Eugene Robinson on the Obama/Chavez Handshake

I generally like Eugene Robinson, and hats off to him for winning that Pulitzer. But yesterday's column advocating for theatrics from a traveling president leaves me dissatisfied. "Theatricality is one of the weapons in any leader's arsenal," Robinson writes, "and a well-timed glower or growl can have more impact than a sheaf of position papers."

When wingers and warmongerers chastise the president for shaking hands with Venezuela's little man, I get it. In a way, it keeps with a natural order we've come to expect in our politics. The predictable rant is that any sign of American openness is weakness. But when a voice of reason advocates a bit of superficial staging, I'm befuddled.

Eugene Robinson gets it just right when he characterizes Chavez and the essential relationship between our two countries.

Any idea that Chávez is some sort of threat to the United States is absurd. It's hard to see his fiery anti-American rhetoric as anything more than performance art, given that he has been scrupulously careful to avoid even the slightest disruption of the U.S.-Venezuela economic relationship.Venezuela owns Citgo, among other concerns, and is a reliable supplier of oil to the thirsty U.S. market.

Or, as Matt Yglesias put it yesterday:

For all the rhetorical heat generated by Chavez’s clashes with the American right, all he really wants from America is for Citgo to sell us oil and gas. And guess what? All we want from Venezuela is the ability to buy oil and gas.

So why would Robinson go on to argue that Obama should have been more rigid? Indeed, why argue that Obama should have recognized the slap Chavez intended--by presenting a tome on U.S. meddling in Latin America--and slap back? Because Robinson thinks he's speaking for moderates who like the new diplomatic worldview that Obama brings but still interpret the diplomatic landscape through the old paradigm, which, no matter how you slice it, hearkens back to the Cold War.

Guess what, folks. Chavez doesn't really intimidate the U.S. Nor should he. On the one side of the aisle, you've got a reactionary right that would seek to replay Cold War pageantry at every little opportunity. On the other side--I thought--you've got a moderate left that understands that Chavez doesn't intimidate the U.S. Why on earth should anyone, lest Eugene Robinson, see Obama's easy way in a crowded room as a faux pas?

Public perception is, largely, what the media molds of it. And if media outlets like the Washington Post and Pulitzer prize winners like Eugene Robinson were to deem Obama's stature in Trinidad as, say, a sign of imperturbable confidence, then that's what a majority of Americans would reliably repeat for the duration of a given spin cycle. Where are the commentators to remind us that America can afford to be big, that our chief diplomat can go ahead and indulge in some hand shaking and shoulder slapping and can accept a gift for the recycle bin without reeling like we've all got an insecurity complex? It could read "Obama didn't give Chavez a thing, not a single hint as to U.S. disposition toward Venezuela. The president smiled, enjoyed some token banter, and moved on."

I don't expect Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney to play any other role than to make the hackneyed call for strength and force that plays well to the wide right and gets our country into trouble time and again. But I do expect, and desperately hope, that saner voices will also choose milder interpretations when the president makes non-news on the diplomatic front.

Texas Secession = Obama Failure?

Seriously. It's a lot to swallow. But if you wanted to paint a modern president as a dramatic failure, can you think of a better way than by actually losing a state?

Cast in that light, all the Texas-secession talk starts to make sense . . . sort of.

The Cover Story That Wasn't

Fresh from the allergist's waiting room, I'm still thinking about this week's Newsweek cover story on Paul Krugman, "Obama's Nobel Headache." What I had hoped would be an insightful slice-and-dice of the philosophical divide between The Nobel Laureate and The New Administration turned out to be an interesting but mostly fluffy sketch of Krugman the man. Totally interesting, like I said--think US Weekly for political swooners--but completely useless in getting beyond the superficial. Krugman believes the stock market as we've known it is a "dead man walking," while Obama appears to act (yes, I choose those words carefully) from the belief that, love it or hate it, the market is still the only battery with enough juice to run the pacemaker once the administration lets go.

The article relegates Krugman to the status of rebel boy genius with the slightly wounded ego. In other words, if I read Evan Thomas correctly, part of Krugman's direction now is fueled as much by a contrarian streak as by adherence to fundamental economic beliefs. The Thomas reduction is too bad, because it misses a bigger point. Paul Krugman could be among the administration's strongest economic allies were there a push from within to get beyond the status quo on Wall Street. Indeed, Krugman even lauded, albeit quietly, Obama's plans for regulation. But one of Krugman's biggest beefs with the current tack is that it perpetuates a busted system.

