U.S. Election '08: Race to the Conventions

[Marshal Murat]

That's the interesting thing about this race. Most of my policy positions lie with McCain (except for illegal immigration), and I would oppose most of Obama's positions. If it comes down to one or the other, I'm going Obama. If it's McCain vs. Billary, then it's going to be McCain, no matter what his previous record.

I've stated (to the surprise of others) that McCain will win vs. Hillary. Evidently, many of my friends are under the impression that Hillary, if and when she wins the Democratic nomination, will send out a subliminal shockwave that will turn all those Obama supporters into Hillary-bots. I was surprised, since most of Hillary's attacks have alienated younger voters, African-Americans, and anyone independent. I am under the impression that anyone who would support Obama would rather McCain than Clinton.

Thoughts of anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line?

[Spino]

Actually, you don't hit and maintain a 32% approval if you're "tolerated" by moderates. Indies and moddies don't like GWB any more than anybody else.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant ...

GW Bush had a higher approval rating (~45-50%) when he ran for re-election and his disapproval rating was around the same mark, thus my 'barely tolerated by moderates' line. His approval and disapproval ratings went from tepid to awful after he was re-elected.

As far as the Demcrats go, I really only see one option, and that is Obama winning the nomination. Think of the movement he has started, all the new people he has brought into the political arena. These are people who are fed up with the system and want whole sale change. People are realizing that we need change, and he is inspiring a new generation to participate in politics. If it comes down to the super delegates they will have to choose him. He, or his idea of change will not fade into the background, and Billary and McCain will not change anything. So these people will stop campaigning for this movement and move on to protests in washington dc. Marches on washington have happened before, and they can happen again. The establishment don't want this, therefore they win let him win and try to control his actions once he gets into office.

A little idealistic I know, but one can dream of this happening.

Ah the movement, the time for change, the encompassing of the young and disenfranchised and bringing them into the fold... They said the same thing about Clinton back in 1990. Rock the vote, smiles and good feelings all to the tune of Fleetwood Mac's greatest hits. A young candidate with new ideas and a fresh approach, no more 'politics as usual'.... utter BS. Clinton turned out to be one of the most corrupt Presidents in recent history.

They also said the same thing about Kerry when he ran against GW Bush. Kerry was the Ivy League scholar who would deliver us from GW's reign of terror! As Jesse Jackson so eloquently put it "Get out the Bush!" As MTV and P Diddy said "Vote or Die!" Change for what? Personally I found the argument against Bush when he ran for re-election to be far more persuasive than the one which currently touts Obama or Clinton as the next President and yet that Neo-Con goober defied the odds and took Kerry to the cleaners at election time. As I stated earlier, radical left wing politics makes the average American more worrisome than the right wing variety. But now that King Bush's reign is almost over what are we desperate to change to? Who is the boogie man going to be this time around? A name? A philisophy? The status quo? Do you not question why Hillary Clinton, the 'better half' of one of the most popular liberal presidents in recent history, a president who was absolutely beloved by the media, is being kicked to the curb by the party and the media who groveled at her feet up until a few months ago? Does this not tell you something about how the party operates and the caliber of the candidates it pushes to the forefront?

I think the Magic Negro reference is silly. Obama is doing well because he does not look troubled and downtrodden - he appears optimistic and successful, without some of the baggage often associated with African Americans. He's looking surprisingly strong against Hilary because - quite contrary to the cinematic archetype - he is not subservient to whites. (His jibe that he would welcome her as one of his foreign affairs advisors being exhibit A here). And it's an inappropriate term because there is nothing "magic" about making a decent speech, although perhaps 7 years of GW have made Americans forget that. (Bill Clinton was/is no slouch at public speaking, nor was Reagan, nor was Nixon, Kennedy ...) Really, when people like Rush Limbaugh use "Magic Negro" to label Obama, I don't think there is any content to it other than the obvious racial one - just cross out the word "Magic" and it would serve as well.

It is not whether Obama actually matches the definition of the term but it is the public's perception of him that compels me to define him as such.

