You're right. He is speaking the truth. Especially the "about to have our first black president" part.

*grins*

yes, we are all for the underdog. but isn't part of the victory being that america can look past the color of a persons skin, or their gender? That we can forget about those insubstantial coincidences? i think America deserves a pat on the back. we really are getting there. we may yet find our way into that promised land. if only we can keep ourselves from sneezing.

I honestly don't understand why a black man's achievements are always suspect. This is NEVER an issue when the person in question is white (e.g. Bush Jr., who had faaaaaar less experience than Obama has now, and whose experience, three failed businesses, showed a pathetic person, not an exemplary one, as with Obama).

Being a president, or being a candidate for president, isn't just about elected experience. It's about a new vision, and the ability to communicate that vision, something Obama quite clearly has. His success isn't in any way "because" he's black, even though his blackness has obviously informed part of his vision.

I'm being totally honest when I say I voted for Hillary because she has a vag. And if people are voting for Obama because he's black, that's fine with me. When we have a queer candidate running, I'll vote for them because they're queer. Unless they're one of the confused Log Cabin Republicans, of course. I just don't get that!

Maybe my memory is clouded, but I seem to recall that there was considerable criticism of W.'s lack of experience during the 2000 primaries and election.

I'm not sure "experience" for an office is ever a sufficient criteria for that office, but it is a common factor to use in campaigns -- both federal and local.

Suggesting (as post #3 does) that this common type of criticism is racially motivated when applied to Obama is absurd. Candidates talk about "experience" all the time. That's one of the reasons we rarely hear an Obama speech that lacks the phrase "when I was a community organizer on the streets of Chicago." He's highlighting his own experience exactly because it's the kind of experience that is attractive to voters. (And, probably, partly because that kind of grass-roots activism contrasts favorably for Obama with Clinton's history.)

"Experience" would, for instance, likely become a major factor even if Clinton were somehow to become the Democratic nominee, since McCain has far more experience in the Senate. He's probably visited more countries as a Senator.

McCain and the GOP will use the "experience" card throughout the campaign with either possible Democratic nominee.

On his Obama-speak commentary show last week Keith Olbermann noted that the GOP had registered several Obama related urls the day after the Iowa primary. Among them, "obamanotready.com" and, if I recall correctly, "obamatoogree.com". And that was way before the Clinton campaign said anything about Obama's experience. The GOP was ready to hit hard on that meme as soon as it looked like Obama might win the nomination. (But, of course, Olbermann and his guests didn't point out that aspect of things because it would have weakened part of their daily Clinton-is-destroying-the-party chorus.)

If I was blind and the issue of Obama's race was never mentioned, I would still vote for him. Why? Because not only does his words resonate hope, but his voice does as well.

You have to go beyond words to the feeling in your soul. Most Americans cannot do that, otherwise Bush would have never been elected. Americans heard his words, but could not feel the lack of truth in them. I don't feel as comfortable with Clinton, and definitely not with McCain. The difference between those two is that I would happily support Clinton if she overtook Obama, but my soul would be disappointed.

I believe the important point here is that there are a lot of African-american folks who support Senator Clinton just as there are a lot of women who support Senator Obama.

I further believe that the issues of race or gender should have no place in the discussion of the very important issues facing this country when it is facing so many difficult decisions.

We really need to get beyond the consideration of gender and race, and choose the person who
will best work to make this a better country after the years of the Bush administration.

Brent said:

I honestly don't understand why a black man's achievements are always suspect.

I think this gets right to the heart of why Ferraro's comments were offensive - if a Black person achieves something or is successful, it can't possibly because s/he earned it. She was saying that it's just because of those latte libruls' guilt re slavery that Obama's doing so well, not at all because he's run a good campaign or people agree with him or anything.

I think the before-the-jump quoted blogger is reading a lot into Ferraro's comments that weren't there to try to exonerate her, more than even she was willing to say, considering that her defense came down to "People are racist against whites and that's why I'm being attacked."

Time for an outside view when I hear him speak he even gets me going. Now when Hillary speaks I remember why I just don’t like her she’s not Bill. Bill and Al wooed the south with there Dukes of Hazard Good old Boy image. When it comes to speaking Hillary just doesn’t have it Bill dose. Senator Obama has that speaking style that will even get me to give him a second look.

If these two keep going at it like they are now you will have a President McCain to kick around come next year. Hmm then again maybe that wouldn’t be to bad we do tend to do our best at getting things done when we have divided government in this case a Democrat controlled congress and a Republican President to keep the congress honest. Just a thought for you to ponder.

Thanks for the link, Jerame. And thank the original author for his [?] efforts toward painfully objective analysis if not some persistent selective perceptions that are painfully non-objective.

Looking forward to reading his analysis of Sen. Clinton’s biggest and most revealing scandal to date....her 23-year allegiance to and adulation of the Rev. Hezekiah Wrong.

John,

To answer your question,

No.

diddly, i am not so sure. mark twain said something to the effect that a man who was a pessimist before he was 40 knew too much, and a man who was an optimist after he was 40 knew too little. (sorry for the sexist comments but they aren't mine) i always thought that i understood his observation. now, i think maybe i am regressing. or maybe someone just needs to fill the role of optimist. or maybe because now i don't play the role of man? just thinking out loud...

Why is there seething hypocrisy in your blog? You talk about respect at the end, yet the downright condescension towards Obama supporters is evident. We can start with your title "An Obama Supporter Speaks the Truth," with the implication that the rest of Obama's supporters do not.

You make the blanket statement that race is part of his appeal. But do you really think that most people are casting their votes for him because he is half black?

This could easily be a pot-kettle argument. We all know that. I read your previous article and responded to it.

What I am commenting on is the fact that you call for respect but then give nothing but disrespect.

I'm not actually worked up, I just find your blog hypocritical, calling for one thing and doing the opposite.

Your generalizations and bias' are astounding. Why do you comment on Obama supporters, but don't comment on Clinton's?

Even when you say that the "ridiculous nature of either candidate's supporters is fair game," you make no comment to Clinton supporters in your postings.