While I know the article/commentary was about support for Obama from elite conservatives, I think a much more interesting guestion is about the disquieting effect that Obama's candidacy is having on the Democratic Party, particularly its "elite"and/or management/punditry ranks.

Perhaps an article needs to be written about whether or not Obama (and Michelle Obama, by the way) is "black" enough for elite Party leadership who is accustomed to "managing" its relationship to the AA community through its "management" of its relationship with Black "leaders." The Obamas' (relative) youth, transnational Black identity that is still rooted in the U.S. African American experience, sophistication, AND ability to raise substantial amounts of money flips the script, and I would suggest that Democratic leadership is having to adjust. The not-so-subtle racism of Kerry ("Obama would be a really good role model for all of those wayward Black boys, he can be used in that way"), and yes, Bill Clinton ("Why doesn't he wait his turn") and others all smack of "why doesn't he follow the pattern/relationship we have with Jackson? Sharpton? Young? How DARE he actually try to run for president of the ENTIRE U.S., not just wayward Black boys?? How DARE he have a broad-based appeal???

This campaign has taught me one thing: The disdain I used to have for AA republicans has been tempered by the Democratic Party leadership's inability to accept Obama's candidacy on its own terms. And what is most surprising about all of this is that the leadership seems to be weirdly out-of-step with many Democrats who may not support Obama, but do not seem to find the fact of him running a real (not just symbolic)campaign a problem.

I'm clear on the civil rights "leadership" issues with Obama. I am a 53-year-old AA womam, so I have observed that male leadership's stranglehold on race discourse in this country for much of my life, sometimes, frankly, for good. Both Sharpton and Jackson (for example)are adept at capturing the complexities of race in 21st century U.S. But when faced with the actual embodiment (the Obamas) of that complexity, they react like, well...old, old scared men. On my less generous days, I simply implore them to get off the Clinton plantation, but I'm sure that's unfair.

I am not sure what the travel "problem" is. Has Conason written a detailed, thoughtful analysis comparing Clinton's (clearly his choice) and Obama's policy positions, speeches and histories??

Also: This is not out-of-left field. In what I am discovering is the "Drudge impulse" of the web/blogging, I've seen this "question" about travel on other sites. I guess readers of political postings/commentaries will have to distinguish actual questions/thoughtful analyses from rumors/red herrings/absurd, silly detours/whisperings. If campaigns are going to engage in the tactics of "swift-boating," then I suggest they find something a little more substantial than travel narratives. At least the attacks on Kerry were about a war.

I don't know. Maybe all the candidates and their staffs are too busy at this point (a week before the caucuses) to produce passports, or in the case of H. Clinton, transcripts of discussions where she helped frame domestic and/or foreign policy decisions. I do think that perhaps Clinton folk need to get the message that these kinds of commentaries are not particularly helpful to her cause. As someone who supports Obama, but thinks that Clinton would not be a disaster, this crap just makes me weary and tired.

How silly. This commentary is way too ugly/light-weight for Salon, an on-line publication I do respect.

Phillips

The "head" vs "heart" dichotomy in this article is so very...dare I say it, pre-postmodern.

Is it possible that Obama gives people something to think about? Some commentators/bloggers are actually beginning to explore the IDEAS informing Obama's speeches/vision. George Will (agh!), Andrew Sullivan (hmmm...), David Brooks, J. Marshall (Talking Points Memo), B. Herbert are just a few who have looked at the ideas Obama is putting forth. Is it possible that those Michelle Obama tapes being passed out in beauty shops and barber shops in South Carolina provoke discussion?? About IDEAS??? I was just in a beauty shop a couple of days ago, and the fact of Obama's candidacy spawned debate (not attacks) about race, gender, change, social class, movements, and yes, the "heart" stuff: Future possibilities and past disappointments, the pain of the last 7 years, how hard it is to support a family now.

Is it possible that after 7 years of knowledge being reduced to testing/the universe beginning 6,000 years ago, "I looked into Putin's eyes" etc., that people are hungry for some IDEAS, not just good management?? Maybe people are thinking that they can get a twofer in Obama: Good management AND vision?? Maybe this is not just "Obamamania?"

Give us some credit!

M.T. Phillips

For those of you who express disappointment in Joe, you might want to go back through his last 4 months (or so) of "political" writing.

The innuendo is not new. The "I'm just trying to help" cover for innuendo is not new. The "he's going to have to answer to smears I don't agree with" and then repeating the falsehood in full is not new. The scouting for problems with Obama (did he really travel as much as he said as he did?) is not new.

I, like many of you, share a disappointment in Joe C., but my dismay began some months ago. He's clearly a Clinton supporter (as is Joan Walsh), which is fine. But I have never found Walsh to be...slimy (ah! there's the word) as this Joe C that so many people don't see to recognize.

For those of you who think he is "better than this," maybe he isn't.

Too bad.