Maybe, although I suspect it is such "unsavory" things as support for universal healthcare that account for his popularity with many non-American Orgahs. Who knows, perhaps Americans are ready for a change? The fact that they probably know in their heart of hearts that they will withdraw from Iraq, they will (and are) in dialogue with Iran, they will have to deal with the budget deficit etc means that Obama's strong positions on these issues may not seem so far out and may even be seen as providing leadership.

The point is do we need universal healthcare? It is a contentious issue because there hasn't been a serious and/or reasonable attempt by either party or a bi-partisan effort to reform the current system. Suddenly it's ok to toss caution into the wind and socialize the whole damn thing?

At this point, I don't really care about Obama's virtues. Put it like that, and I hope he wins just because it would show America is not the place you think it is.

Well it is, and the big wide world outside the west is even more unsettling when you get to know it better. You must be terribly depressed to learn that Obama carried the overwhelming majority of the black vote in ever primary so far despite the fact that the Clintons were previously loved by African-American voters. Clearly blacks are voting for Obama simply because he's black (and to be honest, not a raving lunatic like previous black candidates such as Sharpton).

Yes, as a liberal albeit a Euro, McCain seems the most televisual and charming of the candidates. Far from being "magical", Obama seems rather distant and cool. I suspect these days people often vote for the person they like the most, where "like" is taken literally and refers to personal charisma, warmth etc. It was in those aspects that GW Bush scored over Gore and Kerry (as did Clinton and Reagan before him).

Agreed but GW didn't win against Kerry because he was more likeable, he won because more voters were scared of Kerry than they were of GW.

[Lemur]

It is not whether Obama actually matches the definition of the term but it is the public's perception of him that compels me to define him as such.

Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.

[rvg]

Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.

I first heard it from Al Sharpton's infamous song which I am sure is still all over youtube.

[Lemur]

Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:

March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.

Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.

And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

[rvg]

Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:

March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.

Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.

And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

umm....https://youtube.com/watch?v=NgRFzALj7UQ

[Lemur]

I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.

[seireikhaan]

I do not underestimate Obama. His ridiculous popularity only cements my already low opinion of the common man and his penchance for resembling a moth when confronted with a flickering flame. I guess Charles Dickens and PT Barnum really knew their stuff, eh? When it comes down to it all one needs is bloated rhetoric, bright colors, flashy style and graceful hand gestures to win the hearts and minds of John Q. Pleb. I refer to Obama as the Magic Negro because he somewhat embodies the term coined by Spike Lee when referring to the depiction of blacks in American cinema. What is a Magic Negro? A troubled, downtrodden, noble and wisened black character, typically male, who possesses a deep, spiritual insight into the workings of the world and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the white protagonist(s). Obama with his broken family history, rumors of drug abuse and dealing in his youth, impressive education, poetic rhetoric and 'lifetime of public service' to America (read: career politician) should be on his knees thanking his God for Hollyweird stereotypes and everything it has done for his career.

Seriously now, at some point Obama will have to dispense with the rhetoric and deal with the specific issues that are at the forefront of political discussion in this country. McCain is going to have a field day calling Obama on his less savory positions such as drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, total withdrawal from Iraq, open dialogue with states (Iran) that openly call for the destruction of our allies, elimination of tax cuts, etc. If Obama relies purely on rhetoric he is going to run the risk of looking like someone who would rather duck the question than face the music. If he contradicts his established positions he's going to look like a liar and a political opportunist. On the other hand Obama cannot call McCain on his political and idealogical inconsistencies because many of them jibe with conventional Democratic thinking. Doing so will force Obama to run the risk of persuading undecided voters that McCain is actually Democrat friendly and thanks to his political resume, is more qualified to solve problems in a manner they find more agreeable.

