Atlantic Review

"Who here really think Europeans would elect a minority to a national or European leadership position?" Ah, the old "only in America" argument. I suppose five years ago, you would have added something about Clinton being a woman and how that would be unthinkable in Europe etc. Now, how many African-Americans have been members of the US senate? Five? Well, I rest my case. I am not saying that Europe fares any better, but it's simply not true that the US is a beacon of race equality when it comes to their government. Nyamko Sabuni and Manuela Ramin-Osmundsen are both ministers in their respective governments, and I know there are more in other countries.

So what exactly is Obama's appeal to Europeans? Why would any European pundit suggest that a relatively inexperienced Senator from Illinois be elected President of the Europe? How is Obama more qualified than Tony Blair? How about Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid both of whom are at least as far to the left in US terms and have far more relevant experience than Obama?

Don't you think it rather straightforward to think that they don't really need to know anything about the man's platform or likely cabinet appointments if he's running for president of another country? This is a case of 'sporting' interest in what happens in the US election, not a real one, because as much as one would like to think that who the US president is would matter to Europe, that it really doesn't in the way people imagine. Realistically, nothing is vested in it for them. In fact, were non-Americans to find a great deal of interest in a certain candiate in the US, and the population generally prefer to find certain diminution of interests on the part of America in the world, the signal sent to the US population by their elation is that the candidate they getting a woody over is more likely to be bad for the intrest of the United States, not good for it in the most basic objective terms. You still aren't addressing teh point of the "President of the EU". and how this clay figure is [b]not[/b] elected in manner which is different form the who the Soviets slected from among their onetime Politburo. My question is simply "who will you vote for on your ballot for the PotEU?" Then and only then, will I accept another prattling, faux-academic sounding lecture from anyone on the east side of the pond about US elections, particularly when they repeat verbatim this patently false "selected not elected" circulated by the far left when all the objective evidence pointed to leftis groups attempting to destroy ballots in the tens of thousands. They get to have their criticisms heard in earnest when they form a realistic participatory government for the EU. Period. Though it's rather obvious that those Europeans most vehement in their negative opinions about the US are fishing for here is a way to call someone a bigot, it's shallow and irrelevant to the choices Americans make for themselves when they vote. No matter what charge you want to idly level at someone, it's still exceedingly worse to be anti-democratic than to be accused of racism, because democracy is the only realistic way to eliminate the effect of racism on government. On the other hand, racism and bigotry is something normally found to any substantive degree in near-monolithic societies like those found in Europe. The theatrics of pointing at those abroad or engaging in insincere symbolism at home is not remediative, it's delusional. I'm told by bien pensent twits that as an Arab, that I'm discriminated against. I have yet to find that happen to me in the US, and only encountered it in the UK, Germany, and France. So you want to vote in an election where you aren't even a citizen? Try it in the socially enlightened corner of Europe known for promoting it's universalism, open-ness, debate culture, and the like... [url=http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/05/22/l-assemblee-refuse-d-accorder-le-droit-de-vote-aux-etrangers_1048540_3224.html]France[/url]:[i]Dans le cadre de l'examen du projet de loi sur la réforme des institutions, l'Assemblée nationale a rejeté, [b]sans surprise[/b], jeudi 22 mai, trois amendements de la gauche et du Nouveau Centre visant à accorder le droit de vote aux étrangers. Lesdits amendements avaient reçu un avis défavorable du gouvernement.[/i]

Yes, it was called [url=http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007796.php]Operation Clark County[/url], and it featured [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200410210841.asp]British leftist[/url] deigning painfully to talk to people who didn't drink from their cup and calling random numbers in a county in the state of Ohio. The notion that they were [url=http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/01/08/pond-view/]meddling[/url] empiriously didn't dawn on them [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/18/uselections2004.usa2]for a few weeks[/url].

@ Kuch "How many Ethnic Turks are currently in the Bundestag?" Four. The total number of parliamentarians is 612. 11 have an immigrant background. 3 are Muslims. See: [url]http://atlanticreview.org/archives/501-Eurabia-and-German-NeoNazis-and-the-Taliban-in-Iraq.html#c6402[/url]

Are you suggesting that the European parliamentary system promotes people based on a quota rather than the Us system where that local minority better be able to get a majority of the votes or his district and know where all the bodies are buried?

