I agree that Obama's reaction to empty criticism like this has been a breath of fresh air. But I would also argue that Clinton has said similar things during this campaign. I think Glenn is forgetting that this is still the primary, Obama has not yet begun to broadcast his message to a nation of fence-sitters and independents. In fact, both Clinton and he may feel that they HAVE to respond like this in order to rally their base--an admittedly disaffected and Democrat-resenting bunch.

I would point to the fact that Obama did not vote against this FISA bill, or the extension last year. I'm not against Obama--in fact I voted for him in the CA primary. I just don't think he's the superhero everyone makes him out to be. He's just the least worst choice.

Nice to see. I rarely notice this active examination of Obama's actions versus his rhetoric. Glenn, you should have noted his final non-vote on FISA. I like Obama. I think his victory in the 08 race would send a clear message to the political machine and the world, and would serve as a vindication of all of us who opposed this awful war from the get-go. And yes, my god its great to see someone standing up to these silly idiot bullies that have been steamrolling our country's discourse for the past decade. But, can't we go in with our heads screwed on? He's a politician, a clever one. But there's nothing to indicate that his real trajectory will be much different than the one begun by Clinton.

I usually agree with you when you call me on something that is either inaccurate or not well thought out. You obvioulsy are vastly better informed on probably any subject but on this one I think you're wrong.

1. I know you've noted Obama's non-vote before, but I think its important enough to note every time; especially considering how cagey it is to vote for the ammendments to a bill and not the actual bill itself. Obama'srecord is full of sneaky votes that he can spin either way when he's hard pressed.

2. You ask the point of any of this. I passionately belive that there is a point. It is important to note that Obama, our first 'black' viable black democratic candidate is not the descendent of slaves. I that is no accident. Our first black candidate has virtually no political record. It is important to note these things because it speaks to the on-going cowardice of our opposition party, and our political discourse's addiction to style over substance.

3. And no one said otherwise, but its important as a supporter of a targetted democrat to broadcast loudly that the support is there as well as the critique. One can do both; I voted for Obama in the primary, I will vote for him in the general election. But it doesn't serve future candidates or polities to accept Obama at face value simply because he's telling us what we want to hear during the primary. If we do that, we're setting the bar quite low.

In response to your aggressive tone viz gum flapping. You're not really proving your point by showing that he has two years worth of political experience--you're proving mine. I can think of a dozen black leaders right off the top of my head who have more qualifications to run for president, and what's more earned that right in a much less friendly political environment and through a much longer and challenging career.

My original point is nuanced, something people overtaken by the hope message don't always understand. Barack Obama didn't suddenly spring fully formed as one of the top two presidential front runners; he is a product of the democratic party. A party which reveals itself to be more slimy and calculating with every year. He was chosen for this role even as he began his senate candidacy when he gave a speech at the Convention in 2004. The reason the Dems would rather have a black man with no experience than a black man with experience, is that they know the electorate is racist. Any black candidate besides Obama would have a ton of civil rights notes on his/her resume, immediately disqualifying them from wins in the southern states. They don't want to challenge this head on, they won't lead on this issue; that is why we have a young, unexperienced, black man who is not descended from slaves as our first viable black candidate.

That being said, its the best we got right now. But there's no reason why we can't demand better.

Along those same lines...the situation with Michelle Obama's comment about being "really proud" of being America is instructive in this regard. It is simply ridiculous that less than a generation after the civil rights act guaranteed the vote for African-Americans in this country, that an African American can be painted as a crazed radical for implying that she may not have always been proud of our apartheid state. What's more to the point however, is how quickly Michelle Obama and the Obama campaign (and the Democratic party) retreated from the substance of the comment, and cowardly claimed that she did not mean what it seemed that she said.

In a nutshell, this is my point. There is a virulent racism in this country, but the Democrats will never lead on that issue, but will continually buckle at the first word 'boo'.