I'm not the only one who thinks Thomas missed an opportunity. Joan Walsh takes her turn here, painting Thomas as "smug." She also points out that Krugman doesn't simply broadly oppose Obama (as a contrarian might). And she's right. "There’s so much to like about where Obama is going — health care, transparency in government, ending the war in Iraq. And the stimulus bill is OK, though not big enough." That's not Walsh, that's Krugman on February 26.

Easy enough, right? Krugman thinks Obama is, broadly, on the right track. Based on a generalization that Krugman thinks Obama is wrong (in case you can't read the text on the thumbnail above, the type next to Krugman's mug reads "Obama is wrong"), Thomas simply chooses to present Krugman as the face of the progressive movement. And that's where any real conversation slips away.

Krugman's very next sentence in the blog post above reads, "But on the question of fixing the banks, many of us are feeling a growing sense of despair." See how finite the disagreement is? On the question of fixing the banks. That's a good enough point from which to track the divergences between the politico-economics of a Paul Krugman vs. the politico-economics of an Obama/Geithner/Summers triumverate. And Krugman expands on that "growing sense of despair" here, here, here, here, and here. I'll stop, but you get the idea. If you read the posts, they all tackle the disagreement over sound banking policy. And they all avoid the specifically vague rhetoric of sour contrarianism.

A prominent economist disagrees with a popular president's treasury secretary over the politics and execution of banking policy. Normally, only the geekiest of the geeks and wonkiest of the wonks would even be listening. So why make more out of it than it is? Possibly because using Krugman to pit progressives against the president sells magazines?

Keeping Friends Close . . .

Via Benen, word is that Obama wants Lieberman in the caucus. No hint as to which side of the adage that puts old Joe.

It's a New Day

Just when you think you've maybe had enough of will.i.am, the Obama montage-to-music proves irresistible all over again.



Did I just connect Barack to Kevin Bacon?

Gracias, Luke, for the link.

Barack Obama: Credible

In the course of my work today, I was compelled to look up the word "credibility" at Merriam-Webster Online. Here's the definition: "the quality or power of inspiring belief."

People all over the world have come to recognize Barack Obama's credibility. So it's only fitting that his picture really does appear under the dictionary definition, in the form of an online advertisement to get out the vote.

Whirlwind: Obama's Aunt

On the subject of Obama's alien aunt, Steve Benen offers what I think is a silly statement. "I have no idea why anyone would find this even remotely interesting."

To be fair to Steve, I rarely find myself in anything but agreement with his observation and analysis. That said, I find his comment decidedly in-credible.

As a nation on the eve of a momentous election, we are interested and fascinated with all things electoral. And this certainly qualifies.

Given how carefully the Obama campaign has moved throughout the paces of this campaign, I am of a mind that this either A) really is a surprise, clear out of left field, or B) the campaign had this information and knew it might come up, and made a conscious decision not to address the issue proactively. Here's the thing: she was in the book. That means, to my thinking, that she's been vetted. Does anybody in the country really believe that a campaign this well orchestrated did not know of the aunt's status? I find that hard to swallow. Obama has drawn a pretty clear line about issues of family as they arise in the campaign. And it does not appear that he and his aunt, his father's half sister, are close. Nevertheless it's family, and more importantly it's a case of human livelihood. Being deported to Kenya qualifies as a major upheaval, and probably not for the better.

Now, Steve is right that no rational person would read this story and decide that, on account of an asylum-seeking aunt kept shrouded in secrecy until the final days of the election, our country would be better off with John McCain's backward looking tax policies and obvious insensitivity to the nuances of global diplomacy. But this is not about rational behavior. This is about the media cycle and American blood lust. It's about a right-wing machine that has proven highly effective at tipping tight elections. For more on the power of the media narrative, check out this piece from Kevin Drum. Not about politics, as it happens, but very much about the media's ability to tell people what matters (and to actually influence how events fall out as a result).

