I have been working at a new job recently, and I have had little energy for blogging.  But today I took the time during lunch to pen a few thoughts on the Barack Obama problem.
Additionally, my wife found my first gray hair this evening.  I am ecstatic, having desired a touch of gray since I was 17 or so.  I think that optimally I would affect a George Clooney or a Reed Richards, one or t'other.  Now, without much ado, my first bloggable thought in weeks.

********************

Lately I've been ruminating on the specter of an Obama candidacy.  Hillary is not done yet, but it looks grim.  The Democrats have decided that they can safely abandon Mrs. Clinton in favor of the charismatic Senator from Illinois.  Obama presents some unique obstacles to a reasonable discourse.  No criticism of the man seems to be allowed to stand...for this, that or the other reason.  He was handled with kid gloves during the early part of the primaries.  
The crux of the issue with Barack Obama is that he is an inexperienced candidate who has some very questionable associations that may affect his ability to lead us, but we are being prevented from seriously exploring his weaknesses because of a heightened sensitivity to matters of race and identity.
There is a legitimate fear that his association with avowed anti-American radicals as well as his long membership in a church which prides itself on being the cutting edge of black liberation theology are less a circumstance of his political upbringing and more a reflection of his own personal beliefs.  Americans, I feel it safe to say, want in their President a basic quality - that of the ultimate Spokesman.  To my thinking, a President should at the very least be altogether in love with America.  Not blithely accepting this or that policy as sacred, no, but echoing Stephen Decatur's toast:

Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

A man who could share this sentiment looks clearly at things and sees the plain truth that America, for all her faults, is a force for good in the larger world.  A President of the United States should ever and always be the first to sound the praises of America, even as he claims to chart a new course.
Obama's attempts to avoid jingoism and immodest displays of patriotism bespeak a very cool attitude towards the country he thinks he is qualified to lead.  The question again intrudes upon us:  what exactly are his beliefs about America?  We must have an answer, but we are consistently thwarted in our attempts to procure one.
I am inclined to believe, as are others, that Obama's immaculate status is preserved by unfair means.  Why is it legitimate, even mandatory, to question Cindy McCain's tax returns, but entirely unfair to bring up the subject of Obama's radical colleagues and mentors?  If there is a scale of relevance, Mrs. McCain ranks in the bottom quarter...or eighth.
But, as ever with liberals, we find that when it comes to their pet causes every action is judged on a sliding scale - a relative measure.  Obama is spared from deserved criticism because he is held to a different standard.  I posit that this is due to his race.
It is not a direct relationship.  Obama is not spared because he is black.  But he is.  What we have to understand is that the culprit in this case is the very worst sort of identity politics.
Think about it.  To liberals, a person's identity takes center stage.  Every aspect of that person makes up the very essence of who they are, their identity.  This is opposed to character, which can be judged to be good or bad.  Criticizing a person for their character flaws, long thought to be acceptable as a means of improving character, has of late been replaced with a drive to affirm the individual's sense of identity.  Iconoclasm is the new old vogue, and so to criticize a person like Barack Obama is to violate a taboo of liberalism. 
Another thing that makes up your identity, as opposed to your character, is your race.  So, to criticize Obama's actions is to criticize his identity.  And to criticize his identity is to criticize, however tenuously, his race.  And thus we are faced with the uncomfortable realization that criticizing Barack Obama has a slight odor of racism about it.  I doubt Obama intentionally cultivates this, but he certainly benefits from it.  And I'd liken the scent to a manufactured odor, sort of the way that Febreze doesn't really smell like fresh linens hanging on a line. 

When we view Obama through a lens of identity, it is not possible to judge him fit or unfit for the Presidency.  When we look at him through the prism of character, it is eminently doable.  This is the great problem we face in our current political climate:  Identity politics is the order of the day, and until we distinguish between the false, relative view of identity and true personhood we will never be free of it.

I think the time has come for me to stop fighting it.  Over the past few months I've been arguing with everyone around me about the political candidates, which one is better and which one would be death for this country.  And I've been taking it for granted that I should support a Republican.
But I am so tired of the fighting.  I finally watched the speech Barack Obama gave the other week.  You know, the one I ridiculed earlier.  Well...I listened to the man and he spoke to my soul. 

I've decided to vote for Barack Obama. 

Now I didn't come to this decision lightly, I want you to be quite aware of that.  In fact, I went back and watched Obama's speeches from the past few months.  All of them.  And it was just like, wow.  One thing after another just resonated with me and I started to ask myself why we aren't all working together on our problems.  Why can't we just unite behind this man and follow his lead.  He's a proven leader in the Senate and he's an inspiring, charismatic guy who just might impress our enemies with his willingness to actually talk to them for a change. 

