in March had me in tears, which is not the kind of thing that happens to me very often (or that I like to admit). Up 'til last night I was fully prepared to be disappointed again, used to the idea that inspiring ones never get far and you end up voting for yet another stooge in the general election. But his campaign pulled off a major organizing feat in Iowa. Turns out it can be done.

[Lee A. Arnold]

I'm not sure I understand the implication of your interpolation. Just say the word!

[Colin Danby]

Ezra's on a roll

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein

and has a nice line from the Senator today:

"they say, Obama, you're not ready to lead. You need more seasoning. Stewing. We need to boil the hope out of you. Then you'll be like us. And you'll be ready."

[Matt]

This is my second comment on this thread. That's perhaps cheating.

Look--I'm a confirmed secular liberal, and am about 50, and have been living, politically, in a defensive crouch for my entire adult life. I loved Bill Clinton, but only because he delayed or ameleorated the conservative advance.

Obama makes me feel like it's 1968. Can't politics be fun? Can't once in a life time things happen--one in a lifetime? There's an real chance of a real realigntment of the whole political landscape here. Come on--Can't I dream. This man is the equal of MLK, JFK or RFK as a rhetoritician. And anyone who tells you that that's only a "presentational" skill is too shallow to matter.

[Auto]

Matt,

I, too, liked Bill Clinton for the enemies he attracted. It was fun for a change to feel good because we ha our guy (however flawed) in charge and pissing off the right-wing freaks.

But if we're going to link OB to 1968, then he's another Gene McCarthy. RFK was the insurgent who was too white hot to appeal to middle class process liberals. RFK was so barely in control of what he was unleashing that by the night of the California primary, Fred Dutton, his campaign manager, was afraid to have RFK leave the hotel via the ballroom because he feared the crowd was out of control. Which was why RFK exited the hotel by way of the kitchen.

OB, I'll bet, attracts the same voters McCarthy did and for the same reasons. Like OB today, McCarthy regarded himself as too good a man for what politics required of him to be president.

I have no great passion for Hillary. (Who does? Older women, maybe?) And I doubt her judgment. But I'll vote for her on February 5. While I discount her claims to possess anything approaching executive/decision-making experience just because she was around when Bill was president, she has first-hand experience fighting the rightwing smear machine.

Not only has OB never encountered the sort of attacks Hillary faced, but worse, I'm not certain he's willing to fight back.

No matter Hillary's manifest flaws, she will hit back. And hard.

Not the most stirring endorsement, I know, but that's why I'm voting for Hillary over OB or Edwards.

[Justin X]

I have to commend DeLong for his truly elegant, sensitive, and historically-aware statement of congratulation to all the Dems (winners, other candidates, and voters) in the Iowa caucus.

And what a sharp contrast this fine statement bears to the grudging, petty response of Krugman on his blog, no doubt conditioned by the failure of his favorite candidate to emerge the victor, vanquished instead by the one candidate Krugman has sought to vilify as “naïve”, “unrealistic”, a “sucker”, “living in a fantasy world”, and “an anti-change candidate” who mouths “right wing talking points.”

[John Emerson]

Eugene McCarthy wasn't a "process liberal". He was the insurgent against a sitting Democratic President. To this day, the Democratic pros hate the very memory of McCarthy.

I agree that Hillary knows how to fight back. I only fear that she'll sit back and watch Obama struggle during the election, in hopes of being the 2012 nominee.

Krugman has good reasons not to like Obama. Justin X's empty comment does nothing to change my mind about that.

[Colin Danby]

John's right, and I might add, having seen Eugene McCarthy speak in 1968, that he was no Barack Obama.

Justin, I thought Krugman's:

"I’ve made my doubts clear; but for tonight, I simply offer best wishes and hopes for a brighter future."

was fine. Possibly he's been uncharitable in the past and doesn't get the difference between disagreeing with his political judgment and echoing right wing talking points, but Krugman's always been like that: he's only got one setting. At least he's going after Obama on policy questions and real stuff that you can debate properly, not on the basis of the lurid, defeatist fantasies that spoil the imaginations of some of our fellow-commenters.

[Gary Denton]

The SCLM has never publicized that quote from McCain and won't because the GOP wants it buried.

