A Lack of Imagination

It looks like Elizabeth Edwards, in an apparent effort to alienate her husband's supporters, whined to CNN that "In some ways, it's the way we have to go. We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman." Really, though, would it be impossible to make him a woman? It seems to me that the first post-op m-to-f transgendered presidential candidate could garner plenty of attention.

Meanwhile, my hope had always been that if white male privilege were to suddenly collapse during my lifetime I'd just play up the Cuban angle, but Bill Richardson gets less media love than Edwards.

Comments

I'm looking forward to the possibility of a white male heterosexual millionaire finally getting a crack at the American Presidency.

It's been too long, folks.

Posted by norbizness | August 8, 2007 11:19 AM

I truly have a hard time understanding people who feel that being a white male heterosexual Christian (like me, or close enough) is a disadvantage in life. There must be a lot of them, though. That's what won the Republicans Congress in '94.

Posted by Freddie | August 8, 2007 11:24 AM

I truly have a hard time understanding people who feel that being a white male heterosexual Christian (like me, or close enough) is a disadvantage in life.

I guess that having fewer obvious advantages than one has come to expect as one's due is a sort of disadvantage, at least in the Bizarro World of American politics.

Posted by latts | August 8, 2007 11:36 AM

if white male privilege were to suddenly collapse during my lifetime I'd just play up the Cuban angle, but Bill Richardson gets less media love than Edwards.

Heh.

In The Delta Star (the Amazon reviewers seem to like it, but it didn't particularly grab me), Detective Mario Villalobos passes himself off as 'Belgian', and you're never quite sure if he's kidding or not. Someone ask why he's doing this, and he begins his explanation with, "Everybody dumps on the beaners!"

Posted by Captain Goto | August 8, 2007 11:36 AM

White? Check. Rich? Check. Good lookin'? Check. Full head of flowing locks? Check. Pity from the rest of us? Not a chance.

Posted by townser | August 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Edwards is in a tough position here, though, because the point she's making is obviously correct, at least to some extent. No one would have started talking about Barack Obama as presidential material if it weren't for his ethnicity - and those "first black president" comments started coming when he delivered that keynote address at the '04 convention, when he was still a state senator. Would anyone that green have generated that much buzz without his ethnicity? Obama doesn't bring any unique ideological viewpoint to the mix; the enticing thing about his candidacy has always been that he looked like an electable black president.

(I disagree with Edwards on Clinton; she doesn't get so much press coverage because she's a woman, she gets so much press coverage because she's married to a notorious former president and object of media obsession.)

The Edwards campaign's challenge all along has been to make ideology, policy, and substance more appealing than identity politics, and so far it hasn't been working. This is kind of a shame, because Hillary Clinton by all appearances would preside over a monstrous foreign policy and a continuation of most of the civil liberties abuses of the Bush administration, and an Obama administration wouldn't do nearly as much as an Edwards administration to help the poor, the uninsured, or to fight global warming. And while these issues would make Edwards's America better than Clinton's or Obama's, too many people aren't paying attention. Elizabeth Edwards voiced her frustration in a way that sounded like Whiny White Man's Syndrome, but that doesn't mean she isn't right.

Posted by Christmas | August 8, 2007 11:43 AM

Be realistic, Matt. Who do you think he is, Mitt Romney?

Posted by Dave B. | August 8, 2007 11:48 AM

I truly have a hard time understanding people who feel that being a white male heterosexual Christian (like me, or close enough) is a disadvantage in life.

Well heck, if you want to see how being white is a disadvantage just watch any of the Law & Order shows. Over the years, more than 80% of the criminals portrayed have been white (and usually male), when in real life only about 5% of NYC criminals are white.

As for the disadvantage of being male, watch almost any TV sitcom or commercial. Men usually are portrayed as bumbling doofuses, dependent on their all-knowing and patient wives to bail them out of trouble. Think of Homer Simpson and Marge Simpson. Interesting side note: just about the only major sitcom with a flawed female main character is King of the Hill, which also happens to be one of the only shows from a generally conservative creator (Mike Judge).

Posted by Peter | August 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Well heck, if you want to see how being white is a disadvantage just watch any of the Law & Order shows.