Yes, Obama is charming, glib and the values he advocates are universal... but so was Kerry and he got whooped when he ran against GW Bush, a man loathed by liberals, barely tolerated by moderates and considered a reluctant bedfellow of true conservatives. GW Bush was a president who could have been easily unseated if a moderate Democrat ran against him. Despite the fact that George fumbled and bumbled his way through the debates, demonstrating his infamous 'Cindy Brady on camera' imitation, he still pulled off a stunning victory. A victory due to the fact that the average American is more afraid of a radical liberal than a hardcore conservative.

McCain is not loathed by liberals, in fact he is considered by the left to be the most likable and palatable Republican of the current lot. Add to the mix Naval officer, decorated war hero, tortured POW, experienced Senator, etc. and he's much more bankable than he appears.

True, Obama may not have a track record to attack but that is as much a failing as it is a strength. The expression "What have you done for me lately?" comes to mind.

Spino's list of hush hush, politically incorrect variables that make voters choose John McCain to be next president of the United States.

Shock! Surprise! Race will be a deciding factor. Obama is black, or half-black, and according to the fabled 'one drop rule' that makes him all black?!? And being black is what will lose him the Southern states, select Midwestern states, the Hispanic vote and possibly much more than 50% of Asian vote (which typically splits down the middle between parties for general elections). The Hispanic vote is not debatable, there is open animosity between blacks and Hispanics (especially the Central American variety) who happen to compete for low paying jobs and government benefits. The most rabidly anti-black racism I have ever heard has consistently emanated from the mouths of Hispanics of all ages. Add to the mix the fact that Hispanics are more likely to be practicing, dedicated Catholics and that Obama has a Muslim name... Intellectualize this all you like but this has already played out in the primaries. Obama will not win Florida in a general election. He may take the big point states like California or New York but he'll be fighting tooth and nail for them and will probably only come away with one (I think New York is a safe bet). It is conceivable we could be looking at a landslide victory for McCain. No? Again, remind me who Gore and Kerry lost to in the last two elections?

Barack Hussein Obama. Muslim name. Muslim name. Muslim name. Last but not least please consider the fact that Obama has a Muslim name, hails from a Muslim family and experienced a childhood where he was raised and educated as a Muslim in a Muslim environment. I don't care how much of a Christian he says he is or how much loves Jesus from the pulpit of southern black churches his background WILL play on people's subconscious minds come election time. 10-15 years of Islamic extremism is dancing about in American's collective subconscious and the mere hint of association can easily sour the mind of an undecided voter.

Hey Sasaki, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. Those same marvelous polls showed Gore and Kerry beating GW Bush in the general election, and we all know how those elections turned out, especially the latter...

Am I the only one who's sensing the irony that you're practically begging for a moderate liberal to run?

Frankly, sir, I disagree with you on pretty much every single thing you've stated, with only a few exceptions. Tell me, if Obama will enflame hispanic voters, then why is it that he basically tied New Mexico, and still got roughly 35-40% of the hispanic voters in California? Muslim name? It sure hasn't stopped people from voting for him so far. And frankly, to even compare him to Kerry is mostly ridiculous. Kerry had limited appeal, as a rich, old, NE democrat. This year, Dems are turning out in RECORD numbers for primaries and caucusi. As for Obama's rhetoric and speeches. Have you even watched any debates? Have you ever even gone to his website? His policies, which have actually included an INCREASE in the size of the military, are outlined quite clearly.

And as for why McCain would lose: You're underestimating just how much people are loathing the Bush administration. A whole slug of people will turn to the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, just because they don't want another Republican president. Furthermore, I'd say there is considerable evidence that a lot of conservatives are not satisfied with the field this year, and especially McCain. Tell me, how many of the traditional Republican states not named Arizona has McCain won? Hmm... That would be one, Oklahoma. McCain's bigger appeal to undecideds and independant voters would be all but canceled out by Obama's charisma, message, and youthful vibe. Meanwhile, he'll have to rely on his VP, Huckster, to try and make sure the southern states wouln't swing Obama's way. And lastly, just as some food for thought... What if Obama, if he gets the nomination, picked Richardson for his VP? Still think the Hispanic vote wouldn't turn out for him?