[Kate G.]

Thank goodness Obama's supporters are willing to continue harshing on the most dangerous right wing foe of all--Krugman. Its this kind of cheap attacks on the center left that started the online discussion of Obama as a trojan candidate. I've been reading Krugman and admiring his courage for a lot longer than Obama's been on the national political stage and, frankly, Krugman has a lot more credit with me than Obama the crowd pleaser. If Obama wants to dispell the image that is emerging of a man who talks a good game but is not a fighter, well, he could issue some serious fighting policies like universal health care.

Kate G.

[sm]

Matt,

I'm a bit older than 50 and I don't remember politics being "fun" in 1968.

[Monte Davis]

"Well, is "mano a mano" impossible at the 'edge of the abyss?' "

What -- you missed the end of Lord of the Rings?

[Kate G.]

Also that scene in Star Wars, come to think of it.

I've been thinking about the Obama thing all day and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not a Dionysiac when it comes to politics, I'm an Appolonian. I don't like elegant emotional appeals--I prefer a careful laying out of a case on its own merits. I really, really, dislike the evangelical, preacher style in political speech and the very thing that Obama's supporters point to--the frenzy of his crowds--makes me even more repulsed. I got into a lot of trouble, internetwise, during the aftermath of 9/11 for cautioning other internet friends against allowing themselves to be sucked into the reiterated griefs of the imagery of the fallen. Admittedly, that was a very middle class, unreflective crowd I was running with on a mommy board for working women. They were shocked, really shocked, that funerals could be seen as other than a legitimate, unmediated, outpouring of genuine emotion. Or that they could and would be used to channel people's grief towards agression and revenge. But nothing is more obvious than the rapid and sometimes dangerous shifting of passion from one focus to another, and from one valence to another. Obama's riding a tiger in terms of the passions and unmeetable expectations of his followers. And we are very much mistaken if we think that this political passion is an unmediated good.

I will support Obama as the nominee, if it comes to that. But I don't value and I actively dislike the charismatic leader model that he and his followers are pushing on us. And I could really, really, do with a four or eight year hiatus on the god talk.

Kate G.

[Peter K.]

Brad's thinking way too small. The nightmare of the last 8 years? What about America's orginial sin of slavery and racism?

The election of a black President would be an event of historic proportions.

America's racism and tribalism has bedeviled the progressive cause since the beginning.

With Iowa's huge victory Obama has demonstrated he's a smart campaigner. He'll govern much as Hillary or Edwards would.

Yeah he'll face a vicious attack campaign, but his election would be the beginning of the end of the Republican's Southern Strategy. (Imagine if he brought Powell or Rice on board).

[Colin Danby]

Speaking of Bacchae, Gail Collins fished up some nice ironies yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05collins.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Kate raises important points, but I hear a faint sound of straw men being whacked in the background. I don't see anyone pushing the "charismatic leader model," which has a pretty specific meaning, nor do I see anything upthread about God. Most of us know the difference. Obama, if you read the accounts, spent much of 2007 traipsing around Iowa engaged in wonkish colloquies with the locals about agriculture policy. (He was derided, ouch, as professorial.) Yes, he has the ability that youknowwho lacks to make the turn from policy detail to big vision. Yes, such a turn is inherently reductive and can be dangerous. But look again at the link I posted upthread on the age ranges of support in Iowa. I'm trying to think of a good reason to turn that ability down.

For the rest, de gustibus... I've spent enough time in religious settings that I appreciate a good cadence, and evidence is abundant that faith and even fervor are quite compatible with thinking hard and doing good.

[sm]

"Brad's thinking way too small. The nightmare of the last 8 years? What about America's orginial sin of slavery and racism?"

Best to read the post again...

"This is a sign that our longest and deepest national nightmare may finally be coming to an end.

Thaddeus Stevens and Frederick Douglass would be ecstatic..."

Neither of these two has been around in my time, much less the last 8 years.

