I don't think he was talking about HRC. He is speaking of being in the general against a rather conventional candidate.

I think he was speaking past HRC - but that's just what I thought first.

It's not by a lack of humility that he speaks past her at this point. Her chances of doing well against him are narrower day by day.

Isn't it possible he referred to Clinton as a "conventional candidate" not because she is white but because for many months, even years, she was considered the inevitable nominee? She was the establishment pick -- there's nothing more "conventional" than that -- and he was the underdog.

Of course, he did suggest he was an underdog because of his race, which invites the thinking Debra displays.

After reading the rest of the dialect between Obama and Cooper on CNN's post, I have to disagree with Ms Dickerson. While I respect her caution and watchfulness, I think that Obama was referring to "other conventional candidates" as reflected by the *conventional* politics being played out in their campaigns. He follows his statement with this paragraph:

"If I was just running the textbook campaign -- doing the conventional thing -- I probably wasn't going to win because Sen. [Hillary] Clinton was going to be much more capable of doing that than I would be… We had tremendous success, and I think we were starting to get a little comfortable and conventional right before Texas and Ohio."

It's possible that he caught himself and used that next paragraph to camouflage his comments, but it doesn't strike me that way. I think instead that he was trying to point out that (considering the context) Clinton - as a conventional candidate - would not have taken the risky chance to stand up and make the speech and tackle issues that Obama has.

He did say "elected" and not "nominated". I do believe he was referring to the general election and not the Democratic nomination.

I'm looking this from the outside, as I'm not an American. And I must confess that American liberals make no sense to me; their eagerness to rip each other apart is so unbelievable. It reminds me of whiny teenagers, if they can't get every single thing that they want from their candidate, they'd rather sulk and hand the election to the conservatives than make the tiniest compromise with the members of their own party. Fortunately this year it does not really matter, since all candidates are quite decent.

I'm politically so far to the left that I'm off the American political map, but I really would not mind if John McCain was elected. That's why this uproar over ultra-microscopic differences between Obama and Clinton is so baffling.

I think you have us pegged wrongly, tommi. Sure, most of us have our preference, but we would gladly, easily, and painlessly accept the other liberal candidate if ours wasn't up for grabs, the alternative being 4 more years of essentially Bush theory in the white house.

It's the national media (including Mother Jones) that casts such a nitpicky spotlight on Clinton and Obama. Their business is news, so when there's little else to report on, they begin to dig, analyze, and explain.

And freak the rest of us out.

It seems the big players (this time excluding Mother Jones) have been paid off (or rather, their parent companies have been) to begin covering the American Election to the exclusion of the war in Iraq. There is little-to-no coverage these days in the US of that atrocity, hence public approval of the war rising slightly after hitting an all-time low a few months back.

Strangely, most of the American liberals I've met (including me) are to the left of American politics, as well. It's just that we live in a nation populated with frustratingly centrist (or alarmingly right-wing) people.

Or maybe he was just referring to the fact that she's from the ranks of the DNC and was the frontrunner. She has in a sense labeled herself the conventional candidate with her Washington experience platform. Come on people, if we look at every comment as some kind of subliminal prejudice, no one will take us seriously when it actually happens.

If Obama is "unconventional", what does that make me? a Metophysical Anomoly?

Billary is not “conventional” because there are two of them in there.

McCain is not conventional because as a Republican, his “sex scandal” involved a woman.

This is all useless waste of good steam.

If Hillary is considered conventional because she is part of the powers that be that comprise the DNC, then what is Obama? After all, thanks to the Clintons, he was invited to address the Democratic Convention thereby garnering the national attention he needed to become the "unconventional" candidate he purports to be today. . .

Hmmm...A black man running for president. At the beginning of this election, before Iowa, I seem to remember people wondering if it was possible for a black man to be president. Everyone assumed Hillary could be, as the Democratic frontrunner against an imploding Republican party. Then he took the lead. Now all of a sudden, people are jumping up and down and shouting, "Hey look! A black man running for president!" I think that's what he was referring to.

Thanks Falafel for including his additional comments. While I do see where Ms. Dickerson is coming from, I'm really getting tired of reporters,journalists, bloggers, etc. (on both sides) taking one line and analyzing it without complete context.

I am tired of the press hammering on Obama for what his minister said. As a member of the protestant faith, I disagree with many ministers...doesn't make me them when they say something out of line.

As to Hillary, why haven't we seen this:

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6117

Clinton's former pastor sentenced to prison for sexually assaulting a 7 year-old girl.

Might want to check this out as well:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/

Published on Thursday, March 20, 2008 by The Nation
Hillary’s Nasty Pastorate
by Barbara Ehrenreich

Here is a humorous feminist who thinks you are way off base here. But then I have studied Obama intensely for the past three months and feel I know him somewhat better than the average person (yeah, my Barack IQ at the Chicago Tribune is 100%).

His campaign positioned itself as a non-traditional campaign, not focusing on polls and focus groups, but rather on consistency of narrative and message. His candidacy is not so much about issues as it is about the process of leadership. It is should also be obvious that Clinton has extensive ties in the Democratic party machinery in many states, particularly "the big states".

