The Obama forces don’t seem to understand that they’re sailing against the wind. (Bob Herbert)

Op-Ed Contributor
Winds of Change

By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 5, 2008


The Barack Obama forces don’t seem to understand that they’re sailing against the wind, that they’re not supposed to be able to capture the Democratic nomination for president.

The fight for the nomination, one of the best political dramas in decades, has always resembled a contest between realists and dreamers. The realists will tell you that there is a quality of protesting too much in the ritual chant of “Yes, we can!” that erupts so frequently at Obama rallies.

For months the realists have been arguing, in effect: No, he can’t.

The most forceful arguments of the realists tend to take place in private, and center on the aging elephant in the living room: race. Their contention is that the country has come a long, long way, but that it is not yet ready to cross the finish line by installing a black man in the White House.

...................

The advantage in this race is still substantially with Senator Clinton. The realists are not crazy, after all. But neither are the dreamers. Winds change. If you’re sailing against the wind today, it may be different tomorrow. And there are few things more powerful than the winds of history.



more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I'm one of the dreamers. :-)

“I look at the numbers, and they tell me he can’t win,” said a Democratic analyst, who asked not to be identified. “But then I look at the polls and the enthusiasm he is generating, and he seems to be closing in on Hillary by the hour.”

I have hope!!! :o)

Realistically speaking.

but look what happens when we work together, we can actually win people who thought otherwise to our cause. People can change.

Kerry and bush, a contest between a realist and a dreamer?

Kerry tried to come across as a realist, but bush, a madman, is now a dreamer?

that race or electability is the issue.

I am not concerned, nor do I doubt that Obama could win the presidency.

I am a realist about who would be more effective as president.

Herbert is a solid writer and has been for decades.

He's right. No one thought the Democratic nominee had a snowball's chance in hell of winning against Daddy Bush in 1992, but then it became the economy, stupid, Perot sucked off enough votes, and Bill won.

Just as Bill won that one against all odds, so can Obama win this one.

:P

Garry Owen!

while avoiding any discussion of real issues in this campaign. Yes I agree; hope is a powerful force for change. In post World War I Germany, the liberal democrats, the national socialists, and the communists all agreed on one thing: the power of hope to create a better future.

Yes, I like rooting for idealism over realism. I always rooted against the Empire in the Star Wars films. Yes I like rooting for the underdog in contests. I never could understand being a New York Yankees fan. Yes I am a Democrat, so you can say I'm a dreamer; and I'm not the only one. I am very pro Dreams.

None of that adds up to a solid reason to vote for Obama and against Clinton. Herbert says this:

"The most forceful arguments of the realists tend to take place in private, and center on the aging elephant in the living room: race"

I say this:

"Bullshit."

Herbert is puting racism at the center of this Presidential race, not the people I know who are actually supporting Hillary Clinton. Herbert is the one screaming "Did you see it, did you see it? No? It's right there! Look, it's an elephant. Right there! It's a racist elephant!"

Look, I get and admire that younger Americans are significantly less hung up about race than many older Americans, and that is a very very good thing. But we are not holding a referendum for or against racism today. We are trying to decide who between two talented individuals will make a better President. So suddenly if I happen to think, along with many millions of other Americans, that realistically Hillary Clinton would make a better Presdident than Barack Obama, he now is reading our minds and saying "I know you are really obsessed with race."

WTF? Which campaign is it that keeps getting blamed for bringing race into this election?

Yea hope! Yea change! Yea for the underdogs! Yea color blind America!

Now can we get back to discussing actual issues and real qualifications?

You may not agree with that, but many do.

I think that if you feel that are both qualified, it is fair to look at the effect on the country of electing a woman or a Black man.

It is to me a form of affirmative action at the highest level. Most of us probably support the concept of AA as it applies to hiring a CEO or a high school principal. We are giving qualified minorities and women a chance to compete, not just out of fairness to those individual applicants, but for the societal benefit that comes from more diversity at higher levels of society.

In the context of Clinton vs Obama, for those of us who believe they are equally talented (and more talented than any of the white men the Republicans have to offer), it seems fair that I consider myself as someone who is deciding which hire would be best for my country as a whole. They both will represent an tremendous increase in diversity at the highest level, but I get to decide which type of diversity I value more for my country.

is a valid factor to consider in the mix when deciding who to support for President. There is a social good advanced by electing either our first African American or Female President. But this piece by Herbert wasn't cimply a celebration of a pending civil rights advance in either instance, it cast two competing camps; and one definately wore white hats and the other one black.

It is in spite of that backwind I support him.

:patriot: :applause: :patriot:

Bob Seger