I was trying to agree by hyperbole and on second look I seem to have failed at both. Making clear my agreement and the lack of recognized hyperbole. But bringing up Harold Ford reminds me that my impression of him was always favorable and I had thought years ago, without any major slips, he would have become that black candidate that could truly garner the neccessary white votes in the South to become president. But I suppose being a Blue Dog and voting for the Iraq resolution consigned him to apostate Hell as far as most Democrats were concerned. Plus I'm probably one of those chauvinists that thought, Harold Ford is single, he's been a successful politician, has a good education, is well liked in his district, has a fair share of dollars in his pockets and seems like he knows how to use a fork and complete a sentence. Why the heck shouldn't he go to the Playboy Mansion?

I will point out that the most powerful woman in the world is African-American and a Republican at that.

Power doesn't imply positive achievement. No woman has had greater influence over global events over the last few years than Rice, for better or worse - regardless of what Forbes says.

I give Rice as much credit for the planning, promotion and execution of the Iraq war as Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rice was picked by Bush specifically to head up the uncooperative State Dept when Powell, who was regarded as too close to the nay-sayers there, resigned. If you're Bush in that situation who do you pick to reign in the likes of Wilson and Plame, an unreliable lacky who might be swayed by their own staff at State? No, you choose one of the strongest proponents of the program.

The real question is, what has [i]Obama[/i] done to deserve a major political position in either Europe or the US? I admit, the symbolism is powerful. Is being a powerful symbol and raising money during the campaign the only requirement for the highest office in the land? If so, I can't think of a clearer example of the "[url=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/barack_obama_and_the_soft_bigotry_of_low_expectations/]soft bigotry of low expectations[/url]". Obama is an established Chicago politician who is a relative newcomer to [i]regional i.e. statewide[/i] politics. His landslide election to the US Senate was in part due to the fluke of his opponent's self-destruction. Shouldn't he at least have to prove he can win re-election to the Senate before risking all on the national stage? Prior to his current campaign, he had virtually undetectable amounts of professional experience (political or otherwise) outside of the state of Illinois. As for executive experience, he had none to speak of, prior to the campaign. He has shown strong potential to grow into a much larger role, but such growth takes time. The only basis for him becoming EU President today, is if that role is purely symbolic (similar to the UN Ambassadors-at-large for this-and-that). Do you really think Obama belongs in a ribbon-cutting, fund-raising, after-dinner-speech ghetto?

Nah, I don't see it that way...there are plenty of people who feel entitled to things in the US...Obama is running against one of them in fact... Also, the word "deserves" has multiple meanings, and I think by quoting a musician named Momus, Joerg is encouraging us to use our imaginations.

They'd prefer an empty suit anyway. Otherwise the idea of handicapping America with the same evasiveness of fussy and ineffectual little social campaigns that they undergo probably appeals to some as well.

Wouldn´t you agree that being able to vote politicians only makes sense when they feel somewhat bound to their mandates? Here they are not only free to abuse whatever political anouncements they have made before the election and disappoint every expectation they created. They also use this opportunity quite frequently. With such a conglomeration of populists and thugs you cannot rule a country, you can only make sure the biggest lobbyists find appropriate contacts. I will not deny that lobbyists are quite frequent in Brussels and do their best to influence legislation. But since the leaders there do not have to collect money for the next election campaign, do not have to fear being replaced at the next election and do not have to take whatever they can get, they can conduct politics more freely. They can focus on real work. This does not mean everybody there does - but at least they are able to. In fact this is the perfect form of government in my humble opinion - a commission of experts. When an entity like the EU gets big enough, it cannot be ruled by unanimous vote anymore. To develop the realm efficiently, a new chain of command has to be established. Since we still have member states with national sovereignty, progress is best achieved when incorporating national leaders. "How does logic neeed to be tortured to call this "by, of, and for the people?"" Yes indeed this is Orwellian language and completely laughable. Yet the need arised when the project of integration was in danger. Good propaganda has never hurt a good cause :)