[elliottg]

I agree with Kate G about a lot of her reluctance to jump on the Obama bandwagon, but to other commentors who worry about Obama not having the stuff to stand up to the right-wing smear machine? Where do you think Obama grew up? Do you think he has never been called n----- before? Do you think he has never had to fight the first impression at Harvard that he was an affirmative action admit? On the other side, you don't think he had to take sh** from African-American friends and competitors about having a Caucasion mother? Whether he talks about it or not (I have not read any of his books), as a overachieving Black man, you can bet serious dollars that he has weathered many an attack both explicit and implicit.

[Kate G.]

elliotg,
His book "Dreams from my Father" is an incredible book. There are people (and I'm one of them) who would consider that the writing of that beautiful, eloquent, thoughtful book sufficient for an entire life. And its just one of Obama's many achievements. I'm suspicious of Obama and all the hooey and excitement, but he is an incredible thinker and writer and I'll be thrilled to cast my vote for him in the general. He may betray us, he may not be able to do what he promises, or he might not be interested in a truly ground breaking progressive movement, but he's head and shoulders better than any of the candidates on the right.

Kate G.

[mistah charley, ph.d.]

DeLong's posting, and the responses, are all the proof one needs that that Obama's appeal is that of the "Magic Negro", as well described by LA Times columnist David Ehrenstein*

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

On a different blog those of us who expressed Obama-skeptical views quickly found ourselves characterized as "Obama haters."

Nevertheless, I want to express my opinion - that having a president "with skin the color mocha" is not going to end our centuries-long national nightmare of "living la vida loca". There's a line from an early Bob Dylan song, a dream dialog between Dylan and someone else: "I said, 'You know, they refused Jesus too.' The guy said, 'You ain't him.'"

Obama ain't Jesus. Obama ain't magic. When this finally sinks in some people are going to be very disappointed. America is not going to achieve vicarious atonement by electing Obama. Accepting the facts of what has been done in the past, and taking steps to make amends now, is what is called for - and while Pres. Obama might promote this process, his election is neither necessary nor sufficient.

By the way, despite what you would conclude from Ehreinstein's name, he's NOT a Jew - he's a person of color - he mentions that fact in his column, and one can look up the details. But what you would conclude from my own screen name is correct - I am a colorless person. Nevertheless, I am a liberal, with the cancelled checks to prove it, and my Obama skepticism is NOT based on his racial background.

I'm a time traveller from the first half of the twentieth century. Things have changed a lot in this regard since I've been around. There are African American entertainment celebrities and sports celebrities and TV personalities and political leaders - brain surgeons and astronauts and generals. Good. Good good good. Let's have a country in which Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream - that people would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin - comes true. Choosing among presidential candidates BECAUSE of the color of their skin seems to me like a step in the wrong direction. By the way, my preference for another candidate, not Obama, is not a judgment of his "character", but of his program as he has expressed it. Krugman's criticisms of Obama seem right to me.

While we're thinking about the magic powers of high officials of African-American ancestry, let's look at a recent example - the influence of Gen. Powell, and then Dr. Rice, on the foreign policy of the Cheney Regime. How's that working out?

[wood turtle]

Speaking of corn-eating, it's Obama that needs to eat some corn, or something. He needs to put on a little weight with all those heavy speeches he's been giving. The mud bounces off easier that way.

[Glendon]

Man, I sure as hell would not worry about Obama not being able to take the crap from the thugs on the right. He's played a lot of pick-up basketball, a very physical and intimidating game, over the years and learned how to handle himself. From the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01hoops.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

One Place Where Obama Goes Elbow to Elbow

"Last Christmas, Senator Barack Obama flew to Hawaii to contemplate a presidential bid in the peace of his childhood home. But there, on a humid playground near Waikiki Beach, he found himself being roughed up by some of his best friends. It was the third and final game of the group’s annual three-on-three basketball showdown, and with the score nearly tied, things were getting dirty.

Every time he tried to score, I fouled him,” Martin Nesbitt recalled. “I grabbed him, I’d hit his arm, I’d hold him.” Michael Ramos, another participant, explained, “No blood, no foul.”

Mr. Obama, like everyone else on the court, was laughing. And with a head fake, a bit of contact and a jumper that seemed out of his range, Mr. Obama sank the shot that won the game."

[wood turtle]

Did McCain really say that about Chelsea Clinton? He may be a war hero, but I can't see anybody voting him after that type of comment.