Ralph is Back!

"You take that framework of people feeling....disrespected ....from Iraq to Palestine/Israel...."
Ralph Nader in declaring his candidacy for President in 2008 (1)

Yes! Now that there is again a real chance that a Democrat could win the Presidency this year, Ralph Nader is running once more, perhaps to make sure that doesn't happen.

At 74, Nader would be the oldest candidate in the race (assuming Mike Gravel does not run as an independent too). Once the daring young man who challenged the giant Detroit automakers with his expose "Unsafe at Any Speed", today he is another over-aged perenial presidential candidate, pursuing the path worn thread-bare by Norman Thomas, Harold Stassen and Eugene McCarthy.

As the nominee of the leftist Green Party in 2000, Nader garnered about 95,000 votes in Florida, which George W Bush won by just over 500 votes. It is hard to deny that without Nader on the ballot, most of his votes would have gone to Al Gore, giving the Vice President Florida and the Presidency, but Nader does still deny that obvious conclusion. Without the Nader factor in 2000, all of the history of the past seven years would have been different; Sadam Hussein would probably be alive and ruling Iraq, for example.

Can Nader do it again this year? My guess is: probably not. If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, the Illinois senator will attract the support of the young, idealistic, and ultra-liberal voters that once flocked to Nader's banner. (He would do much better against Hillary Clinton , an older, whiter, and more establishment figure, sort of a female Al Gore.)

However, the quote above indicates that Nader intends to play the "Arab card" in this election. Nader was born in the United States to Christian parents from Lebanon, so would appeal to fellow Arab-Americans. With both major parties wooing the Jewish (and otherwise pro-Zionist) voters, a clearly pro-Arab, pro-Muslim candidate could win the votes of millions of Arab and Muslim Americans, in addition to hard-core leftists, on a third-party ticket. The reference to "Palestine" in the declaration of candidacy statement may be a thinly- coded signal that he is going in that direction. The Naderite hard-left hates Israel anyway, so why not?

The problem with this gambit is that Ron Paul will probably also run on a third-party ticket (2), and he is totally opposed to all foreign aid, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. Paul is the darling of conspiracy-buffs, who are largely anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic. Besides, Ron Paul can appeal to opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens, a hot-button issue on which John McCain and both Democratic candidates are all on the other side. Nader, on the other hand, cannot compete for the anti-immigrant vote without losing his leftist support.

My guess is that if Paul runs on a third ticket, he will draw off more Republican votes than Nader draws Democratic ones, so the Dems still win.

Like worker bees (3), third parties sting once and then die. Nader made history in 2000, but now faces only his nadir.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, Feb. 25, 2008

(2) See the Feb. 14 Glazerbeam "All Eyes on Wisconsin"

(3) Queen bees can sting any number of times.

College Try

" (New Jersey) Governor John Corzine signed legislation (to ) deliver the state's 15 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.....Maryland, with 10 electoral votes, is the only other state to have passed the compact into law."
Associated Press, Jan. 15, 2007

This new procedure, now in effect in these two states for the 2008 presidential election, is an effort to by-pass the Electoral College. The College, consisting of 535 electors chosen by the states, has produced a President who did not win the popular vote several times, most recently in 2000.

Q. How are electors chosen?

A. Each state political party nominates a slate of electors, one for each congressional district in the state plus two more, for the number of senators. The Constitution does not specify how each state must choose electors, but the prevailing method is to award the total number of electors to the party whose presidential candidate has received the highest number of votes in the November election. States are free to apportion the electors by congressional district, or as a proportional share of the vote by party. Originally, many states allowed the legislature to select electors; although that is still legal today, no state does so now.
Although most electors vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, they are not obligated by law to do so, and some have voted for other people. Some states also permit slates of unpledged electors.

Q. How does the Electoral College work?
The electors meet in each state capital in December and cast votes for President and Vice President, which are then sent to the US Capitol where the presiding officer of the Senate (usually the Vice President) opens and reads them.
If no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects one of the top three candidates to become President.

Q. What is the effect of the provisions passed by New Jersey and Maryland?
A. Since both states usually vote Democratic, they could swing the electoral vote to the Republican nominee if he wins the popular vote. Not a single "red" (Republican) state has adopted this plan.

Q. Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Electoral College?
A. Yes! If a candidate garners more than 50% of the popular vote, that candidate should become President . If there are three or more candidates, and no one gets a majority, hold a run-off in December between the top two.

