In contrast to the opinions of many generally astute commentators, I don't think it's much to this country's credit that a major party has made a (partly) Black man its presumptive nominee for the presidency. It would be less to our discredit if that party had nominated someone, of any race, other than Barack Obama, whom the non-partisan National Journal magazine named as having the farthest-Left voting record of any senator, who associates with false prophets and other radicals, and who owes his recent success to just two factors: 1) the very fact that he does belong to an ethnic minority, and 2) the fact of his almost total anonymity outside Illinois prior to late 2007. The first factor has already received comment from others, such as Missouri Congressman Clay (a Black Democrat), and so I'll reserve my remarks for the second one.
Some editorialists have observed that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to nominate surprise candidates; indeed, according to John Yoo in an opinion column called The Democrats’ Super Disaster, the concept of the "superdelegate" originated in the Democrats' desire to avoid repeats of just this sort of nomination, the sort that occurred in 1972 (McGovern) and 1976 (Carter). These editorialists, however, in attempting to explain the sudden prominence of B.O. despite his lack of distinction, always attribute it to either his supposed eloquence or a knack for political success. His public-speaking ability is adequate for a public-office seeker, but he doesn't qualify as any great orator. As for the depiction of him as an electoral juggernaut, it must be considered that, like Clinton in 1992, he won office in 2004 largely by default, for the campaigns of the Democratic front-runner and the Republican nominee both were sunk by personal scandals; in fact, when he had previously sought a seat in the US Senate he had lost the Democratic nomination (to a former Black Panther!), and even his initial election to the State Senate was effected by the disqualification of all his rivals.
Democratic politicians of the past several decades have, as a rule, had pronounced flaws, more of which become evident as time passes; logically, therefore, one who became a public figure recently will be viewed less negatively than one who has been well-known long enough for his poor judgement and low ethical standards to acquire infamy. I therefore posit that Obama, like the previous dark horses from his party, has benefitted from his hitherto obscurity. It may be only hypothesis, but until someone puts forth a better explanation, I'll go with this one.
