I think Glenn somewhat missed what John was talking about re: acting white. I think John's point was, that although there may be people in the private lives of Black America that place an emphasis on education, intellectual curiosity, playing by the rules etc. (parents, priests etc.) there haven't been too many in the public sphere. Rappers, and athletes are not quite the same role-model material as, President of the most powerful nation in the world. This is not to say that it is somehow Obama's job to reshape black culture, but his simply being out there as an example of what black (or any other color) children can aspire to, is undeniably a great thing. Of course that didn't stop TNC from giving John a beatdown on this point: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c...lack_nerds.php

I suspect John is right that peer pressure against academic achievement among middle and upper middle class blacks will be less effective now. Otherwise, I doubt that our next president's name or color will much matter. His political skills and policy preferences, as well as those of his allies and his opponents, along with the actions of others around the world and random natural events, will determine the ultimate outcome of his presidency.

I agree with Glenn: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...4:00&out=15:24 That was one of the most uplifting moments of the speech.

Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

Both John and Glenn seem quite confused to me. Glenn started out questioning whether concentrated power into a unique institutional figure was realistically the way to get change. He wondered out-loud if real change doesn't actually come from civil society instead. Then, a few minutes later, he's wishing for pseudo-revolutionary cataclysmic scenarios where reality is radically transformed via sweeping "wars on poverty" etc...and if Obama doesn't accomplish this, then he'll be let down. John on the other hand started out arguing that the president's persona and skin-color (the symbolism) matter with regard to our culture. I can agree with that. But then he lets his euphoria extend this claim from culture to the actual institutional role of the president, which leads him to speculate that even terrorists might come to like Obama because of his skin-color and his middle-name. But wait a minute, aren't the rulers of middle-eastern countries some of the most hated by the terrorists? What can skin-color and middle-names have to do with that? I, for one, do not think that a president's persona can have any influence whatsoever on its institutional role. The challenge is gargantuan: one

Oh, for heaven's sake. Get a grip. Presidents routinely express solidarity with the suffering, oppressed people of the world. Even that avatar of evil, G. W. Bush, did so in his 2nd augural. An excerpt: Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." There's lots more in the same speech, and I'd bet, in most important speeches by most presidents.

The profundity of Barack Obama. Obama's acknowledgement of the rest of the world -- his embrace of humanity beyond our shores -- is a far more effective anti-terrorism weapon than the sneering contempt of the neocons and, particularly, Bush/Cheney. Sure, there will always be ultra-right wing religious fanatics. But our chances of discovering and intercepting plots to harm America (and Israel are far better when the people of the world identify more with us than they do with Islamic extremists. Where Bush, Cheney, and the hate mongering right have pushed the world away from America, Obama will draw them in.

Quoting TwinSwords: The profundity of Barack Obama.

Obama's acknowledgement of the rest of the world -- his embrace of humanity beyond our shores -- is a far more effective anti-terrorism weapon than the sneering contempt of the neocons and, particularly, Bush/Cheney. Sure, there will always be ultra-right wing religious fanatics. But our chances of discovering and intercepting plots to harm America (and Israel are far better when the people of the world identify more with us than they do with Islamic extremists. Where Bush, Cheney, and the hate mongering right have pushed the world away from America, Obama will draw them in.

Except that the neocons where posing as the last ray of hope for people huddled in prisons under ruthless dictators etc, etc...and with those noble goals did what they did. So Obama speaks to other huddled folks around the world. What's he going to do for them? What can he do for them? What other consequences will his actions have if he tries to do something, etc...imagery is fine and swell, but I don't think we can escape some harsh realities here.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree with Glenn:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...4:00&out=15:24

That was one of the most uplifting moments of the speech.

I couldn't agree more.

Shorter Unit: Because I can bring up George W. Bush as an example of something being horribly botched no matter what the issue, I believe I have proved that Obama has no hope of accomplishing anything. Tremble before my sophomoric cynicism!

Quoting otto: Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

Really? Hmm, he looked good that way, but I like to watch Glenn in any pose he would wish to strike in front of the camera. (Yes, alright, I like John too, don't get peeved. But Glenn is such an attractive man... oh dear. I actually live six time zones in the future, so not to worry, this is strictly a virtual infatuation.) This was not the cathartic dialogue I had been anticipating. It had a certain resignation to it, as if both John and Glenn had already said and wrote everything there was to say about the Obama win in the days previous to taping.
They were opined-out, if you allow me this ugly neologism. Maybe because the next two months of transition are going to be so sloppy and slow, they should get out and about for a bit and meet up again after January 20, 2009 to talk with renewed gusto about Obama and his administration. Me, as an onlooker, should take some of this same medicine, probably. And some of my esteemed co-commenters.

Quoting Kandigol: This was not the cathartic dialogue I had been anticipating. It had a certain resignation to it, as if both John and Glenn had already said and wrote everything there was to say about the Obama win in the days previous to taping.
They were opined-out, if you allow me this ugly neologism.

Perhaps Eric Alterman's view will serve as an antidote.

Can we please wait for President-Elect Barack H. Obama to be (officially elected in December) actually inaugurated before discussing his performance? The rhetoric is expressionistic. At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks. I need a Cato Institute fellow for measure.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter Unit: Because I can bring up George W. Bush as an example of something being horribly botched no matter what the issue, I believe I have proved that Obama has no hope of accomplishing anything. Tremble before my sophomoric cynicism!

