As an English professor (and black, biracial, female and gay--supposedly his perfect demographic) I have been scratching my head over the collective media swoon for Obama's speeches. He is clearly a lovely man, but there is no substance, only rhetoric.

Kennedy had to stall and stutter on Civil Rights because although he was a highly intelligent, very charming and pretty man, he lacked the relationships in Congress to make a stand on such a controversial yet clearly morally compelling issue. It was Johnson--crude, corrupt Johnson--who bullied, threatened and drew on his long knowledge of what various senators and congressmen needed and or feared to usher in the votes. He had nothing to gain by doing this--for Johnson, it was simply the right thing to do.

There is nothing audacious about hope--we all grasp for it even when reality tells us to stop dreaming and start grappling with the reality of difference. Inexperience, however, is often audacious, as it imagines it need learn or know nothing more in order to solve all the problems in the world.

I started reading this article assuming I would hate it, and found myself provoked in a very positive way--ending in laughter. Salon writers become so self-importantly self-conscious in their coverage of politics lately it was a relief to read something breaking the mold: witty, thoughtful and, best of all, unexpected in its rejection of Salon-ist platitudes on the candidates. (Kamiya, Shapiro, Koppelman--take a page from McClelland!)

Didn't Madden recently and confidently predict Hillary would lose PR to Obama based on low voter turnout? The turnout *was* low, but that's about all he had right given her across-the-board win. It would be nice if journalists had to face and answer to their mistakes every once in a while--how about an "Iron Chef" running tally on good and bad predictions that must be posted next to their name. This just might stop the desire to write anything just to see one's name in print...

I don't think it's racism--if it were racism, he would not be the Dem nominee, and the charge of racism doesn't explain the fact that in the recent past he has had a strong lead over McC in the polls. And yeah, I am black and I actually research and write on issues of racism.

I also fell for the self-serving rhetoric that my candidate wasn't winning because the rest of America is stupid/evil/inferior/etc. One doesn't need to think hard to arrive at this conclusion, and it helps establish a narrative where you get to be the hero/martyr if your candidate loses.

White liberal elites tend to towards this narrative whenever they face opposition to their programs and goals. They often lose, and then write speculative books about the Deeply Deceived Dummies who live in between the Enlightened Coasts.

Feels good, gets you nowhere.

What am I saying? Obama supporters need to think less like acolytes here and risk a few moments of truly progressive thinking by looking at their candidate with more of an objective eye. Actually thinking about Obama as a human being with flaws and blindnesses alongside his brilliance and spectacular talents.

Why? Because the race really should not be close like this. Minnesota and Colorado should not be in sudden play the way they are. The MSM has never been so fully behind a candidate from the get-go, nor has it ever dispatched that candidate's opponents so ardently.

My sense is that folks just don't feel like they know or trust Obama. He is carefully, strategically, but maddeningly vague on details, meaning that to support him one must go on pure blind trust. He keeps changing his positions but insists that he has not done so (or simply got overheated).

I never thought I would see McCain in this race; I thought for sure Giuliani or Romney. The fact that he is here and holding his own despite mass media contempt shouldn't make Obama supporters laugh or insist more follow them in blind trust.

It should make them think about how Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were all further ahead in the polls at this point.

Both Obama and McCain are multimillionaires who have used the influence of their office to secure million-dollar-plus homes; *not* a great topic for Dem elites to try and win, especially in terms of wooing the white working class (Obama says "7", McCain says "Rezko").

A much better article today (can also find on the fabulous RCP), that encourages liberal white elites to take a serious look at themselves and their candidate through the eyes of Other Americans:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4582920.ece

...she's stumping for BO and no longer a candidate...

Who does BO need to win? The Clintons!

(A Guide for those who don't have time to read every Shpiro article):

Who will kill BO's chances? The Clintons!

Who does BO NEED as VP? The Clintons!

Who must BO avoid at all costs as VP? The Clintons!

Who ensured BO's victory as nom? The Clintons!

Who almost killed his chances as nom? The Clintons!

If BO wins it will be because of...The Clintons!

If BO loses it will be because of...The Clintons!

Who is Satan? The Clintons!

Who is God? The Clintons!

Who Clintons Clinton Clintoned? The Clintons!

Who Hillaries Bill? The Clintons!

Who Bills Hillary? The Clintons!

And for the Zen enthusiast...

What is the Clinton of one Clinton Clintoning?