We obviously both support Obama. But I would question why there is an Obama in the first place. Certainly, I can't recall the last time a state senator was being primed for the presidency even before he became a state representative. I can't recall anyone running backed by the Democratic establishment in modern history who had less experience--and I mean experience of any kind, not just legislative.

By any objective analysis, there has never been anyone with less experience IN ANY FIELD running with the backing of their party. And I mean to include everything in Obama's career from the time he was at Harvard. Even GW Bush was accused of not having much experience when he ran, and he had been governor of a state for an entire term. There is simply nothing EXCEPTIONAL to recommend Obama. I am not saying he has never done anything, but he hasn't done enough to get the backing of the Democratic party.

But the opposite is true of dozens of black leaders--in Congress, in the non-proft sector, in the activist world. Some of these, like Jackson, have decades and decades of experience and they are responsible for the kinds of national movements that resulted in some of our best civil rights legislation. The people who were involved in the civil rights movement are STILL ALIVE and STILL ACTIVE, and they have been continually ignored when it has come time to choose viable Democratic candidates. And people have become so comfortable with this fact that no one has bothered to ask why, and has simply been alright with the idea of surrogate Bill Clinton playing the part of the first black president.

This is the essence of my point. With this wealth of incredible African Americans, whose accomplishments speak for themselves over the span of decades, why is our first viable black candidate a political neophyte? Its a fair question and everyone who's interested in race dialogue in this country should be asking it.

You don't sound harsh. You sound like a white person.

My points have been more nuanced than you have made them out to be. In general, I experience this when I post here. I was going to repeat my points--which were only ever offered as a way of stimulating discussion for discussion's sake. But it seems to be no use.

I am one of those demographic changes. You would do well to look at these same demographic breakdowns when it comes to voting based on racism! The southern strategy--do you remember it? It was still working in 2004.

And even Reagan had been governor of California FOR AN ENTIRE TERM. Do any of you understand the freakin difference???? SHEESH!!!

I have never encountered such a rich vein of willful ignorance and incomprehension in my entire life. If I was wondering how this country got so screwed up to begin with, the supposed voices of dissent are now providing me volumes with their mindless (I wish I knew what sounds sheep make; is it braying?) braying (for lack of a better term.

Please put this thread out of its misery by posting another piece , post-haste!

Finally something sensible. Bleating.

For christ's sake, you people are obtuse. And yes, I previously raised the issue of Hillary Clinton, the first female candidate who is considered viable. A black man of African and white ancestry with very few accomplishments, and a white woman who owes everything in her career to once having been first lady.

If you take these two 'firsts' together and in context, it certainly says more about how virulently sexist and racist our culture is, than how far we've come. And if it makes you feel any better (or even any worse), I VOTED FOR NADER IN 04 BECAUSE IT SENT A MESSAGE TO THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS! And that's why I'm voting for Obama this time, because voting for a non-white person who didn't vote for the war (even if all of this is a construction) sends a clear message that we are not as dumb as we look!

And that for the last time, you incredibly DUMB people, is MY POINT...

Finally somebody who can think past two party politics.

I agree with much of Kamiya's story. But as a thought experiment, I would posit an African American candidate with black parents, who grew up in an urban center. In short, a descendant of slaves. A politically, as well as ethnically, black person. Someone who may have had a different political history involved with black communities and someone who may have frequently brought up issues that remain divisive.

If you want to see how hopeful such a candidate would seem, you need only look at Michelle Obama's sad encounter with the backlash machine over her "really proud" statement. Of course, she meant exactly what it sounded like she meant and I was overjoyed to hear it. As a black woman growing up in the United States, she has had much fewer opportunities to take pride in the US's legacy of apartheid and imperialism than the likes of war 'heroes' like John McCain and activists such as Hillary and Bill Clinton. But the Obama campaign and family's hurried retreat from sounding like an empowered minority, was instructive and prophetic. If her husband is any benchmark, Michelle could conceivably make a succesful bid for senate and be running by 2012 or 2020. But heaven help her if she did.