Brendan, I'm sorry if I don't share TwinSwords (and your?) simple view of the world: when the bad party of hate is in power everything is bad, when the good party of love is in power, everything will be good. You're right I probably already mention this: the left was very good at demystifying the presidency, at warning us about presidential power and abuse etc....Now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the president can do no wrong? Maybe you can explain to me why the incentives driving the president have changed so drastically. Does Obama want to have less power than Bush? Have you heard him say he wants to end the war on drugs and the war on terrorism? Nope, sounds like he wants to start a new one on poverty instead. Look they themselves are acknowledging by their choice of words that the only thing they know

I, for one, do not think that a president's persona can have any influence whatsoever on its institutional role.

Disagree. Though it doesn't change the institutional role, the persona of the President (or any other grand figure in world goverment) directly effects the way people respond to him and thus his ability to get things done. While it doesn't necesarrily make or break him, his/her character (as it is perceived) is often the first consideration by whoever they deal with. Ahmedinajad is a case in point. His policies are not that much crazier than the typical Iranian ruler, but his offensive antics and attitude have made him into even more of a boogeyman than he would be otherwise. President Clinton's persona helped him in good ways (seen relatively favorably by the world) and bad ways (persecution by the GOP.) George W Bush has been perceived by many to be arrogant and to not even consider the positions of all the other countries on earth, or the established systems of law. This is why so many around the world are thrilled at the prospect of Obama as President. Reagan would

I agree. I especially love the Reps who are already screaming and hollering about how awful Obama is gonna be...60+ days before he even takes the oath. I wish the rumors of Hillary as Sec of State, had been out when they did this 'vlog. I would have liked to see Glenn's reaction to the idea of Obama tapping his girl Hillary for such an eminent position.

Kandigol, Hello! I like these 2 diavloggers but haven't listened to it yet. Also, I have read books by both of them which I haven't done with too many others that appear here. I am wondering what more they have to offer on this topic since they have done so many already. Perhaps, it's time to acknowledge the campaign is over and for me to stop analyzing it. What I am focusing now will be Obamas cabinet as he assembles it. So far not a lot has happening but the pace will quicken as time goes on. Not giving a lot of details in the campaign and doing the obligatory flip-flopping my focus will be on the "change" that he emphazied or promised to bring to Washington. Granted, it's a nebulous word but I am interested on how he moves to implement it. John

Quoting otto: Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

totally agree. anyway, a solid diavlog - as always - from these two. and i agree with the esteemed professor Loury that if obama sticks with the small-bore, his presidency will be a profound disappointment. also, i'm not sure if it's my own residual intolerance, but something grates when Glenn exclaims "Barack Hussein Obama!" can't really put my finger on why, but something about that particular phrasing bothers me . . .

Dr. J, i think there are a couple reasons why this sentiment is being so remarked upon in this instance, even though you are correct that other leaders have made similiar statements in the past. Here's just a couple possibilities that come to mind: 1.) Meaning- if you look at the statement that George H Bush made, it is very different in it's implied message than what Obama said. Specifically if you put it into the context of the Bush/Reagan years and the notable tendency that the US government had in slipping their hands into civil disputes in Central America etc. Bush's statement sounds more like it was aimed at repressed peoples in those areas and as a signal that he intends to continue the kindof covert operations and support that Reagan established as an extension of the Cold War mindset. 2.) Sincerity- though many politicians may make grand statements aimed at global audiences, one of the reasons why Obama's statement is so well received is because it sounds like he means it. Not just because he is a good speaker and it was an eloquent line. But

What is all this talk, on the bhtv forum and in the diavlogs, about nuclear disarmament? I don't remember hearing anything about it in the campaign. Is it because Samantha Power wrote something about it?
Even if American foreign policy becomes quasi-pacifist under Obama, which it won't, why would other nations adopt similar attitudes?
What's in it for other nuclear powers? Why would Russians, for example, do away with their nuclear arsenal just because Americans elected a black president? Russia, not so long ago, had a drunkard for a president and I don't recall Americans going ahead and sinking their airplane carriers. All this shall pass. After Obama, there will be other presidents with different foreign policies. Not to mention how fast intellectual fads among elites change. They will go five times from pacifism to bellicosity and back, before the first Obama's mandate is over.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I wish the rumors of Hillary as Sec of State, had been out when they did this 'vlog. I would have liked to see Glenn's reaction to the idea of Obama tapping his girl Hillary for such an eminent position.

Interesting thoughts from Al Giordano on the Clinton chatter.

Quoting Baltimoron: Can we please wait for President-Elect Barack H. Obama to be (officially elected in December) actually inaugurated before discussing his performance? The rhetoric is expressionistic. At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks.

I need a Cato Institute fellow for measure.

Yes, back to the feeling that nothing can be done! Why be impressionistic about the future when we could be talking about whether or not the White House office manager is a vulgar guy.

Good points. Considering how well the Obama team has been about leaks, it would be odd fore such a HUGE one to be the first. Especially since picking HRC would go against many of the better interests of Obama. Consider me in the Hillary's-people-floated-this camp.

Yeah. As much as I agree with the logic behind it, Glenn's in-your-face-ness is somewhat offputting. It reminds me of basketball court smack-talk (something that has always annoyed me.)

At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks.

Emanuel was already forced to apologize to the Arab-Muslim community for a racist comment his father made to an Israeli newspaper. No drama Obama? Dad: "Obviously, he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Son: "From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family."

One kidneystones point for you, Wonderment.