[rvg]

I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.

well, either way, it's a funny song.

[Lemur]

Another thing Spino is overlooking in his rush to judgment: Obama's rural pull. He does exceptionally well in rural areas, as one reporter noted in the Nevada campaign:

To see it clearly, you have to look closely at the results of the Nevada caucuses, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton because he failed to carry Clark County, site of Nevada's only big metropolitan city, Las Vegas, with its enormous population of Hispanic voters. But in more rural counties he beat Clinton decisively - 63% to her 37% in Elko, 51% to 34% in Humboldt, 50% to 40% in Washoe (the missing percentages belong to John Edwards). I've been to those counties, their miles of lonely roads where you can drive for half an hour before encountering another vehicle, their scattered ranches and isolated towns, their seasonal creeks marked by lines of spindly cottonwood trees, the overwhelmingly Caucasian cast of their people. Out there in the mountains, sagebrush and high desert, Obama carried the day by far greater margins than his overall loss of the popular vote to Clinton across the state, and came out of the caucuses with one more delegate than she did.

Remember that in 2004 every American city with a population over 500,000 voted Democrat, and the Republicans won by taking the countryside and the outer suburbs. The blue state/red state division is better expressed in terms of the persistent conflicts between the big cities and their rural hinterlands, over land use, water rights and environmental, class and cultural issues. Red states are simply those where the country can outvote the urban centres, while in blue states the opposite is true. The perception that America has liberal coasts and a conservative interior merely reflects the fact that the coastal states are home to the largest metropolitan areas with the most electoral muscle. Last time around, for instance, Bush easily won the heartland state of Missouri, but was as crushingly defeated by Kerry in St Louis as he was in the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle.

So Obama's victory over Clinton in rural Nevada says something important about his ability as the apostle of national reconciliation. To win against Clinton in Elko County (black population: 0.8%), he had to convert not only white Democrats, but a large number of independents and people who had voted Republican until caucus day; a feat he pulled off with dazzling facility. Any Democrat nominee who can do that, deep in Republican country, is likely to gain the presidency; and Obama has proved that he can. Clinton, laden with the moral, cultural and political baggage of the 1990s, is likely to fare as badly in Elko County as Kerry did in 2004, when he collected just 20% of the vote.

[Spino]

Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.

Yeah, I remember Rush calling Obama a 'Magic Negro' some time ago because it popped up on Drudgereport. I did not know the details because I didn't read the article so I have no idea how he applied it to Obama. But there was a song? What?

All I really know about the term is Spike Lee was the one to coin it and defined it in one of his usual rants against Hollyweird in an interview or press junket or something.

[rvg]

Tell me, if Obama will enflame hispanic voters, then why is it that he basically tied New Mexico, and still got roughly 35-40% of the hispanic voters in California?

The fact remains that he has not won a single state with a significant Hispanic population.

Muslim name? It sure hasn't stopped people from voting for him so far. And frankly, to even compare him to Kerry is mostly ridiculous. Kerry had limited appeal, as a rich, old, NE democrat. This year, Dems are turning out in RECORD numbers for primaries and caucusi.

The real campaign hasn't yet begun. These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice.... once the nominees are picked and the real race begins, Obama will be best by the vultures in commercials on every major network. If Rove decides to help out, Obama will feel the pain.

As for Obama's rhetoric and speeches. Have you even watched any debates? Have you ever even gone to his website? His policies, which have actually included an INCREASE in the size of the military, are outlined quite clearly.

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I believe he still advocates hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Not a prudent move when the results of the surge are more or less favorable.

And as for why McCain would lose: You're underestimating just how much people are loathing the Bush administration. A whole slug of people will turn to the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, just because they don't want another Republican president.

Or perhaps you are overestimating it. Besides, people remember that McCain never passed up a chance to use Rumsfeld as a punching bag for Bush's failures in Iraq. The Age of the Neocons is over, that is true. But McCain is not a neocon and people know that.