Q Why would this be better?
A. Because the person elected President will have majority support, not merely a plurality of the vote in a group of states whose electoral votes add up to 270or more.
Had this method been in force in 2000, Al Gore would have become President and Joe Lieberman Vice President.

Politics and Relgion: 2008

"I do not speak for my Church, and my Church does not speak for me."
Sen. John F Kennedy, 1960

"I'm twice as Catholic as Jack (Kennedy)!"
Sen. Eugene J McCarthy, 1960

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney faces difficulty among some Christian voters because he is a Mormon. Others say that a candidate's religious beliefs should not be an issue in a presidential campaign. For instance, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said it was inappropriate for a reporter to ask Republican candidates at a forum whether they believed in Evolution, since the answer has no bearing on the duties of the President. Comedian Bill Maher replied that the answer says a great deal about the candidate's attitude toward science, so it is relevant.

In an age when many candidates emphasize that their views on some moral and social issues (abortion and same-sex marriage, for example) are grounded in their faith, is it not legitimate to consider a candidate's religious affiliation and belief (or lack of belief) in evaluating his (or her) suitability for President of the United States?

The important question is not simply "What religion are you?" but rather, "Will your religious (or other) beliefs affect your actions as President, and if so, how?" For example, Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon were both raised in pacifist religions ( Mennonite and Quaker, respectively), but both served in the US military and used military force as President.

Here are the public policy implications of three religions practiced by serious candidates for the presidency in our time:

Catholicism: The most serious problem is not the abortion controversy, but rather the Catholic doctrine that "There is no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church" and the power of the Pope to ex-communicate anyone who violates Church principles. In other words, the Pope can keep your soul out of Heaven!
When the Democratic Party nominated New York Governor Al Smith for President in 1928, many Protestant Democrats voted against him because they feared Vatican control of this country.
John F Kennedy tried to dispel fears of papal power over the President with the quotation above. The reality was that Kennedy, though raised Catholic, was never very devout in his personal or political life. As President, he did not establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican or urge government support for Catholic schools.
Since his time other Catholics, such as Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and Edmund Muskie have sought the Presidency without their religion playing a major role. Rudolph Giuliani is Catholic, but his personal and public record do not indicate much fealty to the Church.

Judaism: Would a Jewish President put the interests of Israel over those of the United States? Although few commentators (except maybe Pat Buchanan) would dare to ask this question publicly, it would cross the minds of many voters.
Joseph Lieberman, as a candidate for Vice President, was a net asset to the 2000 Democratic ticket, even though the spectre of dual-loyalty may have driven some voters away. His attempt to secure the 2004 nomination failed for reasons other than his religion. (1)
Nowadays most serious presidential candidates are so pro-Israel that a Jewish candidate would not even stand out of the pack on this issue.

Mormonism: Like Muhammad, Joseph Smith claimed that an angel had given him a prophecy (The Book of Mormon) which surpassed and superseded all previous revelations.
Mormons believe that God has a body of "flesh and bone" and that Jesus created the world under his direction. They espouse a weird version of world history, in which American Indians are descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Until 1890, the Mormon Church permitted polygamy, and some Mormons continue the practice in our time.
These beliefs and practices brought early Mormons into mortal conflict with their neighbors; Joseph Smith was killed by a mob in Illinois in 1844. His successor, Brigham Young, led the Mormons to a land which is now Utah, where they predominate to this day. so they sought isolation in the West. (2)
When Mitt Romney's father, George, sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, his Mormon faith was not an issue; he withdrew after claiming he was "brainwashed" by the military in Vietnam. Religion plays a greater role in American politics today, so Mitt will have to face questions about his religious beliefs.

Someday, perhaps in the lifetime of some younger readers of the Glazerbeam, a Muslim will be a serious candidate for President of the United States. (3) He will face some really tough questions!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Lieberman's unswerving support for the Iraq War antagonized many Democrats. Yet, unlike John Kerry, he was not a veteran. His wizened visage and stiff speaking style were also negative factors.

(2) 1977 World Book, Volume 13, page 662.

(3)Barrack Hussein Obama had a Muslim father and some Muslim education. He has been a Protestant for over 25 years.

TV Candidate

"Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson placed first with 95 out of 306 total ballots cast."
Report of presidential straw poll at the Wisconsin Republican State Convention
(May 13, 2007 Milw. Journal Sentinel)

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, who had addressed the Convention and probably knew every delegate by name, came in second with 84 votes. National polls accord the Tennesseean a respectable third place among eleven candidates, most impressive since he has yet to formally enter the race. How does he do it?