Maybe he'll also crap a rainbow.  Then we can all hold hands and slide down it into a pot of free healthcare, citizenship for illegals and the end of all those nasty gun rights.  If we fall off (rainbows are fickle, you know) we'll find a cushion in the piles of aborted babies that Obama considers punishment.  It's a testament to my lack of conviction in my writing that I couldn't keep up this pathetic joke any longer.  I could almost taste the vomit. 

If we elect Barack Obama it will show that the American republic has been corrupted by democracy.  The base impulses of the electorate are to serve self, first.  Any politician who tells you exactly what you want to hear has you marked as a rube.  I guarantee that the old talk about the electoral college comes up again this year. 

Up with Electors!

I think this paragraph from Jonah Goldberg of National Review is a tidy summation of my feelings on what some have called "one of the finest speeches ever." 

Why do voluptuaries of racial argy-bargy want yet another such dialogue? For some, it’s to avoid actually dealing with unpleasant facts. But for others — like La Raza or the college professors scrambling to follow Obama’s lead — when they say we need more conversation, they really mean their version of reality should win the day. Replace “conversation” with “instruction” and you’ll have a better sense of where these people are coming from and where they want their “dialogue” to take us.

Ultimately, Obama's speech is nothing so momentous, so awe-inspiring.  In fact, Obama's refusal to distance himself personally as well as professionally from the man who condemned America in no uncertain terms while giving an award to real hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan is troubling.  Is it weakness of character, which might be forgivable, or is it that Mr. Obama finds the words of his pastor not particularly offensive? 
One thing I think we can agree upon is that the President of the United States cannot be too patriotic.  He is not only our leader in matters foreign and domestic, he is also America's preeminent spokesman.  When a man tolerates sentiments such as Jeremiah Wright's and refuses for years to repudiate them, that man is demonstrating a quality that no President should possess. 
Is Obama's speech really a call to dialogue?  That remains to be seen.  Currently, it amounts to nothing more than a grand changing of the subject.

It's about time, people.  Seriously though, glad to have made an interesting post.

Haha, so I've had very few people tell me why Obama is so great.  We've mostly been talking about how America is not so terrible. 

Can anyone, anyone tell me just what is so great about Barack Obama?  From what I've seen of him, he's got nothing to recommend him for the presidency and his whole campaign has been based on indistinct notions of "hope" and "change" that really don't mean anything.

I see the news, and I read things like this by Mark Steyn and the "Obama-rama" just doesn't make sense.  Why, why, why would anyone with a brain be supporting Obama for the presidency?  Let's just say you are in fact a liberal and you want to see liberal policies enacted.  Great.  Why not vote for Clinton, who will quite frankly be better positioned both in Congress and abroad to meet those liberal goals? 

You read Obama's ideas on the issues and they are so much fluff.  How, pray tell, would President Obama "secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years" if he is also committed to withdrawing our forces from the enemy's home turf of the Middle East?  Does Obama mean to say that he will continue American Interventionism, only that his version will be specifically targeted against nuclear weapons, or Al-Qaeda, or whichever problem?  How will he accomplish this without violating the rights of your friendly neighborhood fifth-column terrorist? 

How do you fight an enemy that uses a cellphone to communicate?  Eavesdrop.  How do you foil a plot to attack a country that is planned entirely via e-mail?  Hack.  How do you make this happen if your agents are not empowered to search within our own borders?  Further, how do you intend to make sure that our legal system is not taxed by the influx of "enemy combatants" who would be granted representation by your closing of Guantanamo?

It's this expectation of greatness that I can't stand.  Why would he be a great President?  Because he's got one of the most liberal records (short as it is) in Congress?  Because he's a "first?"  Because he can say something inane without sounding like a total moron?  Because he makes people faint? 

Where is the Democrat who will look at this Barack Obama and say, "Sir, you are no Jack Kennedy?"  It is my opinion that being compared to Kennedy is no great honor, but liberals seem to like him.  And at least he spent 14 years in Congress before being elected.  Obama is, at this point in his career, just a pretty face with a nice voice and some good speech writers.  When you get past the cult of personality surrounding the man, you realize that his politics are pretty scary if you don't live in Europe and would damage our ability to defend ourselves from a terrorist attack.  Of course, if one of those should occur who do you think would be blamed?  Not the sitting president, no way!  Not the Congress...why, it must have been President Monkey-face McStoopid the War Monger and his policies that made those nice Muslims mad enough to attack us again.