Furthermore, I'd say there is considerable evidence that a lot of conservatives are not satisfied with the field this year, and especially McCain. Tell me, how many of the traditional Republican states not named Arizona has McCain won? Hmm... That would be one, Oklahoma.

Republicans would still prefer McCain to anything on the Dem side. They will rally to support him.

McCain's bigger appeal to undecideds and independant voters would be all but canceled out by Obama's charisma, message, and youthful vibe. Meanwhile, he'll have to rely on his VP, Huckster, to try and make sure the southern states wouln't swing Obama's way. And lastly, just as some food for thought... What if Obama, if he gets the nomination, picked Richardson for his VP? Still think the Hispanic vote wouldn't turn out for him?

I think it is still quite difficult to say who will pick whom as a VP.


imho.

[Lemur]

These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice....

The Clintons are playing nice? Do they ever play nice? Do I need to point out that they have not lost an election in twenty-eight years?

Think what you want about Karl Rove, but please, don't put him on the same level as the Clintons, not in terms of political muscle. Karl was angling for a "permanent Republican majority," and he fell far, far short of the mark. If you think he's some magical wizard of election cycles who can make anything happen, you're way behind in your reading.

Anybody who can beat the Clintons is a person to be reckoned with.

[Spino]

Another thing Spino is overlooking in his rush to judgment: Obama's rural pull. He does exceptionally well in rural areas, as one reporter noted in the Nevada campaign:

To see it clearly, you have to look closely at the results of the Nevada caucuses, which Obama narrowly lost to Clinton because he failed to carry Clark County, site of Nevada's only big metropolitan city, Las Vegas, with its enormous population of Hispanic voters. But in more rural counties he beat Clinton decisively - 63% to her 37% in Elko, 51% to 34% in Humboldt, 50% to 40% in Washoe (the missing percentages belong to John Edwards). I've been to those counties, their miles of lonely roads where you can drive for half an hour before encountering another vehicle, their scattered ranches and isolated towns, their seasonal creeks marked by lines of spindly cottonwood trees, the overwhelmingly Caucasian cast of their people. Out there in the mountains, sagebrush and high desert, Obama carried the day by far greater margins than his overall loss of the popular vote to Clinton across the state, and came out of the caucuses with one more delegate than she did.

Remember that in 2004 every American city with a population over 500,000 voted Democrat, and the Republicans won by taking the countryside and the outer suburbs. The blue state/red state division is better expressed in terms of the persistent conflicts between the big cities and their rural hinterlands, over land use, water rights and environmental, class and cultural issues. Red states are simply those where the country can outvote the urban centres, while in blue states the opposite is true. The perception that America has liberal coasts and a conservative interior merely reflects the fact that the coastal states are home to the largest metropolitan areas with the most electoral muscle. Last time around, for instance, Bush easily won the heartland state of Missouri, but was as crushingly defeated by Kerry in St Louis as he was in the cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle.

So Obama's victory over Clinton in rural Nevada says something important about his ability as the apostle of national reconciliation. To win against Clinton in Elko County (black population: 0.8%), he had to convert not only white Democrats, but a large number of independents and people who had voted Republican until caucus day; a feat he pulled off with dazzling facility. Any Democrat nominee who can do that, deep in Republican country, is likely to gain the presidency; and Obama has proved that he can. Clinton, laden with the moral, cultural and political baggage of the 1990s, is likely to fare as badly in Elko County as Kerry did in 2004, when he collected just 20% of the vote.

Not bad but that's a Guardian article and the writer seems a tad overzealous in his estimate. How does Obama 'convert' White Democrats?!? Because they chose him over the wicked witch of the west? His defeat of Billary in Democrat/Independent territory is probably a better reflection of people's hatred of Billary than their love for Obama.

[Lemur]

Not bad but that's a Guardian article ...

I know, and I quoted it anyway. Forgive me.

How does Obama 'convert' White Democrats?!?

Maybe by getting them to vote for him, I dunno, that's how political "conversions" usually work ...

[seireikhaan]

The fact remains that he has not won a single state with a significant Hispanic population.

