Obama for Prez: Because he's black

Let's Get It Over With

I'm coming out right now in support of Barack Hussein Obama for our next president. (Even though I think McCain is going to win it in '08). Why? Because he's black. Why else? No particular reason.

My mention of his middle name, Hussein, is no accident. Because already the right-wing media are calling him by his full, er, Christian name. And they're not doing it because they're sticklers for detail. No, the reason they're doing it - Americans' latent racism and fear of Arab-Muslims - is the very same reason we need to elect a black president.

I wouldn't care if his name were Barack Saddam Hussein bin Laden al-Zarqawi Obama. No, on second thought, that would be even better, like killing two racist birds with one stone: electing a black Arab-Muslim president. Imagine that! They'd surely fly the Confederate flag at half mast in South Carolina the day a black camel jockey got elected president. Nevertheless, they'd eventually get over it. After all, they got over getting their asses whupped in the Civil War. (Well, sort of.) Surely they can handle one little old election.

To tell the truth, I don't know much about Obama. I know he's a junior senator from Illinois without much experience. I know he wrote a book, "The Audacity of Hope," and he's touring the country talking about, well, hope. But let's be honest. In actual fact, he's trying to stir up interest in his 2008 presidential bid. And for the time being, it's working. (Partly, I think the Lib'rul Media loves the idea of what an angry Hillary Clinton might say or do when rookie Obama steals her thunder, which is one reason they're playing him up.)

But before you accuse me of being a liberal opportunist jumping on the "Obama bandwagon," let me assure you that I'd also vote for Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell for president, if either of them could ever get the GOP nomination. (On FOX and other conservative sites, you could in fact, until recently, see advertisements asking readers "Should Condi run in 2008?") Yes, Condi's a rhetorically challenged intellectual lightweight in a job that's supposed to be all about brains and suasion; and Colin's a spineless yes-man who bitterly criticized Bush among his personal confidants, but dutifully towed the neocon line public. And yes, both of them could be accused of "Tomming" for a Republican administration that only wanted a prominent black seal of approval on its idioticly destructive foreign policy.

But even so, I'd vote for either of them. Because they're black.

You may consider nominating Obama just because he's black a bit cynical. But regardless of when it finally happens, or which party nominates the first black man, the other side will certainly accuse its rivals of cynical racial pandering. I guarantee it. So, it doesn't really matter if the Dems or the GOP go first. One party just needs to ignore the criticism, nominate a black man and get it over with.

But why this fixation on a black president anyway? Because America clearly has a race problem that won't go away. And nothing would do more to erase that problem than to break America's black presidential "hymen," as it were. The first time is always the scariest - and most painful. But it's been more than 200 years already... Why don't we just pour ourselves a glass of wine, put on some Barry White, take a deep breath, and get it over with?

After all, it would only be for four years. Even after eight catastrophic years of Bush, our country will still be salvageable. (Made more salvageable by a Democrat majority in Congress, to be sure). The potential harm done by an inexperienced, over-hopeful Obama, a twit like Condi, or congenital political coward like Powell, would be far outweighed by the benefits of a black U.S. president.

Just think about it. Blacks would vote in record numbers in 2008, of course Democrat. But the GOP, which is always more electorally savvy than the Democrats, would likely decide to run a black presidential candidate the next time, which would be a real humdinger of a pickle. Imagine a Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Ken Blackwell, or even clueless Condoleeza Rice vs. an incumbent Barack Obama in 2012! How would the black vote split then?

I'm telling you, once we get it over with, the next time will be easier, and the next time easier still. Call it "Affirmative Action for the Oval Office," call it what you will. I don't care. Remember, I'm trying to persuade you here, I'm not asking anybody to pass a law.

Forget this crap about electing Hillary because we "need" a female president. That's a half measure. Moreover, it's already been done. Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Finland, the Netherlands -- even Latvia -- have elected women prime ministers and presidents. Surrender monkey central France looks like it will be next in line.

But have any of those whitebread liberal-socialist countries, who love to take us to task for racial inequality, ever elected a black man to lead their country? Or an Arab? Or anybody of color? Hell, no! So why follow in their whiny, wimpy, white footsteps? Let's show them what real egalite is all about. Let's elect a black president! After that, electing a lily-white, uppercrust "liberal" hag like Hillary would be greeted by many Americans as a temporary relief.

Once we take the plunge and elect a black man for president, it will matter significantly less if future presidential candidates will be from Mars, Venus, the Hamptons or Harlem - people will look at the (D) or (R) behind his or her name and what s/he stands for, not his or her sex or race.

And best of all, America - so often regarded in the rest of the West as a racist, reprobate, chest-pounding nation on steroids - would be the jaw-dropping envy of the holier-than-thou, liberal-pacifist-socialist world.

(And who knows? It might even make Muslims like us better, not that that matters.)

Take that, Tarja Halonen!