Obama's New "Big Oil" Ad: Does He Have It Right or Wrong?
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 29, 2008 - 9:21pm
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: barack obama, oil, pennsylvania [list all tags]
In his second new TV spot of the day — this one now playing in Pennsylvania — Barack Obama's campaign releases a 30 second ad that takes a strong stand against Big Oil, saying he “won’t let them block change anymore.”
My question to you is: Does he have it right? Is this the correct political frame? Is it a winning political frame?
[Hat tip: NY Times Political Blog: "Obama's Big Oil Ad Draws Fire"...go there and fly the TOD flag if you are so inclined.]
Seems partly progressive (alternative energy) and partly middle-of-the-road conspiracy mongering (Exxon profits). Unfortunately, no mention of the underlying fundamentals associated with peak oil and natural gas (though he probably knows all about it).
I had a similar reaction from one of our Alberta MLA's. He agreed that it made no sense to subsidize homeowners for the rising costs of natural gas heating (which our provincial government does). He also agreed that that money would be much better spent on subsidizing home energy efficiency retrofits (which our provincial government doesn't do). But he also said that it would be political suicide if he mentioned that to the electorate. So he had brains, but no guts.
The only high ranking official (above the local level) in Canada that has been speaking out (that I know of) is our former Governor General and former Premier of Manitoba, Ed Schreyer.
I don't believe that he is making any conspiracy theories here. He just has 30 seconds to get his message out. And his message is very different from McSame as Bush: alternative energy, a resistance to rolling over for hte energy companies, and a clean look at what has to happen next. Obama's people ARE aware of the issues with oil supply going forward.
On the Exxon profits dig: that is clearly shorthand for the redistribution of wealth that is occurring, from the middle class to IOCs and the NOCs. And that level of profit is is hard to defend, unless one admits that Exxon is now a tontine that refines and distributes oil as well. It is a factually true statement, and quantifiable in a way that Saudi Aramco's profits are not.
Expect an Obama presidency to take any increase in fossil fuel taxes and use those directly to reduce fossil fuel consumption going forward, sort of the same way that we now use gasoline taxes to encourage further gasoline consumption. Obama will have a better way of delivering the message that Americans need to hear, and to make them understand why what needs to happen needs to happen. As we saw in speech about race, he has a willingness to talk to Americans as if they are adults, and they are responding to that.
You'll have to back that up. His rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. How do I know? Look at his plan. 150,000,000,000 for research.
Bollocks. On the number and the plan. Show me 500,000,000,000 on implementing things we can do right now, today and another 250,000,000,000 for R&D.
Show me actions, not talk.
Cheers
The money is for research and implementation both. Might be a worth while read to look at his Energy plan in more detail:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
I'm a little leery of the biofuel section myself, but the rest of the plan seems reasonable.
http://www.bravenewleaf.com
I thought it would be of interest to see what Obama had written about energy in his book (which was copyrighted in 2006) “The Audacity of Hope”. The following is taken from pages 167 through 171. Any typos are mine not Obama’s.
“The Last Critical investment we need to make America more competitive is in an energy infrastructure that can move us toward energy independence. In the past, war or a direct threat to national security has shaken america out of its complacency and led to bigger investments in education and science, all with an eye toward minimizing our vulnerabilities. That’s what happened at the height of the Cold War, when the launching of the satellite Sputnik led to fears that the Soviets were slipping ahead of us technologically. In response, President Eisenhower doubled federal aid to education and provided an entire generation of scientists and engineers the training they needed to lead revolutionary advances. That same year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, was formed, providing billions of dollars to basic research that would eventually help create the Internet, bar codes, and computer-aided design. And in 1961, President kennedy would launch the Apollo space program, further inspiring young people across the country to enter the New Frontier of science.
Our current situation demands that we take the same approach with energy. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which our addiction to oil undermines our future. According to the National Commission on Energy Policy, without any changes to our energy policy U.S. demand for oil will jump 40 percent over the next twenty years. Over the same period, worldwide demand is expected to jump at least 30 percent, as rapidly developing countries like China and India expand industrial capacity and add 140 million cars to their roads.
Our dependence on oil doesn’t just affect our economy. It undermines our national security. A large portion of the $800 million we spend on foreign oil every day goes to some of the world’s most volatile regimes -- Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and indirectly at least, Iran. It doesn’t matter whether they are despotic regimes with nuclear intentions or havens for madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds--they get our money because we need their oil.
