The real question is, what has Obama 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 "soft bigotry of low expectations".

Obama is an established Chicago politician who is a relative newcomer to regional i.e. statewide 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.

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), as Pamela did, 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.” Source

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 this, "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?

"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.

"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:

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5

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 "The Man From Nowhere".

Or, if Obama has in fact forged a core identity that transcends these masks, he has yet to reveal it.