As for the disadvantage of being male, watch almost any TV sitcom or commercial.

Truly these must be onerous crosses to bear. I'm surprised white men can survive carrying burdens like these.

Posted by Gabriel | August 8, 2007 11:59 AM

Elizabeth Edwards just doesn't get it. She should go back to school and take some queer studies courses. Or at least read Conundrum.

Posted by Judith Butler | August 8, 2007 12:10 PM

Indeed Christmas, Obama's personal charisma, compelling life story, and inspiring message have almost nothing to do with his success. Also, the fact that he has the best foreign policy instincts of the group is probably pretty irrelevant too, since it is a pretty minor part of the job description.

When you consider the spectacular success of Al Sharpton last year, it seems pretty obvious that being black is a significant advantage in the Presidential races.

It is probably the case that Obama received national attention because, in part, of his ethnicity. National attention that Edwards ALREADY had because of his, you know, vice-presidential campaign. It doesn't strike me as plausible that his continuing success has much to do with his ethnicity, given other failed African-American candidates that burned out once they were in the national spotlight.

And besides, you don't think that Edwards supposed success with Southern Democrats doesn't have anything to do with his race? Please. This is just whining, really unbecoming whining at that.

Posted by Patrick | August 8, 2007 12:14 PM

"In some ways, it's the way we have to go. We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman." Really, though, would it be impossible to make him a woman?

Nor would it be impossible to "make" him "black".

Posted by a | August 8, 2007 12:16 PM

Who knew that Mrs. Edwards is a Michael Savage nee Weiner fan?

Posted by gregor | August 8, 2007 12:18 PM

Seems to me a transgendered black would be a lock. Geez, President Rice........

Posted by steve duncan | August 8, 2007 12:18 PM

"Well heck, if you want to see how being white is a disadvantage just watch any of the Law & Order shows. Over the years, more than 80% of the criminals portrayed have been white (and usually male), when in real life only about 5% of NYC criminals are white.
As for the disadvantage of being male, watch almost any TV sitcom or commercial. Men usually are portrayed as bumbling doofuses, dependent on their all-knowing and patient wives to bail them out of trouble. Think of Homer Simpson and Marge Simpson. Interesting side note: just about the only major sitcom with a flawed female main character is King of the Hill, which also happens to be one of the only shows from a generally conservative creator (Mike Judge)."

So all the disadvantages of being white and male are entirely fictional. That's just what I thought.

Posted by witless chum | August 8, 2007 12:20 PM

Elizabeth Edwards is right. Race and genders are big reasons for the increased media coverage. How many times have we heard the can a woman or a black man get elected storyline?

Would Obama get his much attention if he weren't black? I doubt it. Same with Senator Clinton.

Overall Elizabeth Edwards is a huge asset for her husband. She is able to say things her husband can't. She is also very likable and easy to relate to.

Posted by DonB | August 8, 2007 12:35 PM

Peter wrote:
Over the years, more than 80% of the criminals portrayed have been white (and usually male), when in real life only about 5% of NYC criminals are white.

95% of the people on the TV show Friends were white. In real life, NYC is very non-white. The preponderance on white NYC criminal son TV is a reflection of the pro-white hollywopod bias. Non-white actors, especially non-white, non-black actors, have a hard time getting roles.

Peter is describing a white advantage (lotsa jobs in Hollywood), not a white disadvantage

Posted by Race-Warrior | August 8, 2007 12:40 PM

As a strong Edwards supporter, I have the unfortunate feeling that I'm having to begin to say good-bye to his candidacy. Mostly from the debate last night, but clumsy things like this don't help.

Posted by El Cid | August 8, 2007 12:45 PM

"Indeed Christmas, Obama's personal charisma, compelling life story, and inspiring message "

Sorry, but what is compelling about Obama's life story? That he comes from a mixed race marriage? That he studied international relations? What exactly is compelling about his life story? Both Edwards and Hillary have more compelling life stories. McCain has a far more compelling life story. Same with Kerry.

And what is inspiring about his message? That we should all get along? Edwards is the candidate with the inspiring message. He is the one saying the powerful will not give up their power willingly. We need to take them on.