"You may want to rethink about how germaine that really is. It's practically third world." Would you be willing to explain that any further? Right now it doesn´t sound very convincing. All I did was to explain how EU integration can be achieved even under difficult circumstances. The fact that it seems to work nicely contradicts your label of "third world" - that is unless you consider Europe being part of the third world :)

Zyme's attitude supports my theory of the fundamental difference between Americans and Europeans when it comes to our relationship to our governments and how we see our place in our respective societies. Americans are never very far from our immigrant ancestors. Somewhere, for many within living memory, there is someone who stepped off the boat and into a situation where they succeeded or failed on their own. I have an immigrant great grandfather whose story reads a lot like that of Vito Corleone, less the crime and violence. As a teenager he escaped the poverty of a central Sicilian hilltop village to take his chances in America. There, through his own efforts, he transformed himself into a man of wealth, property and influence in Houston Texas. Europeans, on the other hand, are never far from their feudal-era serf ancestors. Class centrism and an “I do my part and you take care of me because you know best” attitude seem to permeate European social and political thought. The only difference is that now the ruling class is made up of technocrats rather than lords.

I would argue that the EU is not a philosophical but a rather technical creation. It´s main role never was to spread enlightenment. Its primary role in the beginning was to secure peace in Europe. Then its role was to enhance economical relations and increase our wealth. In addition to that, the next role was to unify the legal system. A monstrous task for decades that is still in the stage of implementation. Also souvereignty was transformed to Brussels so that Europeans are more and more in the position to speak with one voice in the world. It is believed that only this will enable us to achieve our ambitions. And for some, the EU´s role is to create a european identity - a new nation or (considering the numbers of peoples involved) an empire. So all these roles are rather technical and do not include a new ideology, although the ideas of enlightenment surely play a big role behind those processes.

"when a Eurocrat wants to find out what Europeans think about an issue, he does a scientific survey rather than holding an election." I guess they will only be confronted with this question whenever asking the people is compulsory - for example for referendums. As we could witness perfectly in the creation of the traty of Lisbon, these obligatory referendums are eliminated where possible, so there won´t be big need for surveys in the future. The entire question "What Europeans think" is wrong. Instead the question in Brussels always is "What is good for Europeans". And that can be decided without any surveys at all. "Nevertheless, the fact that the EU is creating a new aristocracy with real power, has unavoidable philosophical implications, in my opinion." This surely is the case. I would explain it by the sheer number of peoples involved. One people can be governed by a parliament elected by this people. They know that at least in general their leaders will be men and women from their midst. In a country with several peoples like in Britain or Spain this is already highly problematic and creates a well for separatists. It becomes a governmental catastrophe in an EU of 27 countries and an endless number of cultures. The solution to this is an imperial structure where no people gets the impression of becoming dominated by a disliked neighbouring people. Instead they are all ruled by an emperor (in the medieval ages) or an imperial council (like the Commission). So at least in general they are all even again. "Proper science is good and powerful, but politicized science is very dangerous." It can be. I would consider it being a powerful tool. It can be used for good and for evil. I get the impression that an unprecedented number of european countries places its ambitions into Brussels today. That is the ore from which this tool is created. "I guess we will see." Yes I am convinced we will.

"Since religious authority and heredity is no longer the source of authority for the new governing class, what is their source of authority?" If the serfs aren’t asking any questions, why should the Aristocrats volunteer answers? I don’t see anyone making any real attempt to base the authority of the new aristocracy on anything more substantial than “I’m an expert recognized as an expert by the other experts”. You do hear crypto-religious terms like ‘moral authority’ and other ominous sounding phrases like ‘political philosophy’ bandied about. I suppose the new secular religion is not really that different than the old one; the language sounds oddly familiar. Throw in Dante’s Inferno as “Amerikanische Verhältnisse” and some Katrina hyperbole and you get the failed constitution in the Lisbon treaty with barely a squeak. The most ominous thing about the future of Europe is that Europeans have failed to grasp the lesson of the Marxist experiment - perhaps because so many of the 68ers in power in Europe still romanticize it. Anytime you create a power structure people will try to exploit it for their own gain at the expense of those subject to that power. The more comprehensive and less accountable that power structure, the more easily and completely it can be subverted. In the end you always end up with Stalin.