The fact still remains that he'll garner more than enough hispanic votes to win traditional democratic stomping grounds such as Cali and N.Y.

The real campaign hasn't yet begun. These are just the primaries and everyone is playing nice.... once the nominees are picked and the real race begins, Obama will be best by the vultures in commercials on every major network. If Rove decides to help out, Obama will feel the pain.

Pardon me, but I'm not quite perceiving what your point is here. Are you saying he's not a good candidate because you believe that ultra conservative nut jobs in the media will "tear him apart"? I fail to see what that would even have to do with how effective he'll be as a President, which, of course, is what this whole thing is ultimately about.

Pardon me if I am mistaken, but I believe he still advocates hasty withdrawal from Iraq. Not a prudent move when the results of the surge are more or less favorable.

Well, here is the 'official' plan for Iraq. Linkie

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

On account of the fact that keeping Al Qaeda bases out of Iraq could very well be a constant job, it indicates to me that Obama isn't so much along the lines of "get out now, get out now!" Plus, I'd say that roughly 16 months(over a year) is fairly reasonable timing, based on our current progress and when he would be taking office.

Or perhaps you are overestimating it. Besides, people remember that McCain never passed up a chance to use Rumsfeld as a punching bag for Bush's failures in Iraq. The Age of the Neocons is over, that is true. But McCain is not a neocon and people know that.

Well, I think its somewhat debatable as to whether people "know" whether or not McCain is a neocon. Frankly, a lot of American voters are none to bright, and, whether reasonably or not, a lot of the Republican party will still be tarred by Bush's brush, at least for a few more years. And if McCain gets Huckster as his VP, well...that doesn't speak well to the folks claiming McCain is against the neocons.

Republicans would still prefer McCain to anything on the Dem side. They will rally to support him.

Oh, by no means am I suggesting hordes of them would go vote Obama or Hildabeast(certainly not her). More that they will instead not vote at all, and figure they'll let the Dems "take the hit" with whoever get the nomination.

I think it is still quite difficult to say who will pick whom as a VP.


imho.

Well certainly. I was just suggesting a possibility, and its by no means clear that Obama will win. However, I do think it would negate a lot of anti-black hostility towards Obama from the Hispanic community if Richardson became the VP candidate. Of course, the other candidates also offer pluses and minuses, and this is a long ways off, so its mostly conjecture at this point anyways.

[Spino]

The Clintons are playing nice? Do they ever play nice? Do I need to point out that they have not lost an election in twenty-eight years?

Think what you want about Karl Rove, but please, don't put him on the same level as the Clintons, not in terms of political muscle. Karl was angling for a "permanent Republican majority," and he fell far, far short of the mark. If you think he's some magical wizard of election cycles who can make anything happen, you're way behind in your reading.

Anybody who can beat the Clintons is a person to be reckoned with.

Billary may be a two'fer but loving Bill and loving Hillary are two entirely different things. This is Hillary's game and that's what people are basing their votes on. If this were Bill magically going for the hat trick in an alternate universe the Democratic party and the media would be right at their side and Obama would have been knocked out of the race before or on Super Tuesday.

It must be painfully obvious by now that I am not buying the 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' model everyone is trying to apply to Obama. Nice movie starring a nice guy movie star but come on now, it's a movie for chrissakes. Fat chance I'm giving a career politician the benefit of the doubt.

[seireikhaan]

Fat chance I'm giving a career politician the benefit of the doubt.

So who are you voting for, then? Last I checked, everyone else has been in politics waaaay longer than Obama. Crusty the Clown, perhaps?

[Lemur]

It must be painfully obvious by now that I am not buying the 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' model everyone is trying to apply to Obama.

Well, the dude came from nowhere, built a political machine to rival the Clintons' in one year, has deadlocked the party favorite, is raising money faster than any other candidate without taking a dime from lobbyists or special interest groups ... I mean, these are all facts. They aren't glassy-eyed bits of wishful thinking. It's an extraordinary story well before any embellishing goes on.

