"If we elect Barack Obama in 2008, our troubled relationship with race will change irrevocably and for the better. "

Not necessarily, if he turns out to suck.

I worried that my own support of Obama in recent months was rooted in racial politics to a certain extent; the fact that currently I'm somewhere between John Edwards and Bill Richardson either means my interest in a black politician was too weak to keep me from souring a bit on Obama...or it means that his race was my prime mover for supporting him at first, absent an analysis of positions and/or campaign style.

The experience, in any case, leads me to answer your question with a simple "No."

Race and gender has been a factor for me in almost all the elections I've voted in since I could make a decent argument why it does matter. For me, I have always lived a life where almost no one that looked like me had any position of power, and I mean power in all contexts. No Black teachers in schools until high school - and I didn't have class with any of them. No mayor, governor, president. No women in the magazines that I could see as Black or Latina and beautiful, which is think is one of the reasons my mother never let me have them.

As I've said here before, an ongoing conversation on the impact of race stalled and has never been picked up in a meaningful way on a country wide stage. We fail to acknowledge it even in our state. It still doesn't seem to be happening, even with Sen. Obama and Gov. Richardson in the presidential race and plenty of room for a thoughtful start.

The support of candidates that are not White males always have caveats: Is the person smart enough, traveled enough, experienced enough, presents enough examples? There is a virtually complete absence of such questions otherwise. Someone should have asked those questions of some of our electeds in Salem and on the national stage.

So, the answer to your question, Jeff, from my point of view, is yes, race should be a factor. Sen. Obama has to be smarter, work harder, present better and actively stay on the right side of things to be considered EQUAL to his peers. This is a challenge that many women and people of color go through constantly. I think this is the scrutiny he will face if he makes it through his current honeymoon phase. Its important for us to elect a person who is qualified to lead our country after the disaster who is in the White House now. We are lucky to have a variety of candidates who can do the job, but let us not question harder the persons of color when the other candidates seem to lack this thing called "substance" as well.

Karol, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it should be pointed out that Obama's challenge in establishing that he has enough experience is not merely due to his race (although I fully agree that the ferocity of the attacks is related to race.)

In my view, Obama has effectively zero statewide campaign experience; the last-minute importing of Keyes into his race doesn't count for much. This strikes me as a liability in the general election, where the attacks will be extreme. Of course, his demeanor seems excellent, and well-suited to fending off attacks with grace and dignity; no doubt a result of his invaluable experience in fighting against bigotry directed at him. So he might be fine on that count; how the rest of the primary goes will have a big influence on my opinion.

But his limited job experience seems a little more troubling to me. One term in the Senate, overshadowed entirely by speculation about his presidential ambitions, seems minimal. Edwards has the same liability. But this part seems very real to me; not at all worth writing him off, but worth paying very careful attention to how he evolves as convincing and authoritative leader.

Legislative experience, and highly local experience like Mayor of Cleveland, seem thin for an executive position, and so there are only three Democratic candidates for whom experience is not a major concern for me: Clinton (with extensive White House experience), Richardson (a governor), and Gravel (whose tenure in the Senate sounds pretty distinguished.)

I'll be watching all the others closely as I try to make up my mind.

That "invaluable experience" bit came out all wrong. It's contemptible that he had to fight those battles, but in the process, he appears to have turned a liability into an asset. That speaks very well of his character. I don't think my words above expressed that at all.

Torrid, no one should back Obama solely because he's black, though I don't follow your logical train to a no to my question, which was about considering race as one positive reason to support him.

Pete, Obama's experience deficit is overblown. I'm afraid this arises more from media characterization than fact. In my argument for Obama, I argued that his experience was actually a plus:

[H]is political experience is both broad and deep, if mostly unknown to national voters. Before becoming a US Senator, he was an Illinois State Senator for eight years. He was an active leader in the legislature, chairing the Public Health and Welfare Committee, and working to pass legislation aimed at helping the working poor, increasing AIDS prevention spending, and banning racial profiling. He also worked on a health insurance bill that didn't pass. After college, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago and then went on to Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and became the president of the Harvard Law Review. At the University of Chicago (in Hyde Park, the district he represented), he was a Constitutional law professor and worked for a civil rights firm. All of this happened outside the flashing lights of the national press, but the truth remains that he was teaching law before George W. Bush became governor of Texas. He's got more experience in politics than either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, neither of whom are regularly criticized for being underqualified.

Thanks, Jeff - that looks well worth exploring, and I must have missed it last time around. Don't have the time right now, but I will read up later.

absolutely his ethnicity (i hate "race" which is a stupid and completely inaccurate term) matters to me. but before i got to that point, i had to decide he was qualified to be president (very much so) and that i could support him regardless of gender, skin color, etc. and i can.

i am excited that we might elect an African-American president. what an amazing event given our country's long ugly history of rascism. i can say the same of electing a woman, except Clinton's politics are not as aligned with mine as Obama's. symbolism is a vital part of politics and governing, and like it or not, Obama's ethnicity is symbolic.

the message to our own country, and to the world, when we elect Barack Obama will do much to repudiate the legacy of Bush. in both what he symbolizes and the politics he represents, i am excited to be supporting him. and looking forward to his visit to Seattle on Friday!!

There is a quite engaging 5-minute documentary at the Washington Post on the Obamas' swing through New Hampshire that I would heartily recommend to skeptics and fans alike. In particular, note how his wife Michelle fields a question at a town hall meeting. Another reason to support him!

This Obama service announcement was furnished by ....

(Seriously, I don't work for the guy.)

"Hate to be the one to break this to you but considering a candidate’s skin color for any reason in an election is bigoted and, yes, racist."

That's a little tough for me to swallow, Buckman. I do take skin color and gender into account; these candidates take mine into account all the time. To pretend that fact isn't the case is ignoring the discussion of race (sorry TA), class and gender. I worked for a campaign where I was hired strictly because I was Black and the community needed to see that face. Did it diminish my ability? Absolutely not, but it did add that credibility that is STILL needed for people of color to feel like they are being represented SOMEWHERE. Personally, its not a strange concept to want to support someone who looks like me (Obama), speaks the language I was raised with (Richardson), or understands not being taken seriously as a woman (Clinton). It doesn't make me racist, sexist, or otherwise.

I want to vote for the person who will lead us in the right direction. I have a choice between several great candidates and I will lean towards someone who relates to my own experience. I think many people do that, no matter the reasons - they vote for the face too, you know.

If its "cool" to vote for Obama, then so be it! Once upon a time it was cool to be a Kennedy supporter - wait, it still is. Jeff, you are COOL...embrace it (wink).

I worked for a campaign where I was hired strictly because I was Black and the community needed to see that face.

Hey Karol, don't sell yourself short. You might have been hired in part because you are Black - but surely you were also hired because you were an effective spokesperson for your candidate. They chose YOU, not just the first random Black person wandering down the street.

Thanks Kari - but I don't know how right you are about the skill thing...I wasn't always the savvy politico you know and love now.

But, the point remains, sometimes a familiar face makes one feel more committed to one candidate over another. I don't know if its right, wrong or otherwise. I don't think people of various colors' issues are all that different. But just look into any high school, group of friends walking or at a show, or shopping and you'll see something that I see: people migrate towards people that look like themselves. I'm not saying that I only vote for Blacks or Hispanics, but I do see the attraction in my own case.