"Here, we call the people who do this 'parents of young children', owing to the fact that children, like the European population in this case, have few rights and are treated like their free will is a danger to themselves." Again I would not use such harsh words. A responsibe government has to think ahead of temporary waves of public opinion and have visions for the shores ahead. No long term project can be carried out when taking into account every mometary discontent of the elctorate. And what project is even more long-term than the european unification? "If you don't find the notion repellent, then really - what does it matter... we could give you an Wii and a pile of games, and you'd be perfectly happy in North Korea." I strongly reject this assumtion. When a leadership is solely focused on exploiting its people and starving them just to gain even more useless luxury, it is hard to image an even more vile system.

"Europe DESERVES Obama More" I totally agree. A Marxist, hate-whitey, ACORN, Bill Ayers, Nation of Islam, etc., real good buddy. Perfect fit for the EU. Take his wife, while you're at it, would you please? She makes Cherie Blair look like Jackie Kennedy.

A Momus reference....nice. Perhaps, I should get my old Sarah and Creation records out "to feel his vibe". Really, anyone whose most famous song is "Murders hope of women" is a pretentious twat. Does anyone here have Sarah Fanzine #1?

Certainly Europe fell in love with Obama before we learned if he likes us at all. Obama does not have a transatlantic policy and it is very difficult to see if he would become a trustworthy ally of the European Union.

[i]Although the analogy is far from perfect, the best analogy is the European Jews. [/i] No, I totally disagree. The best analogy to European Jews are American Jews. In fact, [b]there is no European minority group comparable to African Americans.[/b] The fate of Jews in (modern) Europe is just too peculiar. There is nothing comparable in America to the Third Reich and the Holocaust. On the other hand, note that [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Emancipation Jews[/url] were granted legal equality in Europe before the turn of the last century. In some states of the USA, segregation was abolished only in the 1960s. In Germany, the largest minority group are Turks, at about 3% of the total population. Turkish immigration to Germany started in the 1960/70s. The situation may be slightly different in European states with former colonies (GB, the Netherlands, France) - but still, there's nothing comparable to the situation of African Americans, who came to America centuries ago and make up about 13% of the population, and even are in the majority in several states!

No-one is calling him a Muslim, even though according to non-Western standards, he is, as he now admits. Obama also admits that when he was younger, the more radical the cause the more attractive he found it. The Chicago Tribune is hardly the kind of paper to consider Obama's radical pals and past to be a bombshell. They've endorsed him, after all. They've presumably decided that it's not an issue. And in Chicago or even Illinois, they may be correct. But on the national stage, that stuff will matter. America's distrust of the radical left has a long tradition and was not invented by Karl Rove or even Lee Atwater. Obama knows this. Indeed, one has only to read the latest statements from the Obama campaign to see that his attempts to triangulate are becoming more and more frequent. If Obama manages to reinvent himself as a moderate between now and November, it will be a triumph of Clintonesque proportions. While you have yet to apologize for your earlier, casual, irresponsible accusations of hate, I am encouraged to see that you've chosen not to repeat them again today. May we expect an apology anytime soon?

Thank you, I think?!? I suppose I could have said "no-one on this post called him a Muslim until David brought it up". Would that make you happy? Sheesh. Calling someone Nation of Islam (NOI), [url=http://atlanticreview.org/index.php?url=archives/1085-Europe-Deserves-Obama-More.html#c14189]as Pamela did[/url], is not the same as calling them Muslim. Even though followers of NOI often refer to themselves as Muslims, they are not in fact Muslims, for a number of reasons having to do with theology. For example, NOI teaches that W. D. Fard was in fact allah (god). Elijah Muhammad claims to be a prophet of this allah, and stated, “Allah (God) came to us from the Holy City Mecca, Arabia, in 1930. He used the name Wallace D. Fard, often signing it W.D. Fard. In the third year (1933), He signed His name W.F. Muhammad, which stands for Wallace Fard Muhammad. He came alone. He began teaching us the knowledge of ourselves, of God and the devil, of the measurement of the earth, of other planets, and of the civilizations of some of the planets other than earth.” [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Fard_Muhammad]Source[/url] These teachings are considered a heresy in mainstream Islam. Why does any of this matter? Perhaps it all boils down to this: Obama seems to have gone through a period of experimentation, of inventing and re-inventing himself (as do we all at times). But it is certainly fair to ask, has he fully settled on a well-defined identity, or is he still re-inventing himself? This would be a question for any Presidential candidate of his age, but for someone with so little experience, it assumes critical importance. Since his voting record on national issues is so thin, his biography and choice of associates is one of the few remaining ways we can judge what he means when he speaks, and if he means what he says.