Posted by DonB | August 8, 2007 12:49 PM

Men usually are portrayed as bumbling doofuses, dependent on their all-knowing and patient wives to bail them out of trouble. Think of Homer Simpson and Marge Simpson. Interesting side note: just about the only major sitcom with a flawed female main character is King of the Hill, which also happens to be one of the only shows from a generally conservative creator (Mike Judge).

Have you ever even watched The Simpsons? The episode "$pringfield"? Or "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge"? Marge is completely flawed. So is Lisa. Every sitcom from 30 Rock to The Office has a flawed female protagonist. You are obviously pulling your arguments out of your ass.

Posted by Minipundit | August 8, 2007 12:59 PM

Indeed Christmas, Obama's personal charisma, compelling life story, and inspiring message have almost nothing to do with his success.

Edwards also has personal charisma, an inspiring life story, and an inspiring message - and hey wow, he also would be just another white guy, whereas Barack Obama would be the very first black president in the history of ever! Are you really so naive as to believe that race has played no significant factor in the rise to prominence of Barack Obama?

Also, the fact that he has the best foreign policy instincts of the group is probably pretty irrelevant too

Sorry, the "best foreign policy instincts of the group" unquestionably belong to Dennis Kucinich. If you're defining "the group" as "the set of Democratic candidates hawkish/bloodthirsty/'serious' enough to win the nomination," then I'd have to agree with you, but that's a bit like winning the prize for World's Tallest Midget.

Now, I'm honestly open to the idea that Obama is the best candidate among the top two tiers on the basis of his foreign policy, but precious little of substance on his (or his rivals', for that matter) foreign policy have actually come out so far. The best I can say for Obama's foreign policy is that he isn't pandering to the hawkish wing of the party with the same gusto as most of his rivals. That's not nothing, but that's not much, either.

Posted by Christmas | August 8, 2007 1:11 PM

In a way, I know what you mean, El Cid.

Although generally coming across far better in today's coverage than I thought he would after what I felt was an uncharacteristically flat performance, the fact remains that Edwards could have catipulted himself forward last night and didn't. Seemed like a classic instance of high expectations getting the better of a candidate. He was still right on all the issues, but the sniping from Biden and outflanking from Seabiscuit left his rhetoric without the resonance it otherwise might have carried.

And while I don't think Elizabeth is saying (or intending to say) anything untoward or objectionable here, it's still mildly obnoxious to have to talk about something other than Edwards' health care and energy plans. Again. (Remember, the question was about the campaign's reliance on the web. I don't think there's any question that the mainstream media is more interested in covering the unprecedented good chance of a woman or an African-American to become our next President than the retread, so-2004 (or 1992) prospect of a scrappy Southern white male Dem.)

That said, I'm hanging in there. It's only August. While I would be happy supporting many of these Dems, Edwards is still strongest on the issues that count, and there's a whole hell of time left on the clock.

Posted by Will | August 8, 2007 1:12 PM

What about that C. Thomas Howell movie where he took pills that turned his skin dark so he couldg get into law school?

Wait, isn't Edwards a lawyer.

Posted by Jeff | August 8, 2007 1:21 PM

Scratch that, it was Harvard undergrad.

Posted by Jeff | August 8, 2007 1:24 PM

This is an awful post, Matt.

Posted by Israel | August 8, 2007 1:27 PM

"I truly have a hard time understanding people who feel that being a white male heterosexual Christian (like me, or close enough) is a disadvantage in life."

For run-of-the-mill white males, the disadvantage is being discriminated against when applying to colleges, grad schools, or for government/civil service jobs. As high as the average LSAT/GMAT/MCAT scores are at top schools, you will have to score even higher than that to get in if you are a white male, because schools will discriminate against you in favor of lower-scoring blacks, Latinos, and women. You will also need to score higher on civil service tests and spend more time on waiting lists in applying for civil service jobs.

For a white male candidate seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, one disadvantage is that you are running in a party that prizes diversity and gives preference to every group but white males. A second disadvantage is that, if you get the nomination, you are going to lose the white male vote in the general election anyway, so it would be better if you had the extra appeal to non white males that a non white male candidate might have.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 1:28 PM

Have you ever even watched The Simpsons? The episode "$pringfield"? Or "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge"? Marge is completely flawed. So is Lisa.

