I would only add that if "experience during perilous times" is your litmus test for electing a president, you need only look to our last two presidents to realize that it didn't help them any.

Uh, Clinton and W didn't have any either. Neither did Reagan, and FDR's only real claim to foreign policy experience was some meddling in tiny Latin American politics while Asst Sec of the Navy, which is hardly preparation for Yalta. No one is claiming Reagan and FDR had failed foreign policies. Bill Richardson has a nice resume, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Bottom line, I think this line of argument against Obama is pretty lame. But unless the Republicans nominate McCain, they won't really be able to make an issue of it anyway since the others don't really have much fp experience either.

You should try a little harder at not refuting your own moronic point while in the midst of making it.

The fact that Obama is supported and Steele loses should tell you pretty clearly that it isnt some racism / guilt dynamic going on, but merely the rather obvious - that people just happen to agree more with Obama than with Steele.

(Meanwhile, Michael Steele is still the defeated candidate from Maryland--a state with a politically active black population--and had to settle for a GOPAC chairmanship. So much for progressive "enlightenment.")

His chief liability is the flip side of that: whether people will risk turning the country over to someone with so little experience during perilous times.

I would only add that if "experience during perilous times" is your litmus test for electing a president, you need only look to our last two presidents to realize that it didn't help them any. Clinton and Bush are failures in that department and to think/believe that age comes with wisdom is to admit your a dumbass yourself.

Let’s not forget that he ran against Alan Keyes, a man who’s not only several shades darker than him and a resident of Maryland but a certifiable loon. I wouldn’t extrapolate a whole lot from that victory.

For what it's worth, his State Senate District was probably 60% white.

His chief liability is the flip side of that: whether people will risk turning the country over to someone with so little experience during perilous times.

Of course, this will also be a great asset to Hussein. His argument that the wise old men Cheney & Rumsfeld were among the most "experienced" public servants in Washington resonates with the idea that judgment and intelligence should count for something.

Let’s not forget that he ran against Alan Keyes, a man who’s not only several shades darker than him and a resident of Maryland but a certifiable loon. I wouldn’t extrapolate a whole lot from that victory.

Add that the Illinois Republican Party has gone completely off the rails. That they couldn't get the competent but dull Judy Barr Topinka elected over our half-wit governor Rod Blagojevich is, as much as anything else, an indication of how supine the party is here.

There are a few signs that the national party is similarly, shall we say, far from hinged. I thought so back in 2000 when George W. Bush became the establishment candidate. If Mike Huckabee becomes the Republican candidate for the presidency, it will be proof positive that's the case.