Pamela, Fair point. After I posted, I re-read what you wrote again and it occurred to me that was probably what you meant - buddies, not membership. Sorry if I jumped the gun. An interesting question is, how close does someone have to be to the candidate to be considered an "associate"? McCain had to deal with a front page NY Times feature story about an attractive female lobbyist whose main association (outside of incidental contact with him and his staff in her capacity as a lobbyist) was a single, unchaperoned plane ride with him! If this same, ridiculous standard were applied to Obama, my guess is there would be a never-ending parade of associates for the blogs and mainstream media to chew over. I can't prove that, of course, it is just my guess about the guy, based in part on his statements that as a younger man he found himself attracted to radical causes just because they are radical. Some might use the word "causista" to describe that part of his life. I'm open to the possibility that Obama no longer is a causista. Obama's speeches, even as far back as his 2004 primetime address to the Democratic convention, suggest this. He's been willing at times to break with his radical past. He drops hints now and then that he admires or at least understands certain aspects of Reagan's presidency. There are probably other examples I can't think of right now. But if he is no longer a causista, what is he? He can give all the speeches he likes, but to convince people he needs to be able to point to specific instances in his post-causista life in which he asserted his new identity (whatever it is) even when there was a significant cost, or at least, no obvious benefit for him in doing so. Assuming he wins the nomination, his address to the 2008 Convention will be an ideal time to do this. Also there is the question of his mentors. It's blindingly obvious that earlier in his career some powerful people in the Chicago establishment identified him as a rising star and blessed him with their largess. I am not just talking about fundraising, but also the fact that he was allowed to attach his name and reputation to important or popular bills and other initiatives in the Illinois state house that he had very little to do with. For example, according to [url=http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print]this[/url], "Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. was Obama's kingmaker." Now kingmaking happens all the time in politics, but it is certainly legitimate to ask, who are these kingmakers, and what do they expect in return? Based on the speed of Obama's rise on the national stage, and his short and shallow national resume, it is highly likely that sometime between 2004 and now he was taken in hand by certain kingmakers in the national Democratic Party, the Soros empire, etc. Which is fine, but who are they, and what do they want?

Sen. Obama has placed the national organization of the UCC in a terrible bind. Rev. John Thoms, the denomination president, said that, "...the paiinful reality is that many candidates and public officials now find it nearly impossible to be an active member of a particular religious community," But I find no incidence where a candidate has severed from his congregation and also denounced them has occurred except for the senator. Rev. Thomas is stuck defending the indefensible simply because as a congregation based church he has virtually no say or any way to rein in the more outlandish of his members other than to imply that their particular difficulties, or racism in this case, is not actually racism but rather the pressure brought to bear by, in this case, white racists. Just as I will not hold my breath waiting for the national body of UCC, though a visit to their webiste shows dozens if not thousands of comments denouncing Trinity, to simply say that they are indeed racist and schismatic. But they chose to bask in the reflected glory of and then found that their new Sun King was but a pallid reflection of a single candle. Flickering and not revealing much.

But isn't he censured as a result?