I do not believe that this event alone will necessarily decide an election. Furthermore, a lot of votes are already in, so despite the media response--and the public response--this thing may prove to be a blip. Obviously, this is not a mistress or a love child, nor is it a bribery scandal or similar jaw-dropping type disaster. But a November surprise is a November surprise. It's not the content of the charge, it's the timing. And that's why Americans will be interested in this little issue.

The Last Gasp

I had an engagement earlier tonight, so I missed the live debate broadcast and had to settle for watching the video in installments afterward on ABC News. After all was said and done, I strongly suspect the two candidates will agree on this: thank goodness the debates are over.

Both candidates had a fairly strong debate, inasmuch as they each showed up like savvy politicians. McCain's chronic blinking belies his extreme discomfort, but the root of that discomfort is still a mystery. Is it Obama? Is it the format? Is it knowing how far he's down and how much he needs to accomplish? Is it shame?

I lean toward an amalgam of all of the above, and possibly a dose of chagrin, too. I can't help listening to McCain speak, and even on his strong points, like linking Obama to Hoover ("from a deep recession to a depression") and repeatedly pushing Ayers and ACORN (neither of which will decide the election), I thought "Now here's a man who's swallowed the bitter pill."

John McCain, to put it mildly, looks out of his element. That said, I also think tonight was his best debate, but that it doesn't matter. Nothing that came up tonight improved McCain's position among the people he most needed to impress. If he didn't outright lose the debate on the topic of Sarah Palin's qualifications, then the health care discussion did him in.

Tonight may not have been Obama's overall strongest performance. We may have seen that in the second debate. But Obama scored two important victories tonight on health care and on the people he pals around with. On the former topic, he really distanced his plan from the McCain plan in a way that voters can relate to. During the second debate I thought Obama missed several opportunities there. He explained his plan but didn't expose the incredible weakness of McCain's plan. Tonight he did both, and I felt a different tone throughout that conversation than previously. After the second debate, voters who had just tuned in may have been aware only of two different but more or less equally political plans on the table. Tonight there is a clear plan from Obama, and a clear sense that McCain's health care plan will do less to support those in need than Obama's. "Hey, Joe, you're rich, congratulations." That's McCain's rebuttal. Seriously? Did anybody understand the lateral move McCain attempted to make?

On health care, though, this takes the cake:

Now, 95 percent of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed, which will be taxed, but then you add $5,000 onto it, except for those people who have the gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants and all of those kinds of things.

That's McCain making zero sense at the top of the quote, because how taxing benefits works out as "more money" for Americans under McCain's plan is a complete mystery to everyone, including I think the candidate. But John McCain also revealed a telling tendency to trivialize huge issues. People who get transplant coverage--or people who want transplant coverage--are the lucky ones, the ones who have or want more than they need. They're the ones who get gold-plated Cadillac insurance policies. For "cosmetic surgery and transplants and all those kinds of things."

It takes the breath away. I have a couple acquaintances I'd like to touch base with about the triviality of transplants and those kinds of things.

On the second point, who the candidates surround themselves with, which wasn't actually a question so McCain dodged a bullet, Obama made good on the opportunity to spin the Ayers attack into a mention of Joe Biden, Warren Buffet, Paul Volcker, Dick Lugar, and Jim Jones. This may well be lost on many voters, but these guys are heavyweights. We're not talking Phil Gramm and Rick Davis. Obama's team reflects a level of seriousness and thoughtfulness that the McCain campaign can't touch. You want to compare finance management credentials between Warren Buffet and Phil Gramm? How about international security credentials between Jim Jones and Randy Scheunemann? Oh man. That doesn't win the debate for Obama, but it further emphasizes the distance between the two candidates and how they will govern.

The Obama campaign no doubt wishes they could hold the election tonight, right now, immediately. Three weeks is an eternity, and a lot can happen. But I wonder if the McCain folks, and perhaps John McCain himself, aren't also ready to finally get out the vote, if only to put an end to what has become a palpably unpleasant experience for the candidate and for those of us fortunate enough to watch this chapter of history unfold. I'm not saying it's over, but except for the ads and a few highly orchestrated "news breaks," tonight may have been John McCain's last gasp to prove that he's the man for the job. He needed to stage a brilliant coup to topple Obama, and he fell short of that mark.

The 8:30 AM Phone Call

Everybody understands that Obama called McCain at 8:30 this morning to suggest that the two men work together on a joint statement about the economy. Right? Right?