Marge has some flaws that occasionally pop to the surface, most likely in an attempt to humanize her character (so to speak), but the constant theme since the show's inception is that Marge is a strong steady presence who keeps the family from degenerating into complete chaos and constantly has to save Homer's fat posterior after his latest act of idiocy. Homer, in contrast, is largely without redeeming qualities.

Posted by Peter | August 8, 2007 1:30 PM

This is an awful post, Matt.

No way. It's hilarious!

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 8, 2007 1:30 PM

Homer, in contrast, is largely without redeeming qualities.
If you honestly think that the show's everyman character has no redeeming qualities or is otherwise completely unsympathetic, you've missed the point of the show entirely.

Posted by Minipundit | August 8, 2007 1:32 PM

"Sorry, but what is compelling about Obama's life story? That he comes from a mixed race marriage? That he studied international relations? What exactly is compelling about his life story? Both Edwards and Hillary have more compelling life stories. McCain has a far more compelling life story. Same with Kerry.

And what is inspiring about his message? That we should all get along? Edwards is the candidate with the inspiring message. He is the one saying the powerful will not give up their power willingly. We need to take them on."

Well, he is the only major candidate to live abroad, to admit to using cocaine, to deal with the identity issues of being mixed race in America and so on. Edwards's "inspiring" life story has been played out by many major politicians in some form in America since Andrew Jackson. McCain, having been tortured and captured by the Viet Cong for many years and being born in Panama, is the only other person with as compelling a life story. The truth of the matter is that the poor in America, especially the inner-city black poor, have heard the same things from white suburban/rural politicians like Edwards for years and have never really seen it delivered. Why do you think Edwards's supporters tend to be educated white men, not exactly the people who should be responding to his message if his message had traction? Considering he is also the most trade protectionist of the major candidates, one has to wonder how much his trade position would hurt our economy and our ability to help the poor.

Posted by Reality Man | August 8, 2007 1:32 PM

As high as the average LSAT/GMAT/MCAT scores are at top schools, you will have to score even higher than that to get in if you are a white male, because schools will discriminate against you in favor of lower-scoring blacks, Latinos, and women

Private universities are under no obligation whatsoever to let any particular person in their school. Private employers are under no obligation whatsoever to employ any particular person. It's their decision, in our free market, to choose who they let in.

And, by the way, universities afford even more of a break to legacies, who (despite what some people tell you) are a sizable portion of universities as a whole, and are overwhelmingly white.

Posted by Freddie | August 8, 2007 1:38 PM

"For a white male candidate seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, one disadvantage is that you are running in a party that prizes diversity and gives preference to every group but white males. A second disadvantage is that, if you get the nomination, you are going to lose the white male vote in the general election anyway, so it would be better if you had the extra appeal to non white males that a non white male candidate might have."

Try being a Korean male, who tend to outperform white males. Anytime a white male complains about anything in life, there is always someone who is not a white male in America that is worse off in that way. Talk about being a whining pussy. White males had about 200 years of affirmative action working in their favor. Now they complain about it. Sad.

Also, people overlook how much this white men and his wife complaining that identity politics hurt Edwards are also playing identity politics. When a black person supports Obama, somehow they are playing identity politics. When a white person supports Edwards, they are somehow more concerned with his message. Think about it.

Posted by Reality Man | August 8, 2007 1:38 PM

Minipundit,

To narrow the focus of Peter's point a little bit, I think it's fair to say that in sitcoms featuring a nuclear family, the husband/father tends to be immature, a buffoonish, etc., and the wife/mother tends to be more prudent, more adult, stalwart, etc. In addition to The Simpsons, other examples include The World According to Jim, The King of Queens, Everyone Loves Raymond, etc.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 1:39 PM

Well, he is the only major candidate to live abroad, to admit to using cocaine

Living abroad AND using cocaine? That's inspiring? Maybe if the electorate had the same sensibilities as an NYU undergraduate.

I'm sympathetic to Obama's candidacy, but I know there are better cases to be made than this about the inspirational pull of his campaign.

Posted by Will | August 8, 2007 1:48 PM

Christmas, it would be nice to READ my posts before ripping into them.

