Good insight. As the campaign progresses towards election it will be important to be clearer about what the challenges are and how to meet them.

One thing you might want to make clearer is what it means for "racism" to "hurt Obama." I suspect it means hurt him in getting elected, but I look at that as a given. I happen to not believe that "race" exists, so "racists" are even more delusional than we have previously assumed.

Obama can certainly improve his campaigning in the more bigoted regions, but unless he completely blunders, he will be our next president. Like JFK before him, the real breakdown in prejudice will come from his performance in office. He has a great advantage over Kennedy in that he has no Mafia connections, and will not be either beholden to organized crime or subject to its retribution.

The organized crime he will have to worry about emanates from the "Republican" party, and its principal "family," the Bush criminal organization. Since the "Democrats" have chosen not to hold them accountable, they will be a constant threat, continually plotting ways to regain power. As long as they roam free, the entire planet is less safe.

This is a good analysis, but only hints at what Obama faces as president. I expect him to be thrust into a role similar to that of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Because of the profligacy and criminality of the Bush regime, our national stature in the world, our military, and our economy are all deeply damaged. The first two can be repaired within a few years, but the third will be a more challenging task.

The "U.S." economic system has been on a trajectory of regression (decreasing responsibility from the rich as they get richer) and environmental destruction on a serious scale since 1980 or so (hint, hint, a few months after the October surprise). This has been in combination with the export of our manufacturing sector. It will take a team of geniuses far more talented than what Roosevelt assembled to undo the harm done. All this at a time when we are confronting the real limits to infinite growth of economic output.

In this context, the Clintons are completely irrelevant, being a major part of the policies and practices that got us into this mess (NAFTA, tax "reform"). The Kennedy legacy fares a little better, but really does represent the kind of "liberalism" that invited so much resentment and opposition.

Great orator that Obama may be, I don't think he grasps the full weight of the predicament he has chosen for himself. Rather than toning down the rhetoric, he needs to tone it up. What is at stake here is our entire civilization. He needs to start asking the question in a very comprehensive way what it takes to have a meaningful civilization.

For instance, at the very minimum, does an entity like Fox News have a place in a real, functional civilization? Does a bloated Pentagon budget have a place in a real, meaningful civilization? Does an income over, say $300,000 have a place in a meaningful, functional civilization?

Obama may not be asking these questions, but we can.

We can't go on like we have. The unmistakable conclusion this article implies is that we do not have the ability to continue on the infinite growth mass industrial trajectory that the "civilized" world has been on for the past two and a half centuries. There is no technological fix that will enable the homos sapiens species to heedlessly encroach upon the planet as if there were no tomorrow. There may well end up being no tomorrow.

One of these days it will become clear that change is our only choice. One way of looking at means of saving our species is to study what level of population can be sustained at a decent standard of living at renewable level of energy use. The appropriate energy technology can be implemented to be consistent with this goal.

As far as population planning, a principle that has never been questioned in the West is the right to procreate. All one needs are a reproductive organ and a willing partner. These days, with artificial insemination of various kinds, one need not have a willing partner at all. A turkey baster will do.

Or, we can continue on our merry way, even when it is long past the time of merriment. This is the likely response. An entire species, especially one with egos, is not likely to willingly change from rapaciousness to prudence and moderation in any meaningful way in time to save itself from disaster.

A better model for the future is that of the Anasazi, the ancient Pueblo civilization that completely disappeared, for reasons unknown. The human species is not likely to disappear, but it will not remain in its present size and way of being.

If we at least lay down a groundwork for a sustainable civilization, we can minimize the suffering. That is probably our best hope. Realistically, humans are too corrupt and ill-tempered to be transformed into a restrained, respectful form of life in the time needed before it is too late.

This is not a romantic view, like revolutionary "leftism." There is no "Internationale" to sing, fist raised in defiance and solidarity. It is likely our best hope, though. Any better ideas?