"Oh Puh-leeze" As a pro-war libertarian, I am, without a doubt, the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you'll ever meet! Seriously, I am a UU. To understand my comment about the various legacies asserting themselves, you have to understand my pet theory that Obama is sincerely attempting to re-invent himself as he goes along. Don't worry, I've not drunk the kool-aid and started pretending that he actually *is* this new person he pretends to be. I'm suggesting that, unlike Sen. Clinton's triangulation, it might not be 100% cynical. If my theory is correct, it would be taking a ridiculously huge risk to elevate someone to the Presidency in 2008 who is "in transition" in terms of his core identity, especially someone so young and inexperienced. However, if Obama stays in the Senate for a while, completes his personal oddessy, and emerges rejecting the separatist legacy of Wright, Malcolm X, etc. he would be a formidable candidate. Leaving one's church after 20 years is a big deal for anyone; but my sense is that leaving an African-American church, and talking against to the pastor as he did somewhat in the Philadelphia speech a while ago, is an especially big deal. Obama will still get the African-American vote, but if he doesn't win, he will pay a huge price back in Hyde Park. And I think he knows this. His leaving the church is indeed a Sista Soulja moment, but it may also be much more than that. In this race, Obama is by far the most intriguing candidate to write about. I'm just trying to figure out what makes him tick.

You'll note that the title isn't [i]"Deserves [b]an[/b] Obama"[/i] but "Europe Deserves him MORE", as though there was some complex requiring something to be "taken away" from those dastardly Americans, who are, after all, there to kidnap your children in order to drink their blood. Seriously, what is it? What is that incredibly sad and needy pathology that makes so much of what comes out their mouthes not so much about the inherent value of the thing discussed, but about a negative fixation with Americans?

Hey Reid, I wish you'd take your white hood off long enough so we can get a look at your face.

Hey David, You are setting back race relations by conflating criticism of Obama with racism. Obama's unelectability isn't related to his race but his radical past and associations. For the record I am hoping that McCain picks Colin Powell, a black man, as his vice president. Powell, unlike Obama, is qualified to be president.

I apologize. That should have read--Reid: why do you hate the black peoples on the internets?

Reid To David and his fellow travelers any criticism of BHO is racism. In fact, David does not really see the need to have an election other than for Congress. We should all just anoint BHO. David has worked very hard these last few months in the defense of America. I think you should show more kindness to David as his efforts are going to give you our greatest president who surely will make your life better and also safer.

"What do you do for the democratic process other ridicule those who are participating?" Well, for one, he is doesn't race-bait.

I just watched an interview Shelby Steele gave in January, 2008 in support of his book "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win". Shelby Steele is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, which makes him a Black conservative. His basic point is that there are two common archetypes, roles or "masks" (his word) that Blacks often find useful in dealing with delicate issues of racial identity: the bargainer and the challenger. An example of a bargainer would be Jazz great Louis Armstrong...or Barack Obama. An example of a challenger would be Jazz great Miles Davis...or Jeremiah Wright. Whites in general are most comfortable with the bargainer, Blacks are more comfortable with the challenger, but both are in their own way inauthentic, or at least, the incomplete public face of the whole person. To understand what Steele is saying, and how it applies to Obama, read the book, or watch this five part interview he gave to National Review's "Uncommon Knowledge" program: [url=http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YTYzZGIyYjJkNTVlY2IyNzViYzQ2YjhkMmE1ZmFkMjk=]Part 1[/url] - [url=http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjdlNTE3MGUyYjdhNGZjZjA2YzY3OGJlNzY2NDk4YTM=]Part 2[/url] - [url=http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MDE2ZjZjMWI5ZWFlZDVmZWU3YjhiYzUwYjYyMzg5MTY=]Part 3[/url] - [url=http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YzQ4ZTQ1ZGIwYjY3NTM3YTkzYmM1YWRhYjliMTUxYmQ=]Part 4[/url] - [url=http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YjY2MTJlMjNiNjMwNzRkZWExNjEzMWVmMTVjMWYyYmU=]Part 5[/url] I highly recommend it. Hopefully, Steele's interview will shed some light on what I was trying to express when I told Pamela, "I'm suggesting that, unlike Sen. Clinton's triangulation, it might not be 100% cynical". As a younger man in search of an "authentic" Black identity, Obama adopted the role of the challenger, which I called the "causista". That he did this is one of the central ironies of his life, because in fact none of his ancestors were ever slaves in America. However, my theory (which I developed before I saw the Steele interview) is that Obama has never fully embraced the challenger mask; part of him has always been attracted to the bargainer, probably due in part to his bi-racial identity, his cosmopolitan experiences in Indonesia and Hawaii, and his mother's family's Midwestern heritage. His dream is either to have it both ways (a juggling act, in which we still don't see the real person behind the masks), or to forge some synthesis of these two masks that transcends both of them. So he is deeply conflicted; his triangulation is as much personal and cultural as it is political. If Obama, and the nation, could somehow resolve or transcend this conflict, he, and we, could do great things. But as far as I can tell, he has not yet done so. Peggy Noonan captures this brilliantly in her essay "[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110009388]The Man From Nowhere[/url]". Or, if Obama has in fact forged a core identity that transcends these masks, he has yet to reveal it.