So when he describes her as a conventional candidate he is remarkably non-sexist in that he is viewing her candidacy not through any gender or racial lens, but through the lenses I have described above.

I have done some phone banking for Obama and occasionally had some interesting discussions with Clinton supporters. There seems to be a great deal of projection going on here, in that they seem very focused on her candidacy as a woman, and they talk a lot about their support in terms of wanting to see a woman in the White House, then they tack on something about her experience. They then make a leap and project onto Obama that his candidacy is somehow about race, when for Obama himself, it clearly isn't. Hillary herself has done the same things in the debates I watch, consistently making comments linking race and gender in terms of why this race is historic. Barack smiles politely but it is clear this isn't his message.

I think Obama's campaign is historic not because it is about an African-American candidate but because of all the innovative and creative methods the campaign has employed. As one article wrote, Obama's campaign is a Mac. Clinton's is a PC.

Barack is about process more than policy. He is about running a grassroots campaign and a 50 state strategy. He is about changing how we talk about issues and how we conduct ourselves in a campaign. He is running an unconventional campaign. Hillary's methods and tactics contrast sharply, hence are conventional.

Sorry, but I don't think the fact that Hillary is a woman makes her campaign unconventional. Perhaps I am further along in my feminism than this writer is.

Lynda, that "Clinton's pastor" bit is Clinton, NY (near Utica) NOT Clinton as in Hillary.

Stupid people! Know what you read and put some thought and context to it. Now, the Comon Dreams article has some truth to it.

Excellent comments by Leslie in Ky. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama was referring to the style and substance of the campaign rather than the race/gender paradigm.

Ummmm... I think you're over-thinking this Debra and making connections that are simply not there... i.e... saying he is not "conventional" doesn't mean that Hillary is any less "conventional". He did not say that.

I also don't think he was comparing his candidacy to Clinton's. They are both unconventional candidates.

Debra,
Thank you so much for so clearly articulating the struggle that I, too, am having in deciding who I want to vote for in the PA primary. As a fellow feminist, I see so clearly the sexism Hillary has had to endure through this campaign (even though, as is evident from the backlash of negative responses you've gotten from your post, men want to insist that has nothing to do with it). But I am uplifted, too, by Obama; what he says and the progress he stands for. For every wow moment, there's a downside. Hillary is unconventional, as a woman. But she is white - conventional. Obama is unconventional as black, but he's a man - conventional. It would be one thing if they both stood for drastically different things, but they're positions are very similar. So I feel that in the end, people are siding with one over the other because of whatever their racial or sexist biases are, and that makes the whole thing feel dirty. I keep thinking about what Bell Hooks said in a talk I heard her give last night at UPenn, that patriarchy has no gender. Only I don't feel that has gotten me any closer to knowing who would be the best candidate.
Thank you for your post. It makes having gotten all of Jonathan Stein's sexist spewings all worth it!

"Just 'cause it's subtle don't mean it ain't there."

On the other hand, just because you're seeing it, doesn't mean it's not your imagination. Can we please do issues and character instead of parsing intent on a syllabic level?

First, couldn't he have been talking about McCain? Second, except for her gender, Clinton is about as conventional a democrat as you could hope to find. Third, Obama is running against a humorless feminist, so I think he is probably well aware of how cranky and judgmental they can be!

Greytdog I think you're confusing the facts. It was John Kerry, not the Clintons, that invited Obama to speak at the National Convention in 2004. John Kerry and the Clintons ain't exactly friends for reasons most Democrats remember. So, no, Obama does not owe the Clintons for his rise in Democratic Party politics or national visibility. Which is all beside the point in this thread.

More relevant is the observation that many have made that taking a snipet of information and trying to wring so much blood out of it isn't doing us all much good. Sad that a few video clips cobbled together and posted on the web, hopefully not by a Democratic candidate's campaign, and a rabid spin-out by the press has turned a man who honorably served this country as a marine, operated on President Lyndon Johnson and received a commendation from the White House for it, and was on more than one occasion invited to the White House as a respected religious leader by none other than President Clinton, has now been turned into a caricature and the object of every imaginable form of hate that this nation can muster. And there doesn't seem to be any end in sight for this snip-and-spin punditry even among progressives as evidenced in this blog.

Welcome to campaign '08.

I think this blog is a bit of a stretch. Do we really have to overanalyze every single sentence a politician says? No wonder good people don't become politicians.

Am I the only one on the planet who is beyond sick of obama?

"And, by the way, since when is Hillary a conventional candidate"

Her name is "Clinton," she's as conventional as you can get.

Sometimes it's impossible to read Dickerson's opinions without getting the feeling that she really does know better - that she's willing to misstate her true opinions for the sake of argument - that her iconoclastic ambitions take precedence over her adherence to common sense.