No, Fred Thompson is not really the District Attorney of Manhattan, he just played the role for five years on television. As DA Arthur Branch, he has become famous for reciting lines like "OK, Jack, offer him 'Man 2', but he's got to elocute and give up McDougal!" Ironically, one of his rivals for the GOP presidential nod, Rudolph Giuliani, really was a New York (federal )prosecutor.

The nation got its first look at Fred Thompson in 1973, when he was the counsel for the Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee. (Coincidentally, Clinton was then on the Democratic legal team for the same investigation.) His impressive appearance, coupled with a deep voice and excellent elocution, brought him to the attention of Hollywood, where he appeared in dozens of films, most notably Die Hard 2, No Way Out, and The Hunt for Red October.

When a special election was held in 1994 to fill a vacant US Senate seat in Tennessee, Fred entered the race and won easily. He was elected to a full term in 1996. As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1997, he dramatically claimed to have found evidence that China had bribed the Clinton Administration, but could not prove it. (1) No important legislation bears his name. Bored with the Senate, he declined to seek re-election in 2002 and nabbed the DA role on "Law and Order" that has made him famous. (2)

About 150 people have served (or are now serving) in the US Senate since Fred Thompson was elected in 1994, and the vast majority of them (e.g. Baucus, Landrieu, Miller, Kyl) are virtually unknown to the American public. What most people know about Fred Thompson is his TV persona, not his real-life Senate term. His popularity is a direct consequence of the blending of politics and entertainment that has a major impact on public affairs in this country.

There is nothing new about celebrities winning elective office. California elected actress Helen Gahagan Douglas (3) (star of She) and singer Sonny Bono to Congress, dancer George Murphy to the Senate, and actors Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governors. Wrestler/actor Jesse Ventura was elected Governor Minnesota on the Reform ticket, beating both the Democratic and Republican nominees.

Today, size matters big-time in politics . Unusually tall men like Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry seem to dominate presidential contests; its no wonder that Michael Dukakis (5'8") lost. On that score, Fred Thompson leads the field at 6'6", although Mitt Romney is close behind. Although wealthy, he is known to campaign in rough clothes at the wheel of a red pick-up truck. The image is "rough and tough." That worked great in Tennessee, but he may modify the image slightly on the presidential campaign trail

Fred Thompson is well-positioned to win the Republican nomination. His conservative stands are long-term, unlike Giuliani and Romney, and he is five years younger and more telegenic than McCain. Now that he has quit his TV show and will start campaigning, don't be surprised to see him move toward the top of the polls.

If only Americans in the previous century would have shown a similar preference for actors in the presidential race! If so, instead of Abe Lincoln, we might have elected the most popular actor of his day-----John Wilkes Booth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) TRB from Washington byJonathan Chait in The New Republic, May 7, 2007.

(2) Thompson actually began the role while he was still a US Senator in the Fall of 2002.

(3) Rep. Douglas, wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, lost the 1950 Senate race to Richard M Nixon.

Bloomberg for President?

"After dining recently with NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is.. . considering a run for president as an independent, (Nebraska Senator Chuck) Hagel said people might want to consider the two on a ticket." (1)

As if ten Republican candidates and eight Democrats are not enough for the 2008 election, we might also have a Bloomberg-Hagel independent ticket too. Considering that the NY mayor is a billionaire, such a ticket could probably afford a serious nationwide media campaign. But could they win? Here are some drawbacks:

Third Ticket History: The structure of the American political system makes third parties and tickets extreme long-shots. Because of the electoral college, a candidate earns no electoral votes unless he is first in some state, an extremely high bar for new parties and candidates. Ross Perot, almost as rich as Bloomberg, garnered 19% of the popular vote for president in 1992, but not even one electoral vote. Only two third-party candidates received significant electoral votes since World War II, and both did so by appealing to white racism in the South (2).

The New York Problem: Bloomberg's only chance (if any) would be to carry the state of New York, but right now the front-runners in the polls in both major parties happen to be New Yorkers: Giulani and Clinton. Just to qualify for state ballots, a new ticket must file papers before the nominees of the major parties have been selected. If either party nominates a New Yorker, let alone both, it will be virtually impossible for Bloomberg to carry his home state.