I'm curious -- what aspect of his campaign or support strikes you as fanciful or illusory? What's yanking your chain on this guy? You seem to be offended by the notion that he might be a contender.

[KukriKhan]

Moderator's Note:
Race may become an issue in this US election. Perhaps it already is. Therefore, it is important that the topic be discussed and dissected, in true backroom form, here.

The phrase "Magical Negro" has academic, archetypal, and artistic referents and applicability, along with its cohorts: 'noble savage', 'the man who knows indians', 'wise man who educates Hero', and others. I refer those interested to Joseph Campbell's works on art, archetypes, and mythology. The stories are legion, from all cultures.

That said, kindly note that any use of the phrase to hurl as an insult (toward any human, org member or not) will incur negative sanction here.

Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.

[Spino]

Am I the only one who's sensing the irony that you're practically begging for a moderate liberal to run?

I'd need proof that one actually exists before answering the question.

So who are you voting for, then? Last I checked, everyone else has been in politics waaaay longer than Obama. Crusty the Clown, perhaps?

Nice. Crusty would certainly prove to be far more entertaining than the current lot and I really dig the hair.

I'm voting for McCain, not that it will make a difference living in NY. I gave my vote to Badnarik in the previous election out of my disgust for the Neo-Con movement within the Republican party (and to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the futile gesture of voting anything but Democrat in NY). I like McCain on the economy and foreign policy and can deal with him despite his lackluster efforts in the Senate to effectively deal with illegal immigration.

Yes, way longer than Obama but most of them (yes, even Hillary) were actually quite successful in either the private sector for a considerable amount of time prior to running for major political office. Those who didn't or had a mixed career in the private and public sector (Giuliani) actually had to perform given the demands of the job. And those who became Governors or mayors actually had to run a state/city.

Well, the dude came from nowhere, built a political machine to rival the Clintons' in one year, has deadlocked the party favorite, is raising money faster than any other candidate without taking a dime from lobbyists or special interest groups ... I mean, these are all facts. They aren't glassy-eyed bits of wishful thinking. It's an extraordinary story well before any embellishing goes on.

I'm curious -- what aspect of his campaign or support strikes you as fanciful or illusory? What's yanking your chain on this guy? You seem to be offended by the notion that he might be a contender.

All true. I'm not judging his rise to fame and fortune. I'm questioning what the man might really be about. Is this a genuine 'campaign for change' or the ultimate ego bid? Given the nature of politics and the generation running the country I'm inclined to believe the latter. Maybe it was the carefully timed release of Obama's autobiographies just prior to running for two separate political offices. Maybe it's the questionable business ties with Tony Rezko who also, curiously enough, 'worked with' the Clintons. Maybe I don't equate impressive speechcraft with leadership. Maybe I don't equate political office with 'public service'. Maybe I equate crusading for 'real change' with culture instead of politics. Maybe it's the usual je ne sais quoi I get with politicians who seem too clean or too slick.

I can accept all this if the man didn't seem to orchestrate his entire adult life towards the achievement of political office to sate a hidden ego that has been never satisfied. And if he is fine... but give me an impressive record as an attorney, give me a successful career as an entrepreneur or executive, give me a talent or skill set that doesn't necessarily translate directly into politics!

Maybe I just want a genuine leader who already made a name for himself in the private sector or the military to come forward and cut the Gordian knot. Since we all know that ain't going to happen the best we can do is to stop believing 'pie in the sky' rhetoric, hedge our bets and hope for the best.

[Vladimir]

Damn, I go to sleep and miss all this? I haven't heard the fat man Limbaugh insults in ages. When you have nothing else go after someone's (outdated) appearance I guess.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Moderator's Note:
Race may become an issue in this US election. Perhaps it already is. Therefore, it is important that the topic be discussed and dissected, in true backroom form, here.

The phrase "Magical Negro" has academic, archetypal, and artistic referents and applicability, along with its cohorts: 'noble savage', 'the man who knows indians', 'wise man who educates Hero', and others. I refer those interested to Joseph Campbell's works on art, archetypes, and mythology. The stories are legion, from all cultures.