He's not qualified for the job, and I question the commitment to rational thought of anyone who seriously believes that he is.

It's going to be Obama for the Democrats and probably McCain for the Republicans.  Romney will be close, I think. 

My favorite, Fred Thompson, has one more shot to get things going.  If he wins South Carolina, I'll continue to support him.  If he loses, he's done..  I think he'll raise the money he needs, but not the votes.  He's got great positions and I hope that whoever wins will adopt some of them, maybe even put him as VP or on the cabinet.  That would be stellar.

Rudy's a non-entity, and he'd better hope that he has enough steam for his late strategy.

But Hillary is in trouble.  I can't decide how I feel about that.  I am terrified that Barack "Half a Term" Obama will beat her.  The man is a novice, truly.  But people will vote with their hearts, not their heads.  This is why the founding fathers restricted voting to the landed gentry.  They could count on them to be educated when they voted...

I'm convinced that the Republicans will lose.  If they nominate Mike Huckabee (they won't, I pray) I have decided to vote for a third party.

Doom and Gloom, I say. 

I have been thinking that it's almost time for a cheeky poem.  Maybe later.  I know how much my readers love my awesome rhymes.

Scio's Comments in red.

Bush Death Watch: Countdown!

It's official: Less than one year until history slaps Dubya to the curb. Can you feel the tingle?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, November 16, 2007

It's just that kind of feeling, that sense of hesitant, embryonic optimism, the sense that says, oh my God, we as a culture and a smash-mouthed, war-hammered society really are fast approaching something possibly, potentially, heart-achingly new and different and — because it cannot get any worse — just a little bit better.

Here is my suggestion: Mark your calendars, set your watch, program a celebratory ringtone well in advance, because the countdown has officially begun.

It is now less than one calendar year until the next presidential election. It is less than one year until the country finally takes a deep breath and flexes its atrophied muscles and opens its bloody, Cheney-punched (so that's what we're talking about?) mouth and lets it be known to the world, to the universe, to its own numb and dejected soul just exactly how unwell it has felt, how much pain has raked its heart (slightly overblown, I think), lo, these past seven (eight, by then) years, by ushering in an entirely new political era, as we all exhale a massive sigh of long overdue relief that — praise Jesus, Allah, Buddha and the devil all at once — the long national nightmare of George W. Bush is finally over (One man responsible for all the nation's ills...check).

It is now safe to imagine. It is now becoming increasingly easy to actually dare to think that, in less than one year's time, Dubya will begin packing his bags, jamming into his Spongebob duffel (cheap) his map of the world coloring book (tired), English-to-English translation dictionaries (so 1999), mangled pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution (trite), Bibleman action figure set and a "Mission Accomplished!" sweatshirt, and heading off to face his destiny as one of the bleakest, most morally repellent chapters (from a radical Muslim perspective, perhaps) in all of American history.

You think maybe it's too soon? Too early to let the tingle of positivism and hope take hold? Far from it. After all, the signs of decay and utter GOP desperation keep pouring in. For example, it has now been officially recorded in history what everyone already knows: Bush is nearly exactly as unpopular as Richard Nixon was at his lowest point, and no president in history has had as long a streak at the bottom of the job-approval rankings as Dubya (polls are nearly as reliable as a liberal's commitment to strict constructivism). Heckuva job, Bushie!

What's more, the glorious collapse of the evangelical Christian right marches on apace, as Pat Robertson, now a dejected, lonely widower after the death of secret boy-toy husband Jerry Falwell (see what I mean by compassionate?  Where's the respect for an opponent that is necessary to political discourse in this country?), has officially endorsed pro-choice, pro-gay, thrice-married, massively unbalanced moral pit bull Rudy Giuliani for president, which is a bit like a militant vegan endorsing Hot Dog on a Stick for the title of Lord of the Food Court (have to say that I think Pat did make a mistake on this one.  Better to endorse your values and then admit you have to compromise rather than compromise from the get go...plausible deniability?). Desperate times indeed.

But wait, it gets better. While it's easy to focus on Shrub and Cheney and to gleefully, achingly imagine their dreary march out of office on that happy day (stop it!  grossly overwrought.), it is also vital and heartwarming to note that this time next year will also mark the demise of an entire army of toxic leaders, federal department heads, gay-bashing (ah ha.) appointees and misogynist directors of every stripe and scandal and spittle, a simply huge array of right-wing Bushies who are still entrenched in all manner of powerful federal bureaus and organizations and policy-making bodies.

