Karen, that’s like saying he’ll be the best president since Martin Sheen. Not to mention that the whole point of the movie was the fact that Mr. Smith *wasn’t* a politician, so you sort of lost me. Now if we can have the same ending as the movie, but this time with Harry Reid, we may be onto something…

Barak Obama has a father who is African and a mother who is caucason.

When are we going to stop negating the life, family and history of one entire half of Sen. Obama’s life, and the lives of millions of other people in this country?? I agree with parts of what both of you said, and will admit that yes, I am going to vote for Sen Obama and I am going to do anything in my power to get everyone else to vote for him too. Not, however, because he is “black” but because he is the best politician I have ever seen since Jimmy Stewart played Mr. Smith. And I will also admit that dispite the fact that I am more or less a femanist I do not trust Hillary Clinton as far as I could throw her. She is just plain smarmy. So there you have it.

To rephrase for anyone else wishing to comment, I was stating that I think Obama is certainly charming and appealing as a politician, but I don’t have the feeling that he has what it takes to be president (yet). Why do you think he does?

I don’t want my comment to be misconstrued so let me try to be clearer: There is a candidate on the table with obvious appeal (see my first comment) which is being overshadowed by the fact that he is black. It’s like saying to people, “defend your black candidate.” I wonder whether a white candidate in the same place would be under the same scrutiny. Maybe, maybe not.

I also think that when people say “it’s about time we have a black/Jew/New Yorker/flying monkey in the White House,” isn’t it implicit that that candidate must be a qualified one? I just can’t imagine too many people, let alone “a large group of liberals,” voting on race as a priority above all else. If that were the case, why wasn’t Sharpton the last nominee?

Particularly after this president, it’s very clear where voters–liberals–want their candidates to stand, what issues they want him to focus on, what sort of moral compass they expect from him, what sort of resume. The color issue, I should think, is not a priority but a welcome bonus.

Thanks for the forum Preston and the chance to formulate my thoughts better. Much appreciated.

My apologies, that’s how I tend to respond to sarcastic comments.

[quote]I don’t think you are a racist. But I think that the presumption that the only reason people could be voting for him is because he’s black tiptoes around that territory, however inadvertent.[/quote]

If I had said the only reason some people *won’t* vote for him is because he’s black, is that inadvertently racist of me? If not, then what’s the difference? If I rescind the adjective “large” from my statement, would that be better? Because I think to say that *nobody* would vote positively solely because of his race is disingenuous.

[quote]My overall feeling is that until we can have discussions about him as a candidate without discussing race–something I have yet to see anywhere–we have a long, long way to go. Perhaps this is what you were getting at in the first place?[/quote]

I thought it was rather clear that was what I was getting at in the post and follow-up comments, but I guess not. So I’ll state it very plainly — making Obama’s race the priority of one’s voting decision thought process, no matter for or against, is not a very smart way to choose the leader of the free world.

Thanks for the discourse.

I don’t think you are a racist. But I think that the presumption that the only reason people could be voting for him is because he’s black tiptoes around that territory, however inadvertent. It’s something I expect to hear from the likes of Rush Limbaugh because it’s a not so subtle way to make race a factor in the voting decision.

I’m sure you were doing it in the spirit of provocative discourse and nothing more malicious, but still, that’s what rubbed me the wrong way.

My overall feeling is that until we can have discussions about him as a candidate without discussing race–something I have yet to see anywhere–we have a long, long way to go. Perhaps this is what you were getting at in the first place?

Whatever, enjoy your kool-aid.

Forgive me - when I saw you reading into the minds of a large number of liberals, it was me who was jumping to conclusions.

First of all, I didn’t make the sweeping statement that “people”, i.e., everyone, would vote for him only based on his race. And to try and use what I *did* say into a charge of racism is a real stretch, especially since what I *did* imply is that his skin color should be a non-issue. I hope no one twists you calling him “articulate” into accusing you of using a slur, so you don’t have to experience falsely being called a racist.

I happen to agree with most of your assessment of Senator Obama, except I think he’s got a lot of people duped that he “walks the walk”. He walks whatever path the DNC tells him to, and he has the voting record to prove it. Which is fine, if you agree 100% with the DNC’s platform, but that’s hardly what I would call a plan to “unite the country”.

While I’m yet undecided, what I see in him is an inspirational, charismatic, articulate, focused, self-made, brilliant, and ethical young man who’s dedicated his life to public service and to causes I support. There are so few politicians who live their values in this day, that it’s a breath of fresh air to find someone who really does seem to walk the walk.

The guy’s got a whole lot more going for him than “I’m not Bush,” that’s for sure.