First, it is important to note that while Edwards may be charismatic inspiring etc (and I would point out that, in my estimation, he is distinctly less so), he is KNOWN. He has ALREADY risen to national prominence. So, it is perfectly consistent to assert that Edwards has the qualities that make him someone will rise nationally and Obama has those qualities as well. This isn't hard.

Second, isn't it possible that that the racial component operates differently than you imagined? Maybe we are impressed that Obama had to OVERCOME racial bigotry to get where he is, or that he always had to deal with people like you who asserted that his success was due to his race.

Third, Obama has good foreign policy instincts. His opposition of the Iraq War on the macro level, and his tireless work on nuclear anti-proliferation and avian bird flu at the micro level both indicate better instincts than the other tier one candidates.

Fourth, I am sure that race had nothing to do with Edwards' success either. Being white is totally unimportant when it comes to being a successful state-wide politician in the South. I am sure being a white good old boy had nothing to do with him getting the VP nod as well.

And finally, I said that race probably had something do with his rise to national prominence. But other factors (his fundraising ability, obvious intelligence, personal charisma, policy seriousness, that fabulous keynote, and anti-Hillary backlash looking for anyone to run against her) played collectively a much much more important role in his current success.

Anyway, I find it both predictable and ugly that Edwards would play the "I am the white male" card. His surprising success with conservative Democrats has more to do with his race and his accent than any of his policies. We all know this. That's where this is coming from.

P.S. Actuallly Fred, many undergraduate and law schools have to discriminate in favor of men because their scores have started trailing behind women. Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story though.

Oh, despite all this "discrimination," blacks made up less than half of their percentage of the population of my incoming college glass 8 years ago.

Posted by Patrick | August 8, 2007 1:58 PM

Heh. It is a funny post.

But then I like the whole Cuban angle thing.

Posted by Armando | August 8, 2007 1:59 PM

"Private universities are under no obligation whatsoever to let any particular person in their school."

Whether they are under an obligation to do so is irrelevant; what's relevant is that they do give preference to non-white male applicants.

"Private employers are under no obligation whatsoever to employ any particular person."

I didn't mention private employers, but since you bring it up, the largest ones (e.g., the Fortune 500) do give preference to non-white male applicants whenever practicable. Again, whether or not they have a de jure obligation to do so is irrelevant. Examples (admittedly, extreme) of the fetish corporate America has made of diversity are the board seats Ruth J. Simmons holds at Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, and other companies to which she, as a college president and former French professor, has no relevant experience or expertise to offer. She is a black woman though.

"Try being a Korean male"

My previous comment was in response to Freddie's point about being a white male. Korean males are certainly disadvantaged by college Affirmative Action preferences given to blacks and Latinos though, no question. Serves them right though, I guess, for keeping the black man down for 200 years.

"Talk about being a whining pussy."

Don't you just hate people like that? People like Ted Hayes, of Choose Black America?

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 2:11 PM

Why is it irrelevant? Oh right because Fred says so.

Posted by Freddie | August 8, 2007 2:34 PM

I think it's fair to say that in sitcoms featuring a nuclear family, the husband/father tends to be immature, a buffoonish, etc., and the wife/mother tends to be more prudent, more adult, stalwart, etc.

I don't think there is any such broad tendency. You are just picking out the sitcoms that follow the "Honeymooners" model. It has long been used as a comedic premise.

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 2:41 PM

"Why is it irrelevant? Oh right because Fred says so."

No, Freddie, the reason it's irrelevant that private colleges aren't legally required to discriminate against white male applicants isn't because I say so, but because they discriminate against white male applicants voluntarily. The salient point is that they discriminate against white male applicants, not what their motivation for doing so is.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 2:49 PM

I don't think that white male candidates are broadly discriminated against in college admissions, as far as affirmative action/diversity considerations go I think that Asian Americans are the most discriminated against in that circumstance. I think that between the curtailing of Asian American admissions and the favoring of Black and Latino admissions, the effect on Whites is about neutral. (At least, that's my impression. I'm not sure) Also, males are favored in college admissions; females are discriminated against, because colleges attempt to maintain sex parity in spite of women's intellectual superiority (primarily because they worry that an excessively lopsided female student population will deter desirable (from the college's perspective) women who want a balanced class from coming).