It's true. Despite how a huge hunk of hideous GOP policymakers lost their seats (not quite 1994) during the last congressional election, plenty more appointees are still around to poison the well. From Kevin Martin, the lackey who oversees the FCC, to noxious Idahoan and rabid anti-environmentalist (so this is a hate crime too I guess) Dick Kempthorne of the Department of the Interior, to anti-choice Republican Mormon knucklehead charity scammer and Department of Health and Human Services overseer Mike Leavitt, and on and on — in a year, all on their way out.

Oh, and one more deserves special attention. Because one year from now will also be the glorious political end of one Dr. David W. Hager, the rabid evangelical Christian gynecologist (I know, so wrong) who currently advises the FDA on women's health issues and who was largely responsible for delaying the approval of Plan B (yay), opposed RU-486 (good), is in fact against all contraception (me too), stem-cell research (probably only embryonic, jerk.  You know, the kind that doesn't work?  Adult stem cell research is fine, and has shown results.), premarital sex (bad for you, really it is.), and (quite naturally) women's choice (Like the choice to sleep around and deal with the "natural" consequences), and whose own ex-wife claims he anally raped her, over and over again, in her sleep (the obvious question is, if she was asleep at the time how does she know it wasn't just hemorrhoids?.

Intelligent women nationwide still shudder that this man is allowed anywhere near a living vagina, much less permitted to touch and probe and offer advice. But there is one noteworthy aspect to Hager; he is the perfect incarnation of the Christian right's view of women (sure, just like Hillary Clinton is the right's view of the Antichrist...not so) as subordinate, lesser-intelligent sluts who cannot control their own bodies and therefore need men (husbands), God (yes), and the government (not if you're a conservative...then you want the government to protect the right to worship and nothing else) to do it for them. Hager is a deep shame to the male gender, and his return to the private practice of ruining the sex lives of unfortunate women in Kentucky cannot come soon enough.

But why write this column now, so far in advance of Bush's limp-tailed departure? Simple enough: Because it will take a full year to get ready.

It will take every month and every week and every single day from the moment you read this until November 2008 to compile, to gather, to list all the names and all the horrors and all the deeply entrenched policies that are still clawing at the face of America (evocative.) as a result of Bush's reign (Oh, yeah, I forgot he was an Imperial President), to fully get your mind around just how deep is the disease and how widely it has spread, so we may begin to excise the policies one by one like the malignant tumors they so very much are.

What, too strong? Not even close. Go read up on Hager, and get back to me.

Ah, but perhaps you are one of the jaded ones, the non-believers, that certain type of political bitterball who says, oh please, what does it matter, they're all criminals and cretins and powermongers anyway, no matter which party or president they work for? Get rid of BushCo and a new slew of cronies and cretins take their place, and who can tell the difference? (What if you're one of the political bitterballs who don't live in San Francisco?)

To which I say, well, yes. But also, no. Sure, the system is corrupt and lopsided and full of backstabbing and backslapping and backroom deal-making. So what? Has been since the first cavemen voted to see who gets to run the mammoth hunt (at least he's right about this).

Truth is, it's just far too easy to let the ennui wash over and not give a damn, to lump all politics into a phlegmball of nasty negativity and be done with it, thus entirely disregarding the efficacious issues, the things that truly effect change and affect lives and improve or degrade the health of the planet. Outrage fatigue is simply unacceptable. Intellectual apathy is the refuge of the lazy and the spiritually malnourished. Do not let it happen to you (by all means, please let it happen to this man's readers.).

Now is the time. The coming year will slide by rather quickly and the feeling of urgent change and upheaval will only build and it doesn't really matter if it's Hillary or Obama or Edwards leading the shift (it does, but do we expect him to make sense at this point?), because no matter who gets the nod, they will require — from me, from you, from anyone who professes to care — a roiling tidal wave of progressive momentum behind them to help them cleanse and haul away the overwhelming mountain of moral fecal matter (let's not talk about morals, San Francisco.) Bush has left behind.

Mark your calendar. Set your ringtone. Take a deep breath, feel the wave build, and then dive the hell in. Right now, it's the only option that really matters.

Golly day.  I can not fathom how much these people hate George Bush.  One of the great things about the Republic is that if you don't like who is in power you just have to wait them out.  These people act like Bush has voted himself Dictator for Life.  For six years it's been nothing but criticism, insults and gloomy forecasts for his place in history.  Truth be told, he hasn't done that bad a job.  Look at men like Buchanan and Pierce, who were unable or unwilling to do anything to avert the coming Civil War.  Bush can't be faulted for doing something in the face of the first great conflict of our century: that of radical Islam.  Better to try, make mistakes rather than sit back and do nothing, and be remembered for that.