TPM: Obama in MI, Hits Palin and McCain on Truthfulness

Obama, via Talking Points Memo: "You can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid."

Obama Slips Up

Steve Benen put up footage from Obama's remarks yesterday about community organizing. Unfortunately, I liked the remarks more when I read them on the page than when I heard them on camera. The language itself is stronger than the delivery.

Obama slipped up at the outset, stating "So this is work I did three years ago." He meant twenty. But it's an important goof, because it set him up for distraction later when when he said "They're talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college . . . " It looks to me like he gets distracted by the goof, and then the verbal pauses come out. Watching from home, the public may wonder where the gifted orator disappears to when the teleprompter isn't on.

Granted, it's not always like that. But the public is realizing that Obama doesn't speak as well on the fly as he does from a script. And John McCain is known for speaking much better off the cuff than he does from prepared notes. Watch for this to figure in the coming weeks.

Jesus Organized

At the risk of offending, I don't understand why this is offensive.

The Power of a Postive Message

I've got to leave in a few minutes to do a little Labor Day canvassing, but I wanted to interrupt the flow of non-stop Palin posts to reflect on the Democratic convention.

The overwhelming takeaway, for me, is that my politics must no longer be an exercise in rhetoric but a starting point for action. I've said before that if the last two presidential elections have taught Dems anything, it's that voting alone is no longer enough. Democracy is more than simply exercising the vote. It's taking advantage of our freedoms to perform good works in our communities and in our world. This is the simple genius that Obama taps into: common purpose = common good.

We all want a better health care system. We all want better schools in the U.S. We all want the U.S. out of Iraq. We all want greater senses of freedom and security nationwide. We all want tax relief, or at least a sense that our tax dollars are being well spent. We all want government to listen and to show good faith.

If we can agree that we all hope for positive change in these areas, then we must be able to find ways to work toward equity and a little bit of the improvement we so desperately seek. It seems preposterous to say, but there was genuine goodwill in Denver last week. Not because the Democrats were in town, and not because Denver was the spotlight of so much attention, but because people on the streets were excited and hopeful. Denver's not short on positivity to begin with, but last week evidenced a surplus of it. That good will, that combination of excitement plus hope, delivers new fuel to tired political discourse. It also motivates political effort and community involvement, which I only hope we'll see become more and more linked in the years to come.

This is the enthusiasm gap so often referenced between the two parties. Democrats this year are genuinely high on positive messages. It helps that the candidate is thoughtful, charismatic, and charming. It helps even more that the message is one we can practice ourselves.

Howard Wolfson on Obama's DNC Acceptance Speech

A Clinton insider explains his positive reaction to Obama's speech.

CNN Says McCain's Humor Could Do Him In

CNN writer Rebecca Sinderbrand makes a series of excellent points in this article. Is anybody reading?

The "Paper Thin" War

I find this amusing: "Barack Obama should focus on bolstering his paper thin resume as opposed to having surrogates level distorted attacks against Senator McCain.”

That should be "paper-thin," but who am I to argue?

That was RNC spokesman Danny Diaz, speaking on Obama and past presidential candidate John Kerry.

The RNC is willing to start a "paper thin" war? Okay, then. How deep was George W. Bush's resume when the RNC piled on board? This is current from the White House website:

President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Following graduation, he moved back to Midland and began a career in the energy business. After working on his father’s successful 1988 Presidential campaign, President Bush assembled the group of partners who purchased the Texas Rangers baseball franchise in 1989. On November 8, 1994, President Bush was elected Governor of Texas. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive 4-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998.

Talk to me when the RNC is serious, please.*

*What's missing from the Bush resume? Click here, for starters.

The Carpool Poll

Best. Poll. Yet. And it's merely August. Oh, the little joys of election season politics.

Denver Post Promotes Richardson for VP

While Michael Gerson was busy distracting readers with the possibility of an Obama/Ritter candidacy this past Friday, the editorial board at the Denver Post had another, western states governor in their sites: New Mexico's Bill Richardson.

The Denver Post made its case Sunday for Richardson for veep, and I can only see this as a welcome call. Richardson brings the international credibility that Obama is so often seen as lacking, and he also happens to be a widely popular governor in his home state of New Mexico. And, uh, he'll bring at least some of the much sought-after, Latino vote (not to mention some of the much sought-after, western states vote).