What’s worse, the potential for supply disruption os severe. In the Persian Gulf, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on poorly defended oil refineries for years: a successful attack on just one of the Saudis’ major oil complexes could send the U. S. economy into a tailspin. Osama bin Laden himself advises his followers to “focus your operations on[oil], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.
....
A nation that can’t control its energy sources can’t control its future.”
Well George and Dick couldn't argue with that.
But I think it is safe to assume that Barack's policy would have less to do with getting our oil from under their sand, and more to do with getting our energy by mixing sun and water with our topsoil (aka biofuels) and getting our energy out of our coal mines.
The $64 question is how much will he and we reduce consumption and invest in solar/wind/wave instead of those two?
I'm willing to assume he'll try to do whatever he can... but I think that large structural forces in American politics and in the economy will lead to biofuel and coal substitution to a much greater degree than anyone who is concerned about global warming and global agriculture should be happy about.
I don't see that as conspiracy. He's not talking about profits, only "windfall profits". He's talking about redistribution of those profits in the public interest. He's also talking a bipartisan message of government illegitimacy - capture by the corporate lobbyists. It sounds good.
Redistribution is necessary. No more limitless growth means we have to address redistribution. And scale. Energy independence avoids the scale issue, but the scale issue cannot be avoided. As far as I'm concerned, he loses a lot of credibility there. [To be fair he phrased it loosely "free ourselves from foreign oil", and that could, after all, be done with LESS rather than more." To be more precise; it will be done with LESS rather than more - only a matter of time.
Were I an oil exec, I'd find Obama's message rather comforting. We can look forward to dithering over "what's a windfall" and how to reinvest it in my green energy subsidiary. That's the problem; everyone finds Obama's messages comforting - except maybe the Palestinians, Iraqis, Venezuelans and other non-citizens of our empire. But they don't count any more than the other species on the planet.
The implication of this ad is that everything will be ok again - Obama is going to fix it. Not only do I find that incredibily debilitating and offensive, but have to conclude either he's a liar or he doesn't know better. So our best hope is electing someone and hoping he's lying to us from the start and will turn out better than he promises to be.
Yeah, probably the right frame.
Time to start spreading the Jello over the floor now....
cfm in Gray, ME
Good comment.
Who is your MLA quixotic? I have David Swann, and have received similar comments from him and came to the same conclusions. It's very frustrating.
I also beleive that he is heading in the right direction. Realizing and mentioning the idea of energy sources is important. I believe it would of been effective to mention some of these alternative energy sources that he is planning to develop. By naming a few, the population might take it more seriously instead of just believing that it is somethign that must be said during a campaign. The budget he throws out needs to be justified. is it for nuclear development or other froms of energy. Something he says must be different than what exists already, as the GNEP during the Bush era indirectly claims to have the same aims; just focusing primarily on nuclear energy. The fact that he emphasizes how much consumers are paying and how much oil producers are making is effective. Becoming less dependent on foreign energy should also have been adressed. We must not forget that he does only have limited time to get his message across.
No, the oil companies are just the tradesmen. The bluebloods who disdainfully take a reasonable share of the proceeds of the trade are those on public payrolls. Literally, they have no oil on their hands, and they seem to think it is true figuratively also.
Because of this belief on their part, framing the issue in terms of wicked oil companies is excellent political framing for getting their votes. But they are a minority.
If he were to promise an equally divided repayment of federal oil and gas royalties and revenues, so that individuals who burn a lot of hydrocarbon would be helping out those who burn little, and government would be out of the deal, that would be good framing.
Let the baby light matches in the fuel storage room!
The oil companies are just tradesmen? They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks, cheat tribes and governments on royalties, fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change, topple governments to control new fields?
But Obama did not call the oil companies evil. He did say that they are making a lot of money. And my tax rate last year was higher than Exxon's. Yours probably was too.
Remember, we have had seven years of government in the United States by oil industry people, whose solution to the decline in oil supplies was to invade Iraq. That solution was the swrong one. Obama's solution is not only different, it is more likely to work for America and for the planet.
The oil companies are just tradesmen?
Obviously
They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks,
Yes
cheat tribes and governments on royalties
mostly I'd say no.
fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change
Not at all
topple governments to control new fields?
Not at all.
Let's review your points again and see who's doing what :
Trade in oil
Governments (esp. the wrong kind of governments e.g. saudis, russia, ...)