It will be nice to finally stop hearing about how awful President Bush is, though.  Of course, I expect them to miss nary a beat and move on to blaming all the next administrations problems on the previous.  Kind of like Republicans do with Clinton.

While some think ol' Fred got in late
I think twas a reas'nable date.
He's surely a shoo-in
And knows what he's doin'.
What brains 'neath that shiny bald pate!

The Clinton who reps the New Yorkuhs
Has a laugh I imagine a stork does.
It sounds a bit forced
But consider the source;
She isn't relaxed like her Dork was.

John Edwards, that big ball of gas,
Appeals to the stupid and crass.
A liberal whiner
With sand in his 'giner;
I sure hate that country-fried ass.

There once was a guy named Obama,
Who courted the populist drama.
An Illinois boob
Who'll capture the rubes
If he wins I will go join Osama.

With Thompson in need of a Vice,
I think Giuliani'd be nice.
Play second-fiddle?
There is a riddle!
I think he would rather have lice.

************************************

There once was a young man named Dennis
Who dated a girl name of Jenness.
What he didn't know
Was Jen was a bro
Then Jen wore some shorts to play tennis.

So I found this nice Belgian Ale called "Deus, Brut des Flandres."  Lofty names aside, it's actually quite good.  It has the effervescence of champagne and the heady, clouded deliciousness of the wheat ale.  Made with barley, I believe.  It is to be poured into a champagne flute or chalice.  Quite the head on it!  Anyway, I had a whole bottle of the stuff, and I'm fuzzy right now.  Perfect time to Voxxxxxxxx.
Why those multiple x's seemed like a good idea, I cannot say.

DeusBrut

**************************************************************************************************************************************

Thompson, Thompson - won't you run?
You're not fooling anyone.
I think that you might be the one
When everybody's jumped the gun
To bring us back into the sun;
Declare, Declare, and join the fun.

****************************

Grudgingly must I admit
That Obama's quite the hit.
And while I cannot stand his s**t
And think that he's a stupid git,
The Dems are chomping at the bit
So let's see what he does with it.

*****************************

I do not think I have to wait
Until the year 2008
To know who will survive the wait
And figure on a running mate.
Clinton-Obama (both I hate);
A Thompson-Rudy tete-a-tete?

*************************************************************************************************************************************
So there you have it folks.  You got the best of my love, whoa-oh...you got the best of my love whoa-oh...oh oh oh oh oh oh.  Ooooooh now it's "The Dancing Queen."  I think I'll switch it over to Blues or Bluegrass and cry myself to sleep tonight.

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.

By David Ehrenstein, L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN writes about Hollywood and politics.
March 19, 2007

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?

And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")

But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

I found this article to be an interesting take on the Obamenon among liberals today.  The man has enjoyed an unprecedented level of goodwill and support in the past two years.  Since his election to the Senate over Alan Keyes, his name has been one of the most whispered about presidential contenders for 2008.  While at first the whispering was merely idiotic, it has now become slightly less so.  At the time of his election, the man was coming from a background in state politics and community organization before that.  Hardly a presidential resume these days, but that didn't seem to shake the conviction of his supporters that B.O. would make a stellar president.
Why?  What in this man's background qualifies him to even run at this stage?  He has less than a full term in the U.S. Senate, and no executive experience that can be applied to the job of President.  He has been a legislator and organizer.  These are very different animals when compared to a President or even a governor.  The mechanics are different, the job is different -- and he hasn't proven his worth in his own elected position yet.
Why indeed should he garner such wide support if not for the the overwhelming desire of some Americans to demonstrate that the time of racism has passed?  I would argue that this is a form of racism in itself.  Why should his race be a driving factor in his support?  We should be able to assess the man free of these factors.
I would not say that Obama would be a terrible president...our elected leaders can only get our country into so much trouble, without help.  Obama's inexperience is not an asset, nor is his relative newness to Washington and its corrupting influence.  I posit that Obama has jumped the gun tremendously.  His character and freshness will not see him through the meatgrinder of this election.
Regarding white guilt...what a terrible motivation to support this man.  It is not as if there is a conscious awareness of the feeling.  Every supporter of Obama needs to search their heart and eschew every ounce of patronizing guilt over this man's blackness before they throw their lot in with him.  And then they need to look at his record and make the right decision:  Vote experience, not personality. 

And did we notice that Wikipedia has been used as a reference tool in this article?  Seeing that more and more...Not that I have a problem with it.