As for Obama, there are some advantages to being (half) black in American politics. There are some disadvantages too. Overall, I think that a look at the ethnic composition of the Senate, House, Presidency (throughout history), Governorships, etc, relative to that of the U.S. as a whole would show that being black is, as a whole, a disadvantage.

I don't really blame Elizabeth Edwards for her remarks. They were ill-considered, but I think that naturally she thinks John is unequivocally the best candidate, so she probably has a hard time seeing people viewing Clinton or Obama as better than Edwards on the merits, so she thinks there must be some other explanation, and Obama and Clinton's advantages of race and sex seem like an easy explanation. This would all be quite natural if she were just thinking it. She thought it and also said it, which is an unfortunate gaffe, but these things happen. Overall, it's not her finest moment, but we all have unfine moments.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 8, 2007 3:27 PM

Fred,

Private colleges also discriminate, and to a much greater extent, in favor of legacies and the children of big donors.

And these, mirabile dictu, happen to be overwhelmingly white!

Posted by Patrick | August 8, 2007 4:02 PM

"Well heck, if you want to see how being white is a disadvantage just watch any of the Law & Order shows. Over the years, more than 80% of the criminals portrayed have been white (and usually male), when in real life only about 5% of NYC criminals are white.

As for the disadvantage of being male, watch almost any TV sitcom or commercial. Men usually are portrayed as bumbling doofuses, dependent on their all-knowing and patient wives to bail them out of trouble. Think of Homer Simpson and Marge Simpson. Interesting side note: just about the only major sitcom with a flawed female main character is King of the Hill, which also happens to be one of the only shows from a generally conservative creator (Mike Judge)."

Well, sure, Peter, if you say so.
80% of the criminals on L&O white, but 5% of real NYC criminals are white? Those are real numbers, not just sucked out of your ass? Care to provide some independent evidence?

As for bumbling doofuses, well, lets see. I don't think _New Adventures of Old Christine_ is portraying its women as any sort of geniuses. Candy on _Two and Half Men_ is no rocket scientist. Jenna on _30 Rock_ is no Liz Lemon. Blond Doctor on _Scrubs_ is every bit as fallible as the other doctors. etc etc etc.

Don't tell me, Peter, let me guess --- you're one of these guys always complaining about them touchy black folk who always read criticism into everything they see around them, quite unlike you and other decent white men. Such a shame they make up numbers and go by impression, whereas numerate individuals like you actually count and look at real data?

Posted by Maynard Handley | August 8, 2007 5:19 PM

Patrick,

It may be true that most legacies and children of large donors are white, but it's also true that most white males are not legacies or children of large donors; therefore, my point that white males are discriminated against in college admissions remains valid. Ceteris paribus, an African American male applicant will tend to receive preference over a white male applicant.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 5:44 PM

Well, the "ceteris paribus" is the obvious flaw. Other things are very far from equal.

Posted by Kalkin | August 8, 2007 6:14 PM

Steve Sailer first cited the 80%-white-criminals figure for Law & Order. I know, you can say that he's not a reliable authority, but I was intrigued by the claim and started taking notice whenever one of the shows was on (other members of my family are big fans). My observation: if anything, the 80% figure is low.

Real-life racial breakdowns for NYC criminals are readily available online.

Posted by Peter | August 8, 2007 6:46 PM

Oh, and Maynard ol' pal, the portrayal of men as doofi and women as all-knowing and all-patient is mainly limited to family sitcoms. Or is your IQ score too low to grasp that point?

Posted by Peter | August 8, 2007 6:49 PM

Peter,

The 80% figure probably takes into account the first season or two of L&O, which was a little more realistic. Commonplace aspects of reality aren't very interesting though, as Steve Sailer, and Tom Wolfe have pointed out. That's why man-bites-dog allegations like the the Duke brouhaha got so much national press. Wolfe anticipated pretty much all elements of this in "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "I am Charlotte Simmons".

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2007 7:24 PM

"Well, he is the only major candidate to live abroad, to admit to using cocaine, to deal with the identity issues of being mixed race"

This is your idea of a compelling life?

"Obama has good foreign policy instincts."