Oil companies
Rebels
Islamic terrorists
They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks
All companies do this, or try this. It's neither unexpected, nor wrong.
cheat tribes and governments on royalties
That would mostly be their own governments, not oil companies.
fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change
That would be us "the people". Have you turned in your car yet ? (because moving more than, say 40 kilometers, daily is unsustainable, we don't currently have the (sustainably produced) energy for it).
topple governments to control new fields?
Again that would be us "the people". How much energy do you use ? What would you say to the government if that energy was cut (socialist policy) or priced out of your range (capitalist policy) ?
Exactly ... you'd scream bloody murder. Especially once people start dying because of heating issues.
So it is "us" who are doing it. Not just americans, not just europeans, not just ... but just about everybody everywhere, including the people living under these thuggish oil governments (which they sometimes have elected themselves). And it is you too. And me too. But you're too self-absorbed to see that you are part of the problem.
If the solution is energy conservation (as opposed to nuclear), then you're part of the problem.
Welcome to the Oil Drum Community. Some of us, like me, have been peak oil aware for nearly a decade, and have been working hard in that time to spread the word, and to reduce our own energy footprint.
To address some of your comments: I have turned in my car, for a bicycle, public transit, and an electric scooter, the EVT-168. Get one yourself; I love mine. I'll admit that I am self-absorbed, but my focus now is on reducing my carbon footprint to 20% of what it was not too long ago. I am fairly far along in that process, and without a significant reduction in the "American dreamness" of my lifestyle. I know exactly how much energy I use. And, with about 18 more months of work, I hope to be nearly energy independent, or at least within the confines of what my region of the country produces from renewables and nuclear.
One of the things about the Oil Drum is that you will be talking to people who walk the walk. Accusing someone of not knowing enough about petroleum geology, when that person is a profession of same, is gauche. Likewise, accusing someone of being part of the problem, and making ad hominem attacks, is also inappropriate.
But back to the point: Obama's energy policy, and energy advisors, are more likely than any of the other two candidates to work aggressively to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption, not just because of the oil companies (IOC or NOC) but because of climate change. His short message is appropriate; his long messages have to wait for YouTube.
Yes, Obama was very critical of the fuel efficiency requirements in the last energy bill as being way too low. Like Westexas, I think it is much too late for Obama to mitigate much of the damage from Peak oil (and facism). We are sinking and I only hope we can at least elect a brave captain to go down with us.
But back to the point: Obama's energy policy, and energy advisors, are more likely than any of the other two candidates to work aggressively to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption, not just because of the oil companies (IOC or NOC) but because of climate change. His short message is appropriate; his long messages have to wait for YouTube.
I think you're wrong here. McCain sees the oil consumption as a strategic problem. You can bet that he will be doing all that can possibly be done to reduce it.
But since he is a pragmatist, "doing all he can" might include stuff like liquifying coal.
To be honest, I really, *really* like the pragmatist approach. Especially since energy reductions would be so very invasive into people's personal lives. I *really* don't like how greens "want to modify everyone's way of doing things". That sounds a LOT like "the government's going to say how you spend your free time".
In addition there are other aspects of Obama which I consider beyond repair. I cannot forgive him for Wright, my grandparents were in WWII. I just cannot forgive him for Wright, and I believe listening to people like Wright (whether they're christians, muslims, atheists or communists or ...) will get us into WWIII before you can say cappucino. Obama only plays a person of reconciliation. However, he is a demagogue. And they *never* bring peace. They always bring war.
Furthermore, I cannot turn in my car. I work 72 miles from my place of residence, and the area I work in is more expensive than where I live (as in 20x more expensive for an equivalent, quite modest (80 m2) appartment, I mean for a family it's not that big). So much more expensive that even $300 oil would be preferable to moving. Public transportation is out because of the way it's organized here (besides, it's more expensive than paying for the fuel, and I already have the car). (I'd have to calculate when it starts making a difference, the govt. pays for it, so in reality I'm paying exactly $0 for transport oil, so it will not matter until the govt. repeals that specific way of doing things, which I believe will be when it goes bankrupt).
And I believe I'm hardly alone.
Gosh, tomc, open your eyes and get over your ideological blockade.
Wright: How does Wright relate to your grandparent's fighting in WWII? Did you watch Obama's speech on race and religion? How much more candid and grown-up and reasonable can you get as a politician than Obama?
And didn't you see McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" "funny" episode (amongst others)? This guy is out of his mind. Being a war hero alone does not make you presidentiable - you must have gut, wits and some experience with the (current) real world.