I don't believe she could've been seriously upset by the "conventional candidate" comment. She's intelligent enough to figure out what he meant:

Clinton is a conventional candidate in 3 ways:
1) her name - duh!
2) her fundraising tactics
3) her divisive politics

Not only humorless, Ms. Dickerson, but tasteless as well...

I can't help but wonder if she'll ever turn her iconoclastic slant toward the conventionally-accepted definition of feminism...or rather, will Ms. Dickerson ever realize that she's not a feminist...more like the bloggers' equivalent of a troll [deleted]

Obama is unconventional not because he's the member of a historically oppressed minority group, but because he doesn't hide his thoughts behind dumbed down Hallmark platitudes or impenetrable wonkitude. He's unconventional because he's - and I say this with awe and admiration - literary.

Wow!! I've been censored on Mojo!!

For the record, I didn't use any profanity in my comment above. I simply went on to compare Ms. Dickerson to a chimpanzee who stands in a corner flinging poo at everyone and everything...later stopping to ask rhetorical questions and assert that everyone deserves to be hit with handfulls of poo sometimes.

I apologize if that offended anyone besides Ms. Dickerson...

"How dare he!" Simple. Because every smart, non-prejudice person who can read English can dare. As I do to. Even your quote, if it's accurate, says "some of the other candidates." Some. Not all. Hillary certainly isn't some in this instance and I think he's well aware of it. Neither is she conventional in that she'd the first viable female presidential candidate. So, all the others being from the political "norm" in our society, at least as far as "race," a term I don't agree with, and "sex" go, this comment makes simple, logical sense and is entirely correct in every logical interpretation.

He knows, as everyone else does too, that simply because of his ethnic background he wasn't as likely to get the nod. And, even though the press likes to build up then tear down, the supposed early front runner, Hillary, also faced the same reduced likelihood because of her sex.

How dare he? Same as I or anyone else with sense dare. Because it's true.

Fact is, whether we're making a Coke/Pepsi choice between Clinton and Obama, there is a difference. She's the face of the establishment, the cautious favorite of the DLC. He's the Jimmy Carter of this race, although I don't think he'll win.

Fact is, McCain will win. Just as sure as Diebold still makes voting machines.

I'm just trying to get my fiance to agree with me so we can leave this shit country, and its mockery of democracy, mockery of choice, together.

I'm far enough to the left that I think the Democratic party are mostly a bunch of wimps, some of them (like Lieberman) almost Republicans. The labels don't mean anything anymore.

Coke vs Pepsi.

Behemoth vs Behemoth.

My choice? To bow out as soon as I'm able, because I have no way to make this shit change, the machine is too well oiled. I'd kill myself, but I have obligations.

Sixty years ago, my high school science teacher warned on the first day of class: “I will never fail you for giving me the wrong answer. I will, however, fail you for accepting the wrong question.” I didn’t understand him then, but after six decades in the school of hard knocks I reluctantly admit the wisdom of his words. In these critical times, it looks as if Americans have accepted the wrong question—the question of race in the United States.

Senator Barack Obama is right. To focus on race in this country is a distraction from crucial issues of survival at home and abroad. But Senator Obama is also wrong. In these times he can best serve all Americans as a preacher, not a president.

To embark on a “national debate” on race now is to distract from crucial issues affecting all Americans black and white alike: a fast-sinking economy, sickening banking and health care systems, a home mortgage meltdown, and preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq draining blood and treasure, and global warming, to name but a few. To avert our eyes now will assure that all Americans, regardless of race, will go down with the same ship to drown in a colorblind sea.

How many of the candidates are poor? None. They are all wealthy. Let’s get passed who is female, who is black, who is old, who is left or who is right. These “differences” - gender, ethnicity/race, nationality, religion, age, sexuality, etc. – are merely ways to “divide” people for the purpose of keeping the wealthy elite rich and powerful. The rich (all 3% of them) got us fighting each other (all 97% of us) while they continue their greedy quest to own and control everything.

Debra, I think you are tired because you are spending so much time digging deep and blurring your eyes in search of a bone to pick here. It is sad that even Mother Jones has to attempt to write their own words in between the lines.

Your argument, in my opinion, is based on very little solid ground.

STOP IT. Just stop it. We are so damned tired of this endless race and gender juggernauting. We have the Republicans to beat. The last thing we need to do just now is get creeped out fighting over whether a black man or a white woman is preferable (with nitpicking for sexism -- from obama? come on... and racism -- from hillary? -- cut it out)and ignoring the very real creepiness that another 4 years of republican leadership would bring. It's all just playing into that hand. Idiots.

Dickerson:

You are a true representation of weak Black womanhood.

Pretty weak argument. I think you are putting Hillary in a box by not recognizing her as a conventional candidate. So because she's a woman she cannot be regarded as part of the Democratic/Political establishment? What is more sexist the possibly veiled language on Obama's part or your assertion that because she's a woman she cannot be considered conventional?

Oh come now, humorless bat chit?

"Am I the only one on the planet who is beyond sick of obama?"

No, silverlucie, you are not alone.

Confrontation, the need to posit one's own views as opposed to falling in line with another's, is the very essence of what a liberal is all about. What some might deem as argumentative, is merely the exercise of free speech to a liberal.

