The Affirmative Action President?

I don't think so. Or rather, I hope Americans haven't taken some notion that it's time we had a president who was Black enough, a woman not named for an explorer, probably not gay but certainly metrosexual, openly monogamist, or rumored to be omnipotent.

In other words, is America poised to elect a President solely for the purpose of shutting up the proles?

What an odd election 2008 will be.

Did you see Liz Edwards with Chris Matthews? She's eaten up with White Guilt, and tries to come off as the ultimate defender of minorities nation wide, but she hates her white neighbor because he owns guns. She's following in the Clintons' psychosis of saying things that blatantly oppose reality, but being earnest in the telling of the lie.

A question:
Wouldn't electing Obama be equivalent to affirmative action in assuaging white guilt? An example of what some people call the soft racism of affirmative action, in that, he may not be qualified or experienced enough for the position, but since he's black and if we elect him, then look at us we're helping black people. Yay.

This strikes me as the sort of thing that lots of people think other people might do, but have no intention of doing themselves. (Comes up often, really.)

Is there any some significant number of people out there who are going to say, "Well, gee, I mostly agree with the Republican candidate, but Obama's black, so I guess he gets my vote since I owe his 'people' that"? Or, "Well, I wasn't going to vote this year but I owe Obama's blackness a trip to the polls and a vote."?

Seriously?

I doubt it.

I so far agree with the other commenters. I tried posting this earlier, but it didn't take for some reason:

Is white guilt going to propel Barack Obama to the White House?

I don't think so. Or rather, I hope Americans haven't taken some notion that it's time we had a president who was Black enough, a woman not named for an explorer, probably not gay but certainly metrosexual, a flaming monogamist, or rumored to be omnipotent.

Was Allen Drury actually Edgar Cayce?

Socrates, the html messes with the spam catcher. Sorry your comments were delayed!

Your post, though, reminded me what I still don't think I've explained clearly. I do think there's a huge resentment (a resentment that can't speak its name) of inflicted guilt involved here. While there is plenty of white guilt to be found (especially by liberals) a lot of other people just want the harangues to stop. And I think Obama's candidacy offers them Official Certification in a way no one else can. Like it or not, there are people who would vote for him in the hope of ending for good the fear of being called racist!

This does not mean he's qualified to be president, of course. (I certainly agree with you on that one.)

Are we feeling guilty, or just tired of feeling guilty, or guilty that we're tired of feeling guilty, when the demagogues are still complaining? And does calling them demagogues mean I don't take racism seriously, and if so am I a racist?

That kind of escherthink is one reason I like your blog.

If I had to characterize our "burn out", I'd say it's the fact that no matter how much progress is made, it's always of zero effect. White people are racist, and while that obligates you to do certain things, doing those things won't actually absolve you of being racist.

Moreover, anybody with eyes can see that the same "civil leaders" that are applying this unmeetable standard and declaring other people effectively irredeemably racist, are themselves applying grossly racist standards.

I'll happily admit there's still white racists in the United States. But at this point, if I could somehow add up the "white" racism and the evident "black" racism and compare them, I wouldn't know which is more prevalent. But I know which is sanctioned by the same people telling me I'm racist.

In a nutshell, I think it's a combination of the sheer hypocrisy that burns people out, and the fact that ultimately, our actions count for nothing anyways, so why bother?

I'm indifferent to race fatigue.

However, I'm not indifferent to bigotry.

In that regard one ought to look at the connections between Obama and The Nation of Islam. Not a pretty picture. Especially where Tony Rezko is involved.

I think the Rezko matter pales in comparison to Hillary's dealings, and I tend to agree with this:

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2007/01/23/lavida-loca/

Obama?s potential problems are also Clinton?s. Obama has corruption/shady land deal questions of his own to answer, namely his ties to Antoin ?Tony? Rezko. Rezko was indicted last November for influence peddling. Rezko is also a long time fan of Obama, and it was Rezko who sold Obama the plot of land which Obama used to extend the size of his yard, according to reports that appeared in the Chicago Sun Times. Sadly for Clinton, each time Obama gets asked about Rezko, Clinton will be asked about one of her own ethics kerfuffles.

As to Obama's courting of the NOI, I don't think that makes him a supporter of their crackpot racist ideas, but it reflects poorly on him.

As I said, I don't plan to vote for him for president, but if I had to vote in the Democratic primaries, I'd prefer him to HRC, but I prefer Richardson to both.

If we have to have a Democratic president, I'd like to get the best we can get.

I don't care if he's black, white, or amerind. He's a socialist, and a leftist, and I'm going to base my opposition to him on that.

I noticed the writer of that article neatly sidestepped Obamas political views and wether they actually qualify him for the job of running a constitutional repblic, like, say... does he have any constitutionalism?

I've been called a racist/bigot before for opposing socialists. It won't bother me if it happens again.

I wonder if Hillary has heard of Thomas Jefferson. He spoke French and translated Gaelic works. Does this count as being multilingual?

"I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am."

Monty Python

If you ask me, Obama's strength is that he provides what amounts to a "offset" against racism -- whether real, perceived, or imagined.

Now there’s a backhanded compliment for you. I can see why Professor Reynolds would link to this risqué little post. What you are suggesting is that Obama’s “race” is all he has going for him and those who support him are overcompensating for a PC sense of "white guilt". What happened to all the enthusiasm for Condi Rice running? I guess that was a joke too. You people are a real laugh riot.

This same phenomena may be Obamas undoing. If the press, and his supporters, attempt to use his appointed race to deflect legitimate criticism, this may establish the perception that he will be unaccountable as president.

To his credit, Obama hasn't played this card. But in all likelyhood someone will on his behalf.