Yes? How do you know? Because otherwise he would be too good to not vote for him and you would have to swap sides? I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence that he is not pretty much exactly what he claims to be - which is very different from both McCain and Clinton, who both are not only pragmatic, but opportunistic.
Well, like the duo infernale Bush/Cheney? Can't you see any positive difference between Obama and them?
Well, funny, we Europeans consume about half the energy Americans do - and have at least the same standard of living (some would say a better one, because of much more civil, less inequal societies, walkable cities, less violence, better social services etc.).
And while many Americans regards European governments as almost "socialist", our societies enjoy a degree of personal freedom, security and cohesion that is in fact unparalleled.
Maybe you should start looking beyond your own navel and study how the rest of the world lives?
Cheers,
Davidyson
I understand that Europeans are running out of jail space also these days.
Granted, Europe has a more laid back societal lifestyle, but, if they would shoulder their cost of the burden in dealing with terrorism they might not stack up so well, probably would have to build some jails too.
In fact, maybe they should build their own missile shield. We already have a partial shield called the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.
Europe is shoulder to shoulder with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Their only choices is to change their lifestyle to accommodate their neighbors or get wiped out.
The terrorist problem in Europe is far more explicit than in America.
If Europe looks down at their navel, they will probably find a bomb sitting there. Europe has nothing to brag about.
You are trolling, right?
Jails: The proportion of people in European jails to the rest of the population is far, far lower than in the US. If you have a jail for one person and get another criminal, you are running out of space.
Missile shield: What for do we need a non-functional, easily outmanoevered missile shield? You are out of touch with reality.
Terror: Every year, about 100,000 people are dying in traffic in Europe. As desastrous as terror is for the public psyche, the number of casualties is almost infinitessimally small in comparison.
Many American's fear of terror and the simultaneous preparedness to inflict terror on other people (latest showing: Iraq, 100,000-900,000 dead, millions of refugees) is totally out of proportion.
The best recipes against terror are peaceful relations with other countries and a good police system.
Cheers,
Davidyson
Tom,
I must admit I'm confused by you statement that
My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944... and I'm a big Obama supporter. In fact so is my father and many many other patriots. So I don't see the connection between WWII and supporting Obama.
But what really puzzles me is why you would need to forgive Obama for someone else's words. Is McCain responsible for all the beliefs of the Baptist church, or Hillary for all the beliefs of the Methodists (or her other right wing Christian group, the "Family"?) Were you going to hold Romney responsible for the Mormon church?
Furthermore, unlike any other candidate, Obama has specifically rejected the views of Wright. I don't even see what he needs to be forgiven for... could you explain that? What has he actually done or said... other than being part of a mainstream Black church... that you think he needs to be forgiven for?
Did you have a chance to listen to Obama's address on this subject? Here it is and it's worth your time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
There are plenty of sound policy reasons to prefer McCain or Hillary, but it would be a shame to reject policy positions that you might actually prefer because of a misunderstanding about Obama's position on his former Pastor's beliefs and remarks.
My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944... and I'm a big Obama supporter. In fact so is my father and many many other patriots. So I don't see the connection between WWII and supporting Obama.
Then you should know what caused that battle in the first place. And it was Wright's retoric. Not him personally, but the exact same statements about another semi-ethnic group.
I guess you simply won't believe it until someone else in your family dies in the next battle caused by a racist demagogue like Obama.
Furthermore, unlike any other candidate, Obama has specifically rejected the views of Wright. I don't even see what he needs to be forgiven for... could you explain that? What has he actually done or said... other than being part of a mainstream Black church... that you think he needs to be forgiven for?
Really ? He has given 2 examples he "mostly rejected but understood". Sorry. That's not "rejecting his views". At all.
I am not reassured. At all.
What do I want more ? I want him to take a stand at his church "either you reject this material, or you reject me". And he steadfastedly refuses to do so.
This is like the example of when the muslims conquered Jerusalem. They took some 3000 slaves. But they are against slavery, you see, because to celebrate victory, they gave 1 (ONE) slave her freedom (a little girl). That act, especially immediately after taking thousands of slaves, does not present their views.
You see, the one little straw does not make up a person's opinion/ideology. His actions do. Until he presents me with concrete actions against Wright, I will not accept him as anything other than a racist demagogue.
Besides I've heard enough of his speeches to see that you shouldn't pay attention to what he says, but to what he does not say.
Rejected but understood?
