Most Americans, black or white or any other shade or combination of shades, realize we don't live in a color-blind society, and it's likely we never will. An Obama presidency would mean we have come to the point where we can deal with our failure to achieve color-blindness by being adult enough to recognize Obama's black skin does not mean he lacks the judgment, inspiration, political skill, (fill in your favorite trait), etc. to lead effectively. It illustrates a whole lotta non-black people accept a notion that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago, that they're willing to follow a leader with dark skin. They find Obama likeable and inspirational, in spite of his dark skin in some cases, and because of it in other cases.

This is very similar to JFK's issue with Catholicism and it's not insigificant that voters respond to Obama much the same way the responded to Kennedy. There was a lot of the same speculation at that time about Catholic block voting, backlash, etc. In the end, the nation went for inpirational, transformational leadership over a far more "experienced" vice-president. With a little help from Chicago, of course, but we're so pleased we elected Kennedy we don't like to be reminded Mayor Daley really elected him.

People are a lot more pragmatic about race these days than we used to be. We still have our prejudices, but we're not willing to dismiss a political candidate of another race because we've had so many neighbors, co-workers, etc. of other races and they proved to be just fine, better than some of the people we know who belong to our own race. We're trying to be cooler than we really are about Obama's race, pretending it doesn't matter. If we pretend effectively enough, maybe it won't matter.

Arlington:

Most Americans, black or white or any other shade or combination of shades, realize we don't live in a color-blind society, and it's likely we never will. An Obama presidency would mean we have come to the point where we can deal with our failure to achieve color-blindness by being adult enough to recognize Obama's black skin does not mean he lacks the judgment, inspiration, political skill, (fill in your favorite trait), etc. to lead effectively.

All the more so when you consider that even color-blindness is a form of racism, or so I've been told.

"This is very similar to JFK's issue with Catholicism and it's not insigificant that voters respond to Obama much the same way the responded to Kennedy. There was a lot of the same speculation at that time about Catholic block voting, backlash, etc. In the end, the nation went for inpirational, transformational leadership over a far more "experienced" vice-president. With a little help from Chicago , of course...."

Honestly, what was so great about Kennedy? Kennedy was a plutocrat, a son of a plutocrat. He was a old fashioned upper class liberal, not a Roosevelt progressive. He was militant, he campaigned on the 'nuclear missle gap', that Eisenhower and Nixon were too soft on 'commies', his election was helped by the chicago mob buying him votes, in the first months he was in office we had the Bay of Pigs disaster. He put US troops into Viet Nam. He cut taxes on the very top echlon by 20%. He was addicted to meth according to some. We love him for the space race and moon landings, that resolved our shortages in good nuclear tipped ICBMs. He`also expanded sports programs across the US. What else did Kennedy do? Oh yeah, the Peace Corp. I guess his presidency was a breakthru for Catholics, but he was extremly conservative. He even wanted to veto Civil Rights legislation, but Johnson talked him into it I'm told.

Johnson realized that if he could push through the Civil Rights Act, then it was almost assured that the Democrats could keep a congressional majority indefinintly. After the passage of the act, Johnson turned to his chief-of-staff and said, "Those niggers (sic) will be voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." And he was absolutely right. If it weren't for the black voters, the Democratic Party would slide into oblivian. Blacks vote 95% for Democratic candidates and are taken for granted. However, a spoiler has arrived and Queen Hillary is not going to be coronated Empress of America. You're a godsend Obama.

I find the very question to be astounding! Ask the man's black wife and children what race he is!

They depict what race he is and the race he knows he is. All blacks have some whites in their

background, thanks to slavery! But, you know, they are black, and so is Obama.

Virginia Pryor

Abandoned by his father and left to be raised by three whites makes him just as white as black. Maybe even more so.

I think the only important similarity between Kennedy and Obama is that some voters believed they were voting for a transformational figure.

Kennedy was a cold warrior in foreign affairs--as were his two immediate predecessors and successors. Kennedy had to be dragged feet first into supporting Civil Rights by political realities created by people operating outside government, as was Ike, and accomplished no domestic or foreign agenda substantially different than his predecessor's. A mythology has been created on his behalf, but it is exactly that: a myth. Jackie was disappointed he was not killed for Civil Rights and his family since have claimed a championship he did not earn by performance.

Obama is a mainstream politician, who like Kennedy, is skilled at electioneering, but whose service in office, again like Kennedy's, is marked by him leaving few tracks in the sand.

The only salient point then is that Americans are gormless enough to vote for mainstream politicians believing they are voting to transform something when by all rational measures they have no reason to expect transformation.

You cite a personal experience he had that would earn him no credit with tens of millions of American bigots today. Race is only relevant because of bigotry. I think you and Obama too, for that matter, are right in the most important measure, but unfortunately the bigots still exist.

"..we don't live in a color-blind society, and it's likely we never will."

Nonsense! There is no reason skin color cannot become as irrelevant as hieght, weight, eye color and handedness. All that is necessary for us to outgrow bigotry is for the hateful to die and for their hatefulness to to be transmitted on to another generation.

Your example of Americans overcoming denominational prejudices denies your earlier assertion. I'm old enough to remember the generation that cared about denominational intermarriage--considering it a cultural abandonment and even a sin. They were aged in the 1960s, but they'd voted against Al Smith in 1928 in enough numbers to defeat him. By the time we came along, their hatefulness was anachronistic and doomed as a social force.

There is no reason the same cannot be true with race in America.

Fsilber

"..color-blindness is a form of racism,"

That's one I absolutely don't get?

How is not being racist racist?

Okay, skin color could become as irrelevant as height or weight. Just keep in mind fat people and short people suffer discrimination. They encounter all sorts of assumptions about their abilities or lack of abilities from people who conclude they're not as smart, as talented, as capable, etc. because they're short or fat. Kind of like the assumptions encountered by people with dark skin.

Indeed you are right: It seems to be a reliable element of human nature that we generalize and discriminate based on generalizations.

But in America, having racism down graded from a national curse to just one of many ignorances will be a good thing.