Uh, no, wait a minute. I side with Dickerson on this one. We've been talking about this over at Shakespeare's Sister. Isn't this the same yahoo who made the crack about HRC "periodically feeling down"? I have it on pretty good authority from women who have worked in the corporate boardroom environment that this is just upper-class-speak for "b**ch is on the rag."

He's very subtle with it, but he knows what he's doing. If you want to ignore his sexism just so you don't have to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, well, I just hope y'all are happy with yet another Democrat who only cares about women when it means he can keep abortion legal so he doesn't get caught cheating on his wife and doesn't have to pay child support. Myself, I have had my fill of that kind of male "progressive" and I would kick all of you out of the party if I could.

Perhaps it is time you (we) humorless feminists developed a sense of humor and began to laugh at our whiney-selves.

How many other candidates have an African parent and an American parent? How many have spent time living in a third world country, or have half siblings living in Europe, Asia, Africa and America? Come to think of it how many past presidential candidates have this kind of background? Do we have to be dumbed down even more and explained what constitutes or is meant by being "a conventional candidate?"

As feminists it would seem to me that we would be proud of his courageous (truly feminist) mother, who nurtured an incredibly compassionate human being and who did what most of us would never consider - live among non-whites in a poor (hostile) country. But no, what we to do is succumb to the familiar - whine about someone else getting more attention than we get!

As a black feminist I am sick and tired of hearing the rhetoric and the unwillingness for white women to acknowledge that they too have benefited by affirmative action and that oppression is not limited to gender! But really as Fanny Lou Hammer said, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired." Why aren't you?

Careful, Obama. Humorless Feminists Are Watching? but most people like my STD friends are support Obama

Tommi,
I'm sorry you don't see much difference between McCain and the two Dems. I see it our choice as between continuing the Bushit versus discountinuing it. Eoungh difference to consider which dem gets us to victory most reliably.
Jim

March 21, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net

“Like A Storm”

I am amazed at what I have seen among young voters in this country. I am equally amazed that this is being ignored or overlooked in the media in favor of such nonsence as passports and preachers. These snacks of political mischief that our media continues to serve us. Something I like to call “the devil’s hor dourvers”. Of all of the political stories of this campaign season, the story of America’s youth activism and participation is both pridefully awe inspiring and historically significant.
The other day I was watching a live news report from the campus of a small college in North Carolina as I lay in bed. At that moment I felt as if I was actually watching a Saturday pregame sports rally. As a backdrop for the news commentators, there were several hundred excited students with signs, cheering in support of Senator Barack Obama and anticipating his forthcoming speech on their campus. Now get this… It was 11:57 PM here in the Panhandle of Florida where I was resting comfortably. Meaning of course, that it was nearly 1:00 AM in North Carolina! Let me say this a different way. When a bunch of college kids are hanging out at 1:00 AM awaiting a political rally I find that striking. They were not at home studying, or partying or surfing the internet. They were organinizing and participating politically! Perhaps this is not particularly significant to you. So let me delicately suggest that… “you start paying attention”.
The scene I have just describeded is being played out over and over again on hundreds of campuses throughout the country. Millions of America’s youth are actively participating and their votes and voices are having a tremendous impact. Say what you like about Generation X but what I know is, that they are a very bright and well educated generation of young people. More importantly, they are also extremely comfortable with their idenfifications and associations across social and ethnic landscapes. Two simple examples of this is truth, are music and their many multi-cultural and multi-racial friends, classmates and associates. This generation of young voters is far more comfortable with each other as people in general, as individuals, rather than members of any group. This is an aspect of their blended reality that is more significant than any prior generation in the history of this country.
Generation “X” is seemingly embracing Senator Obama because they not only believe in his message of change and his qualifications. They are not only embracing him because they agree with his political views and in particular, his pledge to end the war in Iraq. They are “also” embracing and supporting him because he “represents” and “looks like” them, and so many others among their friends, peers and intellectual and artistic icons.