As a Jew, I understand Hitler's views, but I reject them. I understand where the Ku Klux Klan is coming from, but I reject them. I understand where Hamas is coming from, but I reject them.
I heard Obama put Wright's remarks in the context of Black history... which is exactly where they belong... that history includes both wisdom and ignorance. And that history, and Wrights views, are worth understanding even as, in some cases, they must be rejected.
Do I have to reject every nonsensical idea that pops up in the Jewish community, or else change the Jewish community, or else leave it? No, that's not how communities work. Likewise in families... sometimes you've got crazy old uncles who have ideas that are simply wrong, but you don't necessarily stop being part of the community.
I wouldn't want a African American president who wasn't connected to the authentic Black community of America, and I wouldn't want one who accepted everything that community believes.
It is reasonable to expect people to share our values if we are to elect them... it strikes me as a bit much to ask them to share our history and religion and personal community.
For my money, Obama has more than sufficiently distanced himself from the objectionable perspectives of Wright. I think Obama should be heard out on the merits of his ideas... not blamed for the ideas he has rejected.
Oh get over it! Who gives a flying fuck what Wright said? Go back to your Kool-aid.
Just a note, the official EVTamerica website is currently infected with malware, so I would recommend not going to it, or if you have, scanning your system if it happens to be a Windows box. (Well, according to Google)
http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.evtamerica.com/
A safe link to look at info for this scooter is:
http://www.scooterwiki.com/directory/electric_moped_motor_scooters/evt_e...
he doesnt take money from big oil but does take it from big ag and big ethanol
i think the political frame will win him votes but the misunderstanding that energy independence is impossible will give people false hopes. but what else is new? running on a 'limits to growth' platform would never work...;)
Looks like his standard stuff, all fluffy talk that produces no real action. Scary....so much is unknown about him. Would have actually voted for Hillary, but not this clown.
A bit about Obama's background:
First African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.
State Senator from Illinois, elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.
Has won more votes in the primaries than McCain and Huckabee combined.
Abides by campaign laws, and has fully disclosed all of his tax returns, including the schedules attached to them.
Has no gaps in his resume.
Accomplished author, speaker, professor.
I'm missing the clown part.
In my world, a clown is someone who doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shia, who thinks Purim is the Jewish Halloween, and doesn't know whether condoms can prevent the spread of AIDS.
Has he done anything meaningful other than make speeches? He is a senator after all, what is his signature issue? Change?!?!?!
Sounds like a clown, makes you amile but thats about it. Atleast Hillary and McCain have done something with their time in office.
Yes, they did something with their time in office, voting for Iraq is inexcusable. McCain and Clinton have damaged our country beyond repair. Why don't you go look up the bills Obama has authored instead of posting ignorant comments?
I totally agree with the statements made in the ad. Big oil has spent untold dollars destroying the environment to make bigger profits. Also, Big oil is lying and marketing oil as infinite.
Obama'solution to our energy crises is to burn more corn and "clean coal."
The man is all fluff and no substance.
by the way..., what does he mean by digitzing the electric grid?????????
Yeah, but does he understand science?
When he burst onto the presidential election stage he was half white and half black. Now he's African American. Even in his speech on race he said "we" when referring specifically to African Americans, but did he do the same when mentioning Caucasians?
And if race means nothing in the election, why the difference in identification? And the huge preponderance of A-A's voting for him?
So, is he African-Caucasian-American, or what?
My son, who is bi-racial, will someday be offended, I'm sure. I am.
Cheers
As Obama has pointed out, "African American" IS a multiracial identity, since almost all or all AA's are descended from Native Americans, Europeans and Africans.
I don't think Obama has referred to himself as "half white and half black"... that's something that others have said. He has pointed to his white mother and black father.
As far as I know he has always considered himself AA or Black. The misunderstanding that "black father and white mother" somehow implied that he was "half black and half white" was that of the media as far as I know.
I assume that he said "we" because, again, he has been consistent about being an African American... that is to say a person of mixed heritage whose heritage includes Africa.... and also a person who, through a process of growth, became rooted in the American Black community.
I'm not sure why you think race means nothing in this election. Obama represents, with his mixed heritage, the idea that Americans can overcome racial divides. That means that race means a great deal in this election. Some people believe (and hope) that race can be transcended... others believe that everyone must exist in their own private categories, white, black, etc. People like me who support Obama tend to focus on the possibility of transcending race, merging and blending categories, etc. I would think that as the father of a "biracial" child (your term), you might be encouraged by a politician who is succeeding as someone who transcends race through his AA identity.