That said, kindly note that any use of the phrase to hurl as an insult (toward any human, org member or not) will incur negative sanction here.

Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.

It's a problem only if it benefits you to make it one this time around. You saw it from the Clintons already, but I don't think you'll see it from the Republican leadership.

Is anyone who uses the back room black anyway? When we posted our pictures a while back i remember being blinded by the light.

[Lemur]

I'll be honest, if it's McCain v. Obama in the general election, I'll be a very happy lemur. Both men are pragmatic, neither is an ideologue. In a very real sense, I can't lose. Yes, they have some wildly different policy positions, but they're mostly sensible. Take Iraq as an example:

We need to either commit to Iraq indefinitely, as with South Korea, or begin an orderly withdrawal immediately. Either way could work, either way could be a disaster; but nothing could be as bone-headed as the crony-based, corruption-friendly, ideology-driven, reality-ignoring mess we created previous to Petraeus. So even though McCain and Obama have what appear to be opposite intentions on Iraq, the two men outline the two viable courses. Stay forever or start getting out soon. I'll take either option over the Rumsfeld/Cheney hodge-podge.

Going back to the assertions about how Obama will get chopped up like liver in the general election, I refer you to today's column by Peggy Noonan, a level-headed political mind if ever there was one:

Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.

He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)

With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.

Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.

The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.

The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.

The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.

[Ser Clegane]

Is anyone who uses the back room black anyway? When we posted our pictures a while back i remember being blinded by the light.

a) not everybody posted his/her pic
b) it is not really relevant if any of the Backroom regulars are black or not

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I remember at least one anyway. A-something.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Wasn't Big_John black?

[ICantSpellDawg]

a) not everybody posted his/her pic
b) it is not really relevant if any of the Backroom regulars are black or not

Well, technically it is relevant. Why would we avoid hurting the feelings of those who might not even exist when speaking about a topic from which the N word is inexorable?

I'll go ahead and not use it, but I don't understand why simple words would offend anyone, particularly those who don't exist. I doubt if anyone here would go on a race-baiting extravaganza anyway, so why the censure? If the word applies to a discussion, leave it alone.

[Xiahou]

Damn, I go to sleep and miss all this? I haven't heard the fat man Limbaugh insults in ages. When you have nothing else go after someone's (outdated) appearance I guess.

To my knowledge, Lemur has never made mention of Limbaugh without some sort of fat reference. He's cool like that.
I do live how he gives the original author of the "magical negro" story a pass and attributes all of the racism connotations to the person who parodied it.

Translation for my California friends: No n-bombs of any kind allowed here.

Just for clarity, are we now saying "negro" is a prohibited word?

[Vladimir]

To my knowledge, Lemur has never made mention of Limbaugh without some sort of far reference. He's cool like that.
I do live how he gives the original author of the "magical negro" story a pass and attributes all of the racism connotations to the person who parodied it.

Just for clarity, are we now saying "negro" is a prohibited word?

Oh come now, do you really need excuses for cribbing from Rush Limbaugh? 'Cause let's face it, the L.A. Times didn't popularize the connection; the fat boy did.

Ye lord, how misinformation takes on a life of its own. Here's the timeline:

March of 2007, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein writes a column about how he thinks Obama fits into the Magical Negro archetype. FWIW, Ehrenstein is a black man.

Never one to miss a chance to dance on the edge of a racial slur, fat boy Rush Limbaugh has a song recorded to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon, in which an impersonator plays Al Sharpton bemoaning the rise of Obama, the "magic negro." Because a black dude said it first, he gets away with it.

And now people think Al Sharpton actually sang it. Ugh. A lie goes 'round the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.

I assure you, rvg, that song came directly from Rush Limbaugh's show. And shocker of shockers, that isn't really Al Sharpton singing. Don't trust me, Google it for yourself.

Lemur on roid rage. This was originally a harmless, innocent little lemur too.