Generation “X” is a mixture of “Americana” that we have not inspected and appreciated for its social intrigue. Nor for its mystical model of future generations. Generation “X” is what what America is becoming and what America was intended, if not destined to become.
At fifty four years old this whole “Obama” story is just phenomanal for me. However, this amazing story that is Senator Obama’s life, is not nearly as surprising for my niece who is a twenty year old “Junior” in college. Many of her close friends, classmates and associates are from international families, blended families, divorced families and from both challenged and affluent pasts. She herself, has a father who is African (born and raised in Gambia) who is an engineer, educated in the United States. Her mother (my sister) and our family are African Americans.
We Americans see things from many different perspectives and that is among the many wonderful things that make life in this country both enjoyable and challenging. It makes being an American special and wonderful in a variety of ways. That is also why is is so important to take note of what so many of our young people are currently engaged in politically. Their votes and voices and activism are sending a resounding message that deserves much more consideration. Not only should we be more loudly applauding their participation, we should be absorbing a very significant message. We should be observing the example of these youth. Our children and young family members are teaching us a lesson. They are demonstrating to America what America really is. They are “walking the American walk” in a way that is not affected or contrived. Why? Because the live in a technological world that is colorful and colorless. They do not carry around old scars of political or social ideology as inescapable baggage. Why? Because they have information, education and experiences that are new and very different. Different from those of the average (I dare not say “typical”) American of twenty or thirty years ago or beyond.
Generation “X” is having an incredible impact on this policical contest and they are a voting block that may well make the difference. This is to say nothing of the fact that they have influence. Influence on their parents and family members in encouraging their participation and swaying them to their way of thinking. It is a pretty powerful thing when your child invites you to have an adult discussion (about anything) and requests your support.
I am so very proud of America’s youth and what I have been priveliged to see them so intensely engaged in this political season. This is a historic story that I will continue to tell for years to come. I would like nothing more than to see this contest for the Democratic Party nomination end as soon as possible. In the meantime, I am focusing my attention not on the moldy media snacks, but on the “Obama” youth support movement.
I don’t care if you are a democrat or republican or independent. I don’t care what your views on any particular candidate or issues are. You might want to just take a momement to look over your shoulder and observe and what our young people are doing.
They are gathering like a storm.
L. A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, March 2008

to dear little monkey, have yoy been living locked up it the attic? what oppresed minority group are you talking about? i'm sure every one in the world knows, except you, that obammas mother is a white women from kansas, and his father is a black man from( AFRICA ) WHAT MINORITY GROUP is? welcome to the planet Earth.

as a man of 72 years, i feel i must comment on obammas racist speech, as an 18 year old in the USAF. starting in 1953,I have seen the ugliness and horror of racism, as a very young man from pennsylvania, traveling to florida by bus was an experence, etched in my brain that will live there forever, I mean the whole thing, rest rooms, drinking fountains, back of the bus,somewhere in North Carolina the bus stopped and let on this old black woman ,who to me at the time appeared to be 100 years old, I got up and gave her my seat ,the bus came to a screeching halt, the driver came back with a look in his eyes i will never forget. he took the old lady by the arm and led her to the back of the bus, than glaring at me said , you can take your seat now sir. needless to say i sat there with my mouth open for a long time. I now have a son. who is a teacher(coach) in tennessee, a daughter who is a teacher,married to a professor at wake forest in winston salem N.C. another daughter who works for the goverment in washington D.C. So you can see i'm aware of the change that has been made in the south, every thing is not perfect, but its a tremendous step forward, from what it was. it may never be 100% . but were getting there, I only hope and pray that the speach obamma gave,does'nt open old wounds, and relight a fire that we have been trying to extinguish for all these years. I know many of you will not like my next sentence, but in my opinion, Its obamma who is the racist.

i believe that what we hear says more about us than the person speaking; we 'parse' every phrase through our own jaded lenses.

the view through my lens:

before all the flak, back in the beginning when all was good and obama was 'just another' guy running for office, his main assertion was/is that he was not running a 'conventional' campaign, i.e., no trash talk, no muckraking, no character assassinations.

so why, now, would we assume 'conventional' meant anything other than that?

i believe that what we hear says more about us than the person speaking; we 'parse' every phrase through our own jaded lenses.

the view through my lens:

before all the flak, back in the beginning, when all was good and obama was 'just another' guy running for office, his main assertion was/is that he was not running a 'conventional' campaign, i.e., no trash talk, no muckraking, no character assassinations.

so why, now, would we assume 'conventional' meant anything other than that?

silverlucie I'm with you 100% I don't even like looking at the evening news obama obama our country does not need obama

Sen. Hillary Clinton seems pretty conventional to me. She voted for the war. She voted against the ban of cluster bombs. She voted to make part of the Iranian army a terrorist group. She stood up and applauded when George W. Bush said the surge was working when it isn't true. She is a member of the DLC, and has been a member of the political establishment for almost two decades. Also, she practices kitchen sink Rovian politics. Sure, she is a woman, but so is Laura Bush that doesn't make either one less conventional.

Point 1: How do we know Obama was referring to Clinton as conventional? Maybe he was not including her in this group.

Point 2: They are each conventional/prototypical candidates in some ways. And, in their own different ways, they are not. We as a nation should recognize how their many social identities matter for this election, and for race and gender relations in this country more broadly, instead of pretending that the two are context-less individuals.

If I were to read between the lines of Dickerson's article I'd read either overt racist or paranoic feminist to a riduculous extreme.

Sure, men have their problems, mostly their handicap of being male, but every once in a while one transcends into a nobler, more brilliant creature that has been infused with decency and leadership genious. What's not to like? A man who believes women should have the right to choose, and transend their historical position as nothing but a subservient receptacle for procreation?