FWIW, I think Hillary is blowing it badly. Her comical and lame attempts to show how "black" she is are precisely that -- comically lame. The irony is that the more she pretends to be black, the blacker she makes Obama look. So, by trying to insinuate that he's not "really black" (with a condescending wink-wink to black voters), she's actually reminding everyone that he is black, and creating an anti-Hillary backlash among blacks and whites!

Well perhaps the people in Mitt Romney’s campaign should think twice about suggesting that since Rudy Giuliani is Italian-American he might be tied to organized crime, because that would remind everyone that Romney is a Mormon creating a backlash against both of them. I’m just looking out for the Republican Party. I’d hate to see anything bad happen to such a lovely bunch of people, sigh.

As a proud Viking-American I wouldn't vote for Obamba. He's a leftist, anti-American, piece of human debris.

After Duke Lacrosse who's guilty?

Eric,

Obama and Rezko were close. Rezko was NOI.

BTW has Obama ever repudiated NOI racism?

Obama's big advantage is that there is no way to criticize a black candidate without being charged with racism. However, a lot of us won't let that matter, whether or not we are racists. I suspect a certain portion of nitwits will buy into the "racial offset" idea just as they do with the carbon offset silliness. I don't think it will be a number apt to sway things much, and Obama on his own--judging by his lack of any real position on anything--won't appeal to anybody with any sense.

Obama's race could work against him, too, though not in the way one might expect. That Obama's race helps him is evidence of racism in itself, and it's a form that many whites can cast aside their own guilt to oppose. Generally, blacks whose employment or admission is based to any extent on race are resented, and whatever credentials they do have are diminished in the eyes of those who are not allowed the opportunity to compete on an equal footing.

I believe there's also a geographical component to white guilt. White guilt is in short supply outside of those states that supported Kerry in '04, and are already pretty safe bets for the Democrats in '08. And, as John Kerry can tell you, that isn't enough states to become president. This problem is compounded if someone like Giuliani gets the nomination and puts the Northeast in play.

Nice to see racism is a "classical value".

Thank you, Ugly Americans.

Electing Obama would only exacerbate the problem. It would further enhance the race-baiting industry because his entire schtick is left-wing, identity and victim-based politics. How would one oppose the policies or report on the foibles of an Obama administration without being accused of racism?

I feel guilty about feeling guilty guilt. I am voting for Dr Phil. Or maybe Crazy Horse.

Two thoughts come to mind at the spectacle of Obama being tested for sufficient "blackness":

[1] Wouldn't it be nice if Obama's candidacy finally ended the silliness of calling black Americans "African"? It is nice to see a candidate who really *is* African-American, even if black America doesn't appreciate that in him.

[2] No way, in the end, that Obama can fail the "blackness" test - because as goes Obama, so goes Tiger, and Tiger is too potent a symbol of sticking it to affluent whites by besting them at their game. Blacks will embrace Obama, if only as part of the price to pay for claiming Tiger.

Kristo Miettinen

Tiger is too potent a symbol of sticking it to affluent whites by besting them at their game

Oh really? I thought he was just a really good golfer. Thanks alerting us to his place in the vast Black wing conspiracy.

Good and even entertaining discussion, although I think some words are being put in my mouth.

While it may be "risqué" I don't think it's racist to argue that a major part of Obama's strength derives from white guilt, but far from suggesting that's "all" he has going for him, I'm also suggesting that his candidacy has enormous appeal to people who are tired of being called racists. Somehow, that is not being heard. I can't think of a better way of proving my point than calling people "racist" for discussing this rather obvious point.

People are tired of this nonsensical namecalling. ("You people"? Please.) Whether Obama will help solve it, who knows? It is undeniable that a Condi Rice candidacy would have a similar appeal; the difference is that she's more qualified to be president.

(If it's racist to maintain that Rice is more qualified than Obama, go ahead and fill me in.)

If it's racist to maintain that Rice is more qualified than Obama, go ahead and fill me in.

There you have it. Your post is all about trivializing the subject and trying to goad someone into using questionable reasoning to accuse you of racism. Far from being “tired of this nonsensical namecalling” you are trying to provoke more of it. By the way, how exactly does the phrase “you people” qualify as name-calling?

"You people" is an us-against them, ad-hominem expression which simply generalizes, and attempts to link people to each other instead of letting them speak for themselves. ("You people are a real laugh" certainly qualifies as ad-hominem and insulting, as well as unclear and unpersuasive.)

If you don't think it's racism to maintain that Rice is more qualified than Obama, I'm relieved to hear it. Considering the accusatory nature of some of the remarks here, I don't think I was trivializing the subject or being provocative.

Vote for Ron Paul.

I don't think I was trivializing the subject or being provocative.

Let me see if I understand this, your discomfort with the idea that you could be perceived to be racist is far a more important problem than actual racism. As you wrote earlier:

The appearance of racism is what matters. Far more than race. Or racism.

Uh, isn’t this a bit self centered? Would you extend this logic to other social problems? Do you think that the real problem with rape, pedophilia etc. is not the behavior itself but the possibility that someone could mistakenly believe you are guilty of it?

Yes, in this country the appearance of racism matters far more than race or racism.

That's because far too many people care more about appearances than reality.

Whether I share this mindset is largely irrelevant to the subject of the post, which is whether it will be a factor in the election. I think it will.

Yes I suppose it really would be asking too much for you to take responsibility for the opinions you post on your own blog.

…far too many people care more about appearances than reality

Count yourself among them. It’s very educational to read your blog and see how often you portray yourself as a victim. You’re a completely self-absorbed narcissist.

Oh dear.

Well, I'm glad you're getting an education while you're helping me recover from my illness.

:)