Also, Richardson ran one of the best ads of the early presidential campaign season (FWIW, which obviously ain't much).

So, the negatives. The biggest that I see comes in the form of a question Steve Clemons asked back in 2007 when Richardson threw his hat in as a contender among Democrats, early in that primary. Here's the way Clemons, who cites previous experience working with Richardson's staff when Richardson served in the House of Representatives, cozies up to the problem.

I will frame this as a "question" for Bill Richardson.

Have you behaved inappropriately or not in public settings with female members of your government administration, jokingly or not? Have you gestured to female public servants and political appointees -- who work as colleagues with you -- and made lewd gestures, specifically pointing to them and then pointing at your crotch with a room full of media and other politicos there in the room?

I ask this not to demean or undermine Richardson.

I ask it because I was not in the room when this particular incident occurred but many others were -- and rumors have long swept around Santa Fe that Bill Richardson makes a frequent joke out of demeaning women. These incidents don't have to do with the comments by Lt. Governor Diane Denish that Richardson is a "touchy" and "feely" Governor. They have to do with questions about a far more crude kind of gesture that demeans professional women.

These concerns I have heard may be completely contrived, but after speaking with several senior level New Mexico officials, my sense is that it needs to at a minimum be addressed by the Governor who wants to be President. Some suggest that Richardson "can't stop himself" or "doesn't even realize what he is doing" or thinks that "this sort of thing is part of New Mexico's political scene."

Clemons treads some tricky waters, here. By his own admission, the topic is based on hearsay and perpetuated by rumor. After reading it twice, I still want to brush the thing aside and say "Nah. If that was true it would have exploded by now." And yet, the whisper campaign could be all it takes. As soft as the media has gone on John McCain's history of documented, inappropriate treatment of colleagues, staffers, journalists, and even his wife, expect the wheels to come off the cart as the McCain camp, the RNC, the special interests, and the news industry get up to speed dismantling Obama's pick, whomever that is, for the #2 spot.

So I wonder what the vetting process turns up, and whether it deems Richardson as carrying too much baggage or not (a la Jim Webb, the outspoken Senator who published novels with gratuitous passages, and once sent a staffer packing heat through Senate security).

To be sure, other pols have weathered close scrutiny, and even allegations, over their conduct toward women. Bill Clinton did it in the wake of the Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers brouhahas (not to mention that other one), and Arnold Schwarzenegger managed to navigate similarly choppy waters in his bid to become California governor. So Clemons' questions may not be the sort of questions that derail the Richardson bid, but they may also raise issues that the Obama campaign could do without right now.

Richardson, to be sure, boasts a more global resume than the oft-mentioned Tim Kaine of Virginia and Evan Bayh of Indiana. But he also presents another unique challenge: could he seriously alienate recalcitrant, Dem voters (read Clintonites) who already see electing Obama as a stretch? I've posted before that I wonder who these Hillary supporters are who are so entrenched in their own process that they won't vote for the strongest Democrat in the running this year. I've also speculated that this whole notion reeks of Rovian pursuits, e.g., tell the public what you want the public to believe. A Richardson nod, however, could result in a backlash of voices against Obama from one of the Democratic candidate's newest core constituencies: Hillary Clinton supporters. The Clintons themselves must know as well as anybody the incredible stakes of full-contact politics, but I wonder if the bile they'd swallow to stump for an Obama/Richardson ticket wouldn't prove too much. It would all depend, I suppose, on what the Obama camp would be willing to offer the Clintons.

Or maybe that's more of the "old politics" talking. Maybe the electorate and the Democratic Party are simply ready for the best ticket, period. I think, if Richardson can satisfy the internal vetting process, then that might be the way to go. I have no idea what that process will turn up. Obviously, Richardson would be a shoo-in for cabinet (State Dept.), but as far as giving the ticket a boost and getting the Democrat into the White House, I think he'd also help there. More so than a Jim Webb (who says he won't do it), a Tim Kaine, or even a Bill Ritter (who, as David Sirota pointed out yesterday, isn't even popular in his home state, much as we wish he were).

McCain the Underdog

John McCain, the veteran lawmaker, 2-time presidential hopeful, and long-time Washington deal maker, pleads underdog status in his race against the junior senator from Illinois.