The guy doesn't have much of a record for us to judge. He was in the state legislature just a few years ago. He is new to the senate and has spent most of his time there getting ready to run for president. In other words he has no record on national issues. He opposed the war? So did I. So did lots of people.

Posted by DonB | August 8, 2007 9:10 PM

If 3 years ago Obama had been a white male in the Illinois Senate he'd still be there.

If Bill Clinton hadn't been prez, Hillary would still be a lawyer in Little Rock.

Any mystery here?

Posted by kafka | August 8, 2007 9:21 PM

"If 3 years ago Obama had been a white male in the Illinois Senate he'd still be there."

If a reporter hadn't gotten a hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers, Obama would still be in the Illinois state Senate.

Posted by Fred | August 9, 2007 1:53 AM

If a reporter hadn't gotten a hold of Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers, Obama would still be in the Illinois state Senate.

Yeah, he was only twenty points behind at that point. He was also named Ryan, which was something that never ceased to amuse me when I was looking at the raw polling data. I got it in the governor's race when Jim Ryan was running and you got all this negative feedback "I'm never voting for that son of a bitch again" (they though they were taking about George Ryan), but the same thing happened with Jack Ryan in the senate race! "That son of a bitch should be in jail, I'm never voting for him again, etc..".

That and the GOP in Illinois is just done. They needed the collar counties to keep majorities or elect anyone to national office and demographic trends and a lack of any coherent mission once they got done paving every inch of DuPage county for payoffs have damned them.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 9, 2007 3:19 AM

I am divided on Edwards. On the one hand, it seems like he's got the best political platform of the three. This should be all that matters. On the other hand, he inspires in me a strange resentment. He rallied at the campus of the school I attend, and I couldn't shake the impression ever afterwards that duder was a douchebag. The problem? His face is too shiny. His hair is too well groomed. He looks like a momma's boy. I realize that these aren't variables that will impinge on his presidency, and that I should not let them affect my political judgment. It's just-oh, I don't know. I have this profound, completely unjustified feeling that if he becomes the champion of the ideals I cherish, that he will set them back in his bumbling attempts to push them forward. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter. I want an FDR.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 9, 2007 3:57 AM

"This is your idea of a compelling life?"

Compared to the other candidates except McCain, including Edwards, yes. How many candidates spent part of their childhoods in the most populous Muslim nation in the world? How many have really admitted to using hard drugs? Considering the fact that the drug war is one of the biggest examples, if not the biggest, of a long-term policy failure, I think in current circumstances admitting to that is compelling and would likely lend one towards being more liberal on such issues. Edwards's life story has the same basic themes of a large portion of American politicians over the past 150 years, especially among Southern politicians.

If you click on the following link and FF to the 0:18 point, you see Obama questioning the war back in November 2002 based in part over doubts that we could explicitly prevent Iraq from splitting between the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. When did Edwards actually engage in such analysis of Iraqi society when it mattered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Posted by Reality Man | August 9, 2007 6:40 AM

Fred's comments are more interesting when viewed from an anthropological standpoint. Years from now, social scientists will look back on the FoxNews era and scratch their heads in confusion how the very demographic that has the most overwhelming power yet is still a minority of the population - white Christian straight American males - had somehow deluded themselves into believing their were somehow on balance victims in American society. Guys like Fred are the manifestation of the so-called "culture of victimhood" gone "mainstream." It's like something out of the Onion.

Posted by Reality Man | August 9, 2007 6:45 AM

How ironic. EE voiced her frustration with identity politics. And 99% of the criticisms of her comment are identity-politics-based-tirades that bear very little on the context of what she actually said.

A good example: I truly have a hard time understanding people who feel that being a white male heterosexual Christian (like me, or close enough) is a disadvantage in life.

Well, she didn't say or even insinuate that being a white male heterosexual Christian is a disadvantage in life, generally. She was addressing the rather obvious fact that it's a disadvantage in this particular Democratic presidential primary race where the two frontrunners happen to be members the two largest constituencies in the party.

Posted by Brautigan | August 9, 2007 4:38 PM

Nice site. Thanks.

Posted by 2002 honda accord ex v6 4d sedan | September 21, 2007 8:02 AM