Reid, take your wooden crosses and gasoline and go home. Today most of America is celebrating a historic event: an African-American winning the Democratic nomination. 7,000 articles in English on Google News. And the world is celebrating along with us. Check out the site [url=www.watchingamerica.com]Watching America[/url].

Shelby Steele is always on my 'must read' list ever since I read "The Content of Our Character", so I'm familiar with the argument in the book. The problem is this: People are not theoretical archtypes. Obama has made his choices AS A MAN, not an archtype. I don't vote for archtypes. I have the deepest misgivings about the choices he has made and I won't vote for him.

'can America survive an OBH presidency. The other outcome is can America survive OBH not being elected president.' Yes on both counts. The US has vast strength to survive blunders because of it's strong defensive strategic position. A Louis Napoleon cannot do for the US the way he did for France for two reasons - The US has no threatening neighbors and the US system permits a president to stay in power only 8 years. Similarly the effects of not electing a candidate are passing. 8 years from now whomever is elected this November will be the lamest of lame ducks with the very people most enthusiastic now just waiting to give him the push. I doubt McCain would last the full 8 to be honest; he's 72 and looks older.

David, your reaction to criticism of BHO bodes ill for consideration of your support for him on the merits. Reid's - and my - criticisms are factual. The only person on this thread that has said anything remotely racist is you. [I'm assuming Elisabetta's were satire]. Your failre to address the issues raised and simply toss around ad hominem insults speaks volumes about YOU.

Wow. Good link, Joerg! Die Tageszeitung's editors claim, "The headline is supposed to make people think about these stereotypes. It works on many levels." I would be very interested to learn what those other levels are, besides the obvious implication that Obama is an inauthentic Black because he broke publicly with his church, and a sell-out because he appears to have got the nomination shortly after that. I see they didn't put a question mark after the headline "Onkel Baracks Hutte". Headline writing is a certain art, and doesn't always follow the same rules that govern ordinary language. In an English headline, putting a question mark in the headline would make it less of an attack, less confrontational, etc. Do German headlines work the same way? Can anybody guess what those other levels are?

Well it appears that Obama and McCain are virtually tied in the polls at this point in time. Some polls have McCain slighly ahead and some Obama by a point or two. There is 5 months till the election. As the saying goes, let's get it on!

Who cares who the Europeans prefer ... if it was up to France, our next President would be Jerry Lewis. How about focusing on who has the experience, judgement and character to protect us and bring prosperity to Americans ... not someone who in the eleventh hour, finally tries to establish foreign policy credentials, in a one week visit, as a transparent political ploy to get himself elected. Where was Obama, when he was supposed to chair the congressional committee on Afghanistan, and never had a single meeting. Why did Obama vote 'present' over 100 times in the senate? Even if he manages a political rally in the Roman Coliseum, he's still just an inexperienced politician, who is not qualified to be President of the United States of America !!!

Well, if you want to find out some reasons why so many Europeans support Barack Obama, there is a site which was set up last week I think called europeans for obama .com or .eu. There is a interessting statement on this.

Qunicy or Bill, "As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has tackled such challenges as the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the genocide in Darfur." [url=http://www.europeansforobama.com/together-we-can]Source[/url] This claim is pretty remarkable, given the consensus here at Atlantic Review that Obama did very little as the mostly-absent, sometimes-"present" leader of the Europe sub-committee. Is there evidence we haven't seen that he actually did anything substantial during his time on this sub-committee? I ask on the slight chance that you are not Obama-bots and therefore can actually conduct a meaningful conversation.