At a Cherry Hills fundraiser this week, McCain said "We're the underdog in this race . . . But I am pleasantly surprised that we are only behind a few points in most polls. There's even one crazy poll where we're ahead by a few points."

I think that's a smart move. Play the expectations low, and every close poll suggests less about Americans' faith in McCain, which is not essential (as evidenced by GOP success in recent presidential elections) but mistrust and discomfort with Obama. McCain doesn't have to wow the voters to win this thing. He just has to stay steady, and make out that Obama is an underperformer. After all the hype about hope and a new kind of politics, Obama really has to deliver--at least on the perceptions front--in order to tie up the contest.

Obama vs. McCain: A New Poll Shows Americans Struggle to Identify With Values, Background

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning analyzing voter unease with Barack Obama as compared with John McCain. The subtitle reads, "Poll Finds Background, Experience, Are Advantages for McCain."

Fairly enough, I suppose, the article points to results of a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicating that half of all voters are trying to figure out what kind of president Barack Obama would be. Only a quarter, says the Journal, are focused on what kind of president John McCain would be.

I leave conjecture to the reader. Of course, I think I already know what kind of president McCain would be, and I don't think so positively in that regard. But that's my bias.

My BS meter didn't go off until paragraph 4 of the Journal article:

The challenge that presents for Sen. Obama is illustrated by a second question. When voters were asked whether they could identify with the background and values of the two candidates, 58% said they could identify with Sen. McCain on that account, while 47% said the same of Sen. Obama. More than four in 10 said the Democratic contender doesn't have values and a background they can identify with.

Emphasis mine. It's true, I'm not exactly sure what Obama's values are, though I believe they revolve around freedom, democracy, and opportunity for all Americans, and also a core belief that America has nothing to fear from simply listening to global neighbors. Oh yeah--and something about hope. Where the WSJ/NBC News poll goes over the top, though, is in linking an understanding and ability to identify with Obama's values with an understanding and ability to identify with his background. The mixed-race child of a Kenyan and an American? A son left behind by his father and raised by his mother and grandparents? A Harvard educated lawyer? An inner city organizer? A professor of constitutional law? A best-selling author? A successful state lawmaker turned U.S. senator turned Democratic nominee for president?

When you do the math, it's amazing to me that only 4 in 10 responded that they could not identify with his background and values. Barack Obama is not an "average" American. The difference between this election and any that has come before is that the candidate is not afraid to admit this fact. Can you think of an "average" American candidate for president? Not in my lifetime. Probably not in yours. Right off the bat, the biggest factor separating presidential candidates from average Americans has to do with money. These people are wealthy. Members of the richest class in America. Millionaires. That alone presents a monumental dividing line between candidates and the average Americans they seek to represent.

What's more, how many Americans can really identify with John McCain's background? This is where the misnomer roots itself in unspoken ways. McCain is the child of a strict Navy upbringing, the imprisoned and tortured soldier, the decorated serviceman. Beyond that, he's a career politician married to an astonishingly wealthy heiress. He has a son serving in Iraq. One more thing: he's an old man who by his own admission doesn't use a computer. To be sure, I can't identify with McCain's background any more than I can with Obama's. But McCain is white, and that signals an instantaneous recognition, or suggestion of recognition, in the United States today. For the most superficial reason I can think of, John McCain fares better in this poll: his skin color affords him the advantage in America of not having to answer questions about his ethnic background.

This is how "background" becomes such a weighty word in this poll.

In Obama's case, rather than position himself as a prototypical, average American, he would challenge the country to see that "average" must no longer be linked with "American" in order to achieve representational democracy. He's saying that the American today is not average; the problems and challenges we face are not average; the catchall "average" leaves too many Americans of voting age on the outside looking in. The myth that a President Obama would shatter is that footage of a president raking brush on a Texas ranch and joshing around with reporters actually qualifies a son of wealth to represent himself as "average."

In this election season, Obama's bid has been characterized as a cultural campaign, a post-racial campaign, and a post-partisan campaign. The candidate has been much touted for leaving behind the old politics of Washington to usher in a new era of inclusion, thoughtfulness, and hope. I buy some of that and can leave some of it behind for the spin it is. But if there's one thing that Obama's successes have shown us thus far, it may be that Americans are ready for the first, post-average candidate in modern history.