The Jewish Problem: Most ethnic and religious groups support members of their own group that have a serious chance of winning the presidency; for example, John F Kennedy benefited from overwhelming support from fellow Catholics. Jews, on the other hand, will not unite behind a Jewish candidate (like Bloomberg) because a large portion of our people fear having a Jewish president! Some fear that a Jewish president would "bend over backwards" to avoid seeming too pro-Israel; others fear that those who oppose the Chief Executive's policies will turn against all Jews and foment anti-Semitism. The record of Jews in high public office does not seem to support either of these fears (3), but they are a significant hurdle for Jews seeking the presidency.
At the same time, many devout Christians would prefer a president who embodies and advocates the principles of Christianity, which a Jew would not. That leaves Muslims, whose support I would not count on.

The Issue Overlap: Unlike political parties in Europe, Israel, or Latin America, our Democrats and Republicans are not bound to party ideologies. Our major parties are flexible, and they are not far apart on major issues. For example, Hagel is strongly opposed to US involvement in Iraq, but it is virtually certain that the Democratic nominee will feel the same way and will attract anti-war voters. Bloomberg is the consummate Wall Street insider, but then so is Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani was also mayor of the same city.

Can the proposed Bloomberg-Hagel ticket overcome all these obstacles and win the White House next year? Maybe, but I would hold off on ordering the white mezzuzas for now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, May 14, 2007.

(2) The ticket of Thurmond & Wright (Democratic States Rights, aka Dixiecrats) of 1948 and that of Wallace & LeMay (American Independent) in 1968 carried about the same Deep South States. In 2001 then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R, MS) said that he wished Thurmond had been elected president, after which he lost the leadership position to Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, who presumably favored Repulbican nominee Thomas E Dewey in 1948.

(3) The first Jewish US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, was also the most friendly to Israel. Ditto for Foreign Minister Ion Georghe Maurer of Romania and Premier Pierre Mendes-France of (guess what) France.

Republican Repartee

Ten middle-aged white men seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President fielded questions at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, on the evening of May 3. The contenders were Ex-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (NY), Senators John McCain (AZ) and Sam Brownback (KS), Ex-Governors Tommy Thompson (WI), Mitt Romney (MA), Jim Gilmore (VA) and Mike Huckabee (AR), and Representatives Tom Tancredo (CO). Ron Paul (TX), and Duncan Hunter (CA).

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Ex-Senator Fred Thompson (TN), and Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) are also considering entering the GOP Presidential race.

The moderator, Chris Matthews of "Hardball", asked some remarkably asinine questions, including:
"Would you hire Karl Rove?" ("Yes, to sweep my basement")
"Would you pardon Scooter Libby?" ("Sure, in the first paragraph of my resignation letter.")
"Would you like to see Bill Clinton live in the White House again?"
("Yes, that is why I pray Hillary beats me in November!")

Despite the usual equivocations and inanities, there were some real differences expressed:

I. Middle East
Ron Paul, who had voted against the Iraq War, demanded a return to a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. He also blamed the War for erosion of some of our constitutional rights over the past several years.
On the other extreme, McCain insisted that we must stay and fight in Iraq. Although he admitted that the War had been mismanaged so far, he was optimistic about ultimate victory. McCain angrily denounced Congressional Democrats for passing a timetable for withdrawal.
Thompson and Brownback called for division of Iraq into three or more autonomous regions, a plan previously endorsed by Democratic Senator Joe Biden (DE). All other candidates were supportive of the War, but some hoped for an honorable withdrawal sometime soon.
Jim Gilmore advocated a stronger US effort to settle the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
McCain also denounced Iran as a major threat, and insisted that Iran be prevented from developing nuclear weapons and giving them to terrorists. Tancredo would help Israel attack Iran, if Israel asked for US assistance.

II. Religious Issues
Giuliani was the only candidate to defend the right of a pregnant woman to choose abortion at any stage of gestation, and was joined only by McCain in supporting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Romney admitted he was pro-choice when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, but switched to pro-life two years ago. Romney, a Mormon, also decried the decline in traditional family values, noting that about a third of American babies are born to unwed mothers.
All other candidates opposed both abortion and embryonic stem-cell use.
Thompson was asked if an employer should be able to fire a worker for being "gay" (homosexual). He said "yes", even though such discrimination would violate Wisconsin law.
Huckabee and Brownback admitted that their religious beliefs would affect their policies as President.