Why would Obama not say he was unconvential, when he is -and I think occassionally he remembers that he's supposed to be hated because he's part of a different race than the majority- but he did ignore the issue for over a year - maybe because he believes that the majority are above that sort of drivel. But it drove the media who need sensationailism for survival cazy and frustrated his opponents who knew the racists were out there and could be used as fodder for their failing poll scores. They did manage to bypass the politcal correctness handicap by pretending to not know when their campaign people said unacceptable things - thereby doing triple duty - publicity with undertones of notriety and then an appearance of scrupulous behavior on the part of the honest campaigner who denounced that sort of thing.

They must have been delighted at the rantings of a senile old "uncle" type who obviously (and logically if you remember the 50's) had been through a whole bunch of racial abuse himself. And besides who ever said religion was based on fact or intelligence? Any educated person knows it all has to be taken with a grain of salt. The firestorm he started forced Obama to acknowledge the racist element but backfired on his opponents because it resulted in one of the most inspirational speeches against prejudice ever given, and only served to rally his supporters into an even closer unit.

Who knows what new shreds of bias his adversaries and the media will come up with next? Get a grip feminist's, silver and brass and Lewis (whatever metal you happen to be), get past the ugliness of racism - if you don't like Obama, watch someone else, like I now watch anything but CNN or Fox. (Is anyone out there as sick of Fox and CNN as I am?) Unconvential is what Obama's campaign is all about. Read "change" and get past the color of his pale gold skin. No doubt his opponent, in the nomination, and the general election, will find new shit to sling, just like the chimpanzees, but you know what - it won't stick and Obama will be our new leader whether or not certain people are intelligent enough to be glad and grateful someone like him came along when it was almost too late.

Given Bill and Hillary's record I don't under how any feminists let alone progressives can support their campaign.

Most recently you have the incredibly dirty politics - not from surrogates or proxies- but directly from Bill and Hillary's lips.

You also have the history of the Clinton White House. The truth has come out recently about Hillary's support of NAFTA. Bill pushed that despite the protests of the Democrats in Congress. You have the horrible crime bill and the failure to distinguish between crack and powder cocaine and its devastating effects on incarceration rates.

As for feminism, HRC is hardly a feminist. Where was she when Bill adopted a welfare reform bill that was more draconian than the bills that Bush and Reagan failed to pass in Democratically controlled Congresses? That bill was a caricature of black women and widely condemned at the time by feminists and progressives alike.

Humourless, perhaps, but I admire your capacity for self-reflection.

I don't think he was necessarily referring to Hillary as a conventional candidate, either, because I don't think he feels she has any greater chance of being elected than he does.

BTW, I have never noticed her being particularly outspoken in support of feminism.

Hey, McCain is also unconventional being as old as he is. Some humorless senior citizen blogger needs to take Obama to task for his ageism!

HEY HEY SILVERLUCIE, WHERE ARE THE MINDS OF THESE OBAMMA SUPPORTERS? I think most of them , are busy playing video games , and trying to figure out a good japanese phrase to tatoo on their neck, while mama & papa pay for their school& for their life. while they go vote for the monkey.

It seems fairly clear that Obama was making a general reference to the unlikelihood that he, as a black male, would be in the position he is in. There's nothing in what he said that implies Clinton is not in a similar position. This article takes as a premise the notion that he was making such an implication, and probably intentionally--something that's possible, but not likely, and not substantial enough to warrant an article like this one. You've built your argument, if it can be called that at all, on a very flimsy foundation: you've chosen to interpret his comments in the least positive light. This smacks of manufactured controversy.

Obama is a very, very, very slick politician who knows how to avert answering questions and to use the race card to his advantage.
As a liberal I do NOT appreciate being manipulated!

Yes.
1.I agree with you. He is a racist and uses this concept cleverly.
2. His credentials are fuzzy to me.Just how many years did
he work as a community organizer? Going to elite prep
school in Hawaii, Occidental, Columbia, and then Harvard...how did he
experience the suffering of the poor minority? When did he have the time?
3. 'Am unclear how much love and patrotism does Obama have for this wonderful country, United States..
A very curious minority.

Did you really just say 'vote for the monkey'? That is vile.

Oh, the squabbling. Have to say that people who use terms like 'I am so sick of Obama' sound young and petulant. I for one, suspect that these are the people who equate the candidates with the latest contestant on American Idol. This has a more far reaching impact on our lives, kids, so don't diminish it with foot stamping and 'I'm so sick of so and so!' comments. Who ever gets in, you'll have at least four years of her/him. Why so sick of Obama anyway? Because SNL made you feel like believing in his campaign made you a cult member? Because having someone with such an uplifted perspective makes you feel inadequate? Because being reminded that you'll have to take an active role in your politics makes you feel tired? I'm sick of the overdone coverage of this whole campaign and agree with an earlier post about how we're not paying attention to the war with all this going on. However, I am not sick of Obama. I'm not even sick of Hillary, as much as I don't want her to be our leader. I guess I respect this part of freedom too much to belittle it with a childish declarative.