Why shouldn't AA's vote for a man of mixed heritage, who also has a mixed heritage? How could they not be excited by that prospect. As Jewish white guy, I'm certainly excited by the prospect, so I can easily understand why AA's like the idea.
So what he is is "African American", as he has explained, and that means that he has a multiracial heritage.
How do you describe your son's ethnicity or race? How do you think he will describe it some day?
Cheers
First, I hope they shut down your electioneering here, and soon.
Second, "I'm not sure why you think race means nothing in this election."
I don't think that. It is what Obama has said. And it is obviously bull. What bothers me about this is not the actual vote, it is the spinning (lying) about it. When nearly 90% of a given ethnic group is voting for someone of the "same" ethnic group, that's a little too close to racism for my tastes.
This election is ALL about race, in certain quarters. I find it fascinating that the minorities are the ones showing the greater racial tendencies: the African-descended, Hispanics and Asians. (If you'd ever lived in Korea, that last wouldn't surprise you.)
Please. You are contradicting yourself. Is he self-identified as AA or not? He's overcoming nothing of the sort, nor does he really intend to. If he did, he would embrace his "mulatto" standing. (Mulatto is considered a normal term in other parts of the world. I use it here merely for clarity.) He is not doing that in this election. So, his "change" theme rings hollow, as does his call to unity.
Transcending? He's essentially denying one half of his heritage. Don't get me wrong: he has a right to identify himself as he wishes, but people are giving him a pass on this out of fear of being branded racist. He is using race as assuredly as any member of the KKK would, just prettied up as something supposedly non-racial.
Maybe because they should be voting for the best *person* for the job, and not the best African American.
BTW, I hope my son will identify himself as Conor. As should Obama, if his rhetoric is to match his actions.
Cheers
Look, I don't know if in one comment Obama expressed his hope that race wouldn't matter, but I do know that in this comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU )Obama was very clear that race is going to matter, in the sense that it SHOULD matter, not as a fear tactic, but as a serious discussion among adults.
You don't like AA's voting for Obama because it's racist. Hmmm, what is the race of candidates who whites have been voting for for the last 200 years? Oh right. Is that a little too racist for you too? Or is it only racist, when after 200 years of Presidential voting, African Americans are a little excited by an AA candidate? Have a heart!
You probably think it is a horrible thing if a woman gets excited at the prospect of voting for a female President. I'd certainly agree that shouldn't be the only consideration, but other things being equal, it is certainly understandable if a woman preferred to vote for a woman. I mean come on!
I'll bet you do! But if you have a vague awareness of the African American experience you'd find it a whole lot less remarkable.
You find this contradictory? "Obama represents, with his mixed heritage, the idea that Americans can overcome racial divides."
Perhaps you didn't understand when I explained that African American IS a mixed heritage.
I defy you to listen to this speech and assert that he is denying any part of his heritage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
You are free to attempt to see a contradiction between having a white mother and being an African American, but he does not, and I do not, and most open minded people do not.
African Americans are descended from people of many races. Obama is descended from Whites and Blacks. That's what it means to be an African American. If he tries to get a cab on the streets of NY he is treated as a Black man, so you can understand why he might not go around proclaiming that he is White. Plus, in America, Blacks and Whites would LAUGH at him... that was always considered "passing", and it is not generally associated with self respect as an African American. But while passing as White means (and has always meant) denying your African heritage, being African American has NEVER meant denying your white heritage. (If you don't know about why that is true, I'll be happy to fill you in on the history of the old South.)
Furthermore when he gives a speech he tells the truth: his mother is white, his father is black, he is an African American...which means a man of multiracial heritage. How hard can this be to understand? He could not possibly be more open or explicit about this
Obama's need to explain this to people like you... his need to talk about race as opposed to simply identify himself as "Barack Obama" is driven by the fact that people (like you) want to force the racial discussion into old boxes of Black versus White (which is he? why won't he tell? why is he forcing us to talk about race? why won't he talk about his whiteness? whatever!) People like you seem to want to force him to address dumb questions like "are you really biracial, or are you really Black" and then to play gotcha no matter how he answers.
Why not just ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?
I find it incredible that you as the father of a "bi-racial" son, haven't thought about how these issues will play out in your son's life, particularly, if your son is African American (descended from Europeans, American Indians and Africans.) Go ahead... wish those questions away. Let me know how that works for you, and for him.
Cheers