III. Immigration
Tancredo and Hunter demanded an end to illegal immigration, supported the fence along the Mexican border, and opposed any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. Only McCain supported amnesty, as part of an immigration-reform bill. Giuliani supported a "tamper-proof" national ID card for legal aliens, but not for citizens.

IV. Taxes and Spending
All of the candidates want to cut taxes, especially the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), but only Paul and Huckabee would eliminate the IRS altogether. Giuliani would eliminate the "death" (inheritance) tax, and Romney would abolish taxes on investment income for the middle class. McCain suggested cutting military cost-overruns, and Thompson and Giuliani boasted that they had cut welfare costs.

The "Horse Race"

Now, how does the debate affect the chances of the candidates?

Mitt Romney, like John F Kennedy in 1960, is a tall, handsome, rich and articulate second-generation politician from Massachusetts. Like Kennedy, he belongs to a minority religion. The troubles are than Mormons are nowhere near as numerous as Catholics, and they are considered heretics by many other Christians (1). Romney's switch on abortion is also suspected of being driven by politics, and may even vanish after Romney gets the Republican nomination. Still, his performance at the forum showed that he is probably the most electable Republican candidate.

John McCain, widely admired for his courage, is weighed down by his support of the Iraq War. He may be right that the War is winnable, but winning would require a vast increase in American troops, more casualties, and more cost. A draft might be even be necessary to field an army big enough to control Iraq. The American people do not consider Iraq worth the sacrifices that would be necessary to win, and so McCain will no doubt lose his last real chance to become President.

Rudolph Giuliani tried to link himself to the late President Reagan by invoking his name many times. But he lacks Reagan's charisma, and his pro-choice stance (coupled with his messy personal history) will make him unacceptable to the GOP's fundamentalist/evangelical base. I was just waiting for someone to say , "Rudy, you're no Ronald Reagan!" His lead in the polls will vanish when religious conservatives unite behind a single candidate.

Ron Paul's isolationism is shared by millions of Americans, but none of them are Republicans, so his cause is doomed. The opposition to illegal immigration touted by Tancredo and Hunter are actually very popular with Republicans, but very few people will vote for President on that basis. All three congressmen are virtually unknown, and none of them have the money to overcome that.

The rest of the candidates (Thompson, Huckabee, Gilmore, and Brownback) all showed themselves to be competent and serious contenders for the support of the white, conservative, mainstream-Christian base of the Republican Party. None are as well-known as Giuliani and McCain, and none are as rich or impressive as Romney. Morevoer, none of them are from a big state. There is no reason to believe than any one of these four candidates can emerge from the second-tier .

My guess is that two or three of the prospective candidates (Fred Thompson, Gingrich, Hagel) will enter the race by Fall. Of these, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are well-known nationally, and will vault to the top tier of contenders quickly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Mormons believe that Joseph Smith (1805-1844) received a prophecy as great as that of the entire Bible. He taught that those who embraced his new faith would become "gods".

Demo Derby

Eight candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination fielded questions form NBC anchor Brian Williams April 26 at South Carolina State University . In case you did not catch the forum (mislabeled as a "debate"), here is the Glazerbeam take on it.

First, the questions posed by Mr Williams were often insulting, rather than probing. For example, Senator Biden was asked about his "uncontrolled verbosity", Senator Cllinton was asked about polls showing "high negatives" and Representative Kucinich and ex-Senator Gravel were categorized as sure losers. (OK, some of this is true.) Questions submitted by middle school students, bar-patrons or nursing home residents would probably have been more informative. Most of the candidates took the nasty barbs in good spirits.

But how did the candidates do?

Senator Hillary Clinton, the only woman in the race and the only ex-First Lady ever to run for office, would have stood out in the crowd without really trying. On the question about how to respond to terrorism, Clinton was the only candidate to use "retaliate" in her answer. She replied to other questions with confidence and knowledge, and probably confirmed her front-runner status.

Senator Barack Obama, whom fellow candidate Biden had previously praised as "articulate," was no more so than any of the other contenders on stage. He was affable and competent, but not very impressive. He opined that the Palestinians suffered as a result of the failure of their own leaders to make peace with Israel.

Ex-Senator John Edwards, the 2004 nominee for Vice President, seemed to have memorized a speech and delivered parts of it in response to questions. For example, Edwards ( a multi-millionaire) told a story about how his father had taken his family to a restaurant, but left without ordering because he could not afford the meals. The question was why Edwards paid for his $600 haircut with campaign funds. (True answer: good hair is the key to his appeal as a candidate for President!)

Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, two white-haired guys who have been in office as long as anyone can remember, gave similar bland answers to most questions. They will probably split the vote of those looking for a bland, older white man to nominate.

Governor Bill Richards, former Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of Energy, gave precise and relevant answers to every question. He was remarkably candid when he admitted giving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales some slack because he is a fellow Hispanic . Unlike the other candidates, Richards is not for more gun-control, except to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. ( This could be a tall order.)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who failed miserably in his 2004 quest for the Democratic nomination, emphasized his vote against the Iraq War and his demand for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He also offered to be an "even-handed" mediator between Israelis and Palestinians. The ex-Mayor of Cleveland came off as hard-left, mean-spirited, and bit self-righteous. Since nobody was for him anyway, he had nothing to lose.

Ex-Senator Mike Gravel, who had nominated himself for Vice President at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, could replace the late Rodney Dangerfield as the "man who gets no respect." Gravel complained that he was treated like a "potted palm" by the moderator, who seldom asked him anything. Gravel gives you an impression of what Kucinich might be like in about 25 years, assuming he is out of office all that time. In 2008, his main accomplishment might be to save Kucinich from the shame of coming last in every primary.

In my judgment, Hillary strengthened her lead, Barack and Edwards slipped a little, and Richardson picked up some support from people who had never heard of him before. The rest of them will keep fighting it out for last place.

Obama: Why the Hype?

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who recently declared his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, is running a solid second in most polls, just behind Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. The media hype has been constant since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Why?

Mr Obama has just completed two years in the Senate, and so far has done nothing to earn this attention. He is neither associated with any major legislation nor with taking any especially courageous position. He has never held a position of executive authority, such as governor or even mayor.

Among his rivals for the nomination are Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who has previously served as Secretary of Energy and ambassador. These men have more substantial resumes, but are not getting the "rock star" treatment that Clinton and Obama are getting in the media. (OK, some of the other candidates such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich and ex-Senators John Edwards and Mike Gravel deserve even less coverage than Obama, who at least represents a large state in the Senate.)

My theory is that Barack Obama's partial African ancestry goes a long way toward explaining his spectacular rise in the media and the polls in this age of " identity politics." The fact that his father was from Kenya and his mother was white makes him bi-racial, but the media usually just labels him "black" or African-American. Obama is only the third US Senator in over a hundred years to have any African ancestry, and this characteristic gives his candidacy a special cachet (1).

Several black candidates have sought the presidency, but none came anywhere near a major party nomination, even for Vice-President (2). Rep. Shirley Chisolm of Brooklyn ran in 1972, and finished far behind Senator George McGovern. Jesse Jackson sought the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988, and ex- Senator Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton went for it in 2004; all lost badly . Alan Keyes, a rightwinger who had served as an ambassador under President Ronald Reagan, sought the Republican nomination in 2000. (Keyes was later the Republican nominee for senator in Illinois in 2004, and lost to Barack Obama.)

The big difference between Obama and these other candidates is that he actually won a statewide office, which proved that he could successfully appeal to white voters in a general election. Jackson and Sharpton had made their careers in racial politics, stirring up black resentment against whites, especially Jews. Any Republcan could have beaten them in a predominantly white constituency. Although Keyes did not engage in racial polarization, he could not compete with candidates like George W Bush or John McCain, who had established political bases.

The public figure most politically similar to Barack Obama, a man of African descent who appeals to whites, is one who never ran for President: Colin Powell. In retrospect, Powell might well have won the 1996 Republican nomination for President, and probably would have done better than Bob Dole, who had litttle appeal beyond the GOP base. As the military leader during the 1991 Gulf War, Powell could have followed Dwight Eisenhower's path from the Army to the White House, but he had no appetite for politics.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has both the appetite and aptitude for politics in spades. On March 2 he addressed a mass meeting of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago, and told the Zionists what they wanted to hear, distinguishing himself from Jesse Jackson. He has already received big-time cash from Jewish moguls in Hollywood.

Whether the junior senator from Illinois can overtake Hillary Clinton, another exemplar of identity politics, will be tested less than ten months from now in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. He has a good start.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The other two were Edward Brooke of Massachusetts and Carol Mosely Braun, also of Illinois. Both lost.

(2) Several black candidates ran for President and VicePresident on minor party tickets, but none ever received a single electoral vote.