I'll start by stating that I am independent and admittedly lean conservatively (although not always as I've heartily supported our democrat mayor), but Obama has a certain charisma that I think is desperately needed. I actually found myself liking the idea of him as president but now I have concerns of the influences around him Take the preacher situation. I was personally horrified by Reverend Wright's speech and I don't really care if it's not the usual speech b/c it was being sold on DVD's to people. I understand as a politician that Obama had to navigate that delicately, and I understand that people here feel we over-parse the words, but we're talking about politicians here. This is the only way to catch a window into the soul sometimes. In Philadelphia when he gave the speech about race he then spoke about his grandmother to balance out Reverend Wright somehow. He referred to her as not being racist but as a "typical white person." Honestly, why can't people see that if you are going to play above the race issue that it goes both ways? If someone said "typical black person" wouldn't it be almost as offensive as that comment someone made about electing the monkey? Why isn't it offensive to say "typical white person?" I have to agree with some people here that Obama uses the race card too even when he plays that he doesn't.

Someone commented earlier about Generation X being more hybrid. If Obama is truly going to be above the race issue, then I'll believe it when he starts acting more like that description.

The sad part is that this race issue may be an irreperable part of the elections now. It should never have been a part of it in the first place.

Addendum to my previous comment:

The previous comments I made with regard to "typical white person" were from an interview from 610 AM, a Philly station, after the speech.

The section of it went like this:

VOICE: About your white grandmother and how there was a time when even she feared black men and that she even occasionally would use a racial or ethnic stereotype. What does she say now about you being so close to the presidency?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, you know, she was extremely proud and the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it and what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little bit less like that.

I know his underlying message sounds on point, but my point was that I was disturbed by the reference. It leaves a feeling of something under the surface he himself feels but doesn't want to say during an election time. But maybe I'm wrong. Guess we'll find out...

Dear Editor:
It is true? Did a Replubician/Consertative Operative in NY paid to have Elloitt Spitzer followed or spy on?

Obama's Pastor Wright has it right when it comes to that terrorist state, Israel, and how they oppress third world people, the Palestinians.

Hello Editor:
Why is the press not covering Dick Cheny contempt for the American people. Did anyone see the interview he did with the reporter last week. She asked him if he cared that 70% of the American people was against this war. And he said "SO".

Leon A. Walker
March 23, 2008
Freelance Writer
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net

“Watch What They Do”

A Simplistic Discussion About Race

I referred to myself in a previous column as a “Lifelong Democrat”. For the most part that is accurate, but the truth is when I was in the military decades ago I voted for Ronald Regan. I do have a very good, however selfish excuse though. He was touting the development of a six hundred ship Navy and promising a very large pay raise. Regan made good on his promise. I never told anyone I voted for him and frankly it still makes me uncomfortable. But hey, I needed the money.

It is interesting that in my reflecting on that part of my life there was another striking ambiguity with regard to race. But first let me begin by sharing that I began my “unofficial” undergraduate studies on “race” began while attending two predominantly White Catholic Schools growing up. In my nearly exclusively Black neighborhood we referred to people only as Black or White and we had a single derogatory word that we used in reference to each race. I’m guessing I would have been in about fourth of fifth grade when I began to learn that there were actually many other ethnically specific derogatory tags. There were numerous ethnicities represented in my schools. Italians, Irishmen, Poles, Hispanics, Germans and a number of other eastern and central Europeans. Along with a few Blacks. All I will say further about this is that in Catholic School I learned an equal measure about both the godly and the ungodly.

In earned my “unofficial” graduate credential on “race” in our United States Navy. I have to say that it was an absolutely bizarre blessing. Not only were all of the aforementioned ethnic groups again represented they were my friends and brethren in a trail mix of Americana that I still periodically reflect upon and savor. I spent twenty years and twenty minutes in the Navy and I was fortunate to spend the first half of my career as an enlisted guy. As a young sailor I lived in a world where the sanctity and pride in the team or unit transcended all else. Make no mistake, the things we said among “just us” were light years beyond today’s universe of propriety. We casually used ethnically specific words and phrases that could only be described as ghastly! So much so, that if I related some of them today it would be shocking and scarcely believable. The interesting thing about this was that then, and today it has never mattered. Except to say that through it all, and experiences beyond, I learned to see the soul of a man. I know this because at sea and in combat, in bar fights and bench clearing brawls and at weddings and funerals, we were always one. For all of the potential faults, these experiences broadened my racial field of vision. My associations of today are appropriately reflective and I am eternally grateful for that.

I have a thorough grasp of the concepts of respect and propriety and the many other important even grave aspects of life. I know something about war first hand. I have many times seen, and I understand both death and danger. I know the difference between words and works. I understand that there can be a “huge” difference between immaturity, ignorance and insensitivity versus racism or hate.

I am fortunate to have never lived in a veritable “ethnic bubble” and I know quite a bit about people. The one common factor is that they are not perfect. I am compelled to make it clear that I do not condone or encourage hurtful or even insensitive “words” between people and I do not allow myself to be verbally victimized. But neither do I habitually or spontaneously leap forth to stand in judgment without invitation or good reason. Why? Because I do not always pretend to know from whence such comments come, nor how they are intended in full content and context. I could not possibly understand what impulses, experiences and thoughts inspire words within another person. More importantly, experience has taught me that words however seemingly insensitive or misguided are not always the measure of the heart and soul within. Things are not always the way they seem.

