An asset Obama has that isn't talked about much

[Ted King]

I'm very confident Obama will be elected. I have thought for a long time that it would be a fairly narrow "victory" (1-2%), but with the economy tanking so badly he may win by more than a couple of percent. Electoral College wise, I think he will get anywhere from the 280's on the low side to the mid-300's on the higher end. Nothing prescient about saying that, though. :-)

What I think is interesting is that one of the most beneficial aspects of Obama becoming president will be how positively he is generally viewed throughout the world. That will have a profound impact for the US and the rest of the world. And yet it is not mentioned in the campaign. I wonder why. My suspicion is that Obama is concerned that highlighting his popularity worldwide could be used by McCain's campaign to reinforce the (I think, bogus) notion that he is more interested in foreign interests than US interests (as though it's a zero sum game with doing what is better for the world necessarily implying that the US would be worse off). Yet, McCain himself doesn't seem to want to be talking about the possibility that Obama may be seen as very popular throughout the world because to do so would imply he wouldn't be.

It has been suggested that Obama may be a "transformative" political figure - even by some notable Republicans. That may very well turn out to be the case when it comes to domestic issues, but I think it will almost surely be the case with respect to relationships with much of the rest of the world.

I'd be interested to hear what others think of this.

[PeterB]

Ted -- I think the reason he hasn't played that up is because of the confounding nationalism in some segments of the U.S. -- in other words, some people here could care less about how we're viewed around the world, or worse, have taken "patriotism" to mean "we're #1" (it doesn't, one can hold one's country dear while still being aware that we may not be so much better than everywhere else). That is to say, his popularity worldwide could have been a detractor for him, rather than being viewed as a positive thing.

A big problem is that I'm not convinced he will win by a resounding (>10% popular vote) margin, which means that about half the country is against him. That itself will be a huge hurdle for him to overcome during his administration.

As for him being a transformative figure -- I do think we are witnessing history here. I would love for our country and the world to take another step closer to the 22nd century ... get us into the 21st, at the very least. Occasionally I do think the future as portrayed in Star Trek (a united planet, races working together, egalitarianism, solving of many of the planet's problems) does actually have a chance of happening.

[mattkime]

i largely agree with everything said here but its too politically touchy for either candidate to approach directly.

there are a disappoint number of americans that believe our foreign policy is only for helping us be better than them. look at what that has gotten us over the last 8 years.

[Doc]

The moment he appears in the same room as François Fillon, nearly half the country is going to decide on the spot that he really is a socialist elitist.

[graylocks]

what can you expect. i doubt we've even seen a photo-op of Obama eating french fries.

[Black Landlord]

PeterB wrote:
Occasionally I do think the future as portrayed in Star Trek (a united planet, races working together, egalitarianism, solving of many of the planet's problems) does actually have a chance of happening.

I've often wondered why there are still races on Star Trek.

[x-uri]

Black Landlord wrote:

I've often wondered why there are still races on Star Trek.

Possibly because it was a TV show about 1960s America, and not a window into the actual future.

Edit: Also, the budget didn't run to enough body paint to make everyone beige.

[Pam]

Not to mention it all plays on the poor blacks living off everyone else stereotype.

(BTW, more whites are on the welfare rolls)

[Black Landlord]

x-uri wrote:
[quote=Black Landlord]

I've often wondered why there are still races on Star Trek.

Possibly because it was a TV show about 1960s America, and not a window into the actual future.

Edit: Also, the budget didn't run to enough body paint to make everyone beige.
Thanks, cleared that one right up for me.

[Black Landlord]

So, theoretically, if one wanted to cast a show entirely of persons appearing to be of mixed/indeterminate race, would one be legally able to?