I have been listening and reading the media pundits about the importance of and the projected outcomes of the forthcoming Pennsylvania Primary Election. I am saddened and embarrassed and even angered by the characterizations of this “blue collar” voting block that is supposedly so closed minded, myopic and rigid. Essentially what is being reported is that they are and will vote (nearly exclusively) for Senator Clinton and attaching a subtle racial subtext. That is a horrible sweeping generalization that is a media abomination. Just one more high tech poison pen letter. I will not elaborate on the many others of late. The influence of media in America continues to cultivate dangerous seeds across a broad spectrum of topics. “There are both benefits and hazards with regard to freedoms of speech and expression.” This point I am making has nothing to do with votes cast or those to be cast. I view this as a good example, given the contest spread at particularly at this late, if not hopeless juncture. Such reporting is a prediction and statement of the very thing we claim to abhor as the question of race has surfaced nationally. They, (the media) are making Pennsylvania out to be America’s intellectual doldrums and a veritable toilet of intolerance. If they are hurting for jobs now, their lovely new reputation certainly won’t draw any new corporations or tourists. This is probably an area of hypersensitivity for me, being from the Great State of Ohio, where the same characterization was made. So I understand better than most of the “talking heads” what they think the tea leaves say. I’m more inclined to believe that these voters were, or will be casting their “Regan Votes” as I did many years ago.

So where are these insane “American” media threads rooted? And why does the working class man or woman in Ohio or Pennsylvania have to be helplessly portrayed as some measure of hayseed, villain or racist because they need jobs. I just wonder if any of the police and firemen or construction workers in Pennsylvania are veterans from my era or later. From what I am hearing reported, as they walk in the shoes of friends, coworkers and team members, they have never had persons of color on their shifts or crews, or working along side them. I wonder if any of them have helped someone or been helped by someone who looks different than in the face of danger or harm. And I just wonder if in their current reality of brotherhood and sisterhood, if in their tradesman and paramilitary cultures, things have become so socially pristine that they have no appreciation of the difference between words and actions.

Should anyone be remotely interested in my assessment of the current race discussion, I will say this first: “A loose tongue is not the same as a barrel of a gun.” So let’s all take a collective deep breath followed by a perspective pill. In my experience it pays to be continually watchful but you generally need not concern yourself with the obnoxious big mouth. Including those on talk radio or the network news. Why in the world would you overlook your positive ethnic experiences (nearly all of us must certainly have them) or devalue your own reasoning in favor of theirs?

My all time favorite quarterbacks are White, Don Meredith and Joe Montana. My all time favorite basketball players are Black, Earl Monroe and Spencer Haywood, and I would never pull for James Blake to beat Rodger Federer in a tennis match. I loved Ozzie Smith (as shortstops go) but being from Cleveland (where this guy began) I think Omar Visquel is… well, God! The point here being, we are just simply the result of our molded experiences and the associated emotional impacts. I had never understood or watched a round of golf in my entire life until Tiger Wood came along. So it took me until my forties to learn what a bogie and a birdie were. This suggests to me that understanding and appreciation, sometimes present themselves when we present ourselves the opportunity to experience them. And so it goes with race.

Sure the race discussion can compel us to squirm and scratch our heads sometimes. But I can tell you something we never have to scratch my heads about. We are all Americans. Yes, there are fools and hopeless intolerants out there, and they too are Americans. Rules are rules! So if you are inclined, when among the reasonably minded, the race discussion can be had. I have been fortunate enough to calmly have it and more than once. Yep me, the guy who decades past, received, and spewed “all of the worst words” like the good sailor I was. Now, clinging to no claim of perfection or political aspiration, I provide this admission without concern or remorse. Why? Because I still get the occasional Christmas card or phone card from some of those “multicolored friends” from a time long ago. Speaking secretively of unspeakable times and places and reminding me that he once covered my butt, or laughing about the memory of the time I covered his. Most importantly, at the end of the day, I now know that it was never about what was said, and neither was it about race. Only opportunity and experiences yielding appreciation and understanding as measured by the ultimate instrument. Lifelong friendships. In the vast world of “race matters” I suggest that this is a very good starting point.

I am seldom reduced to tales from school days, sailor stories or sports analogies. But I believe that in many aspects of life, the impressions we absorb and the marks we make on others are most clearly visible in our “actions” rather than anything else. So let me conclude by sharing a final bit of valued personal guidance that I received from my Grandmother: “If you want to know what a person is made of, don’t watch what they say, watch what they do”.

For me that is germane in both daily life and particularly in politics.

Watch what they do…

L. A. Walker

© Leon A. Walker, March 2008

For another more realistic critique of Obama's tap dance before power, see the radio essay "The Politician and the Preacher" at this address.

http://www.prisonradio.org/mumia.htm

Humorless feminists, indeed. This article could not have found a more innocuous comment to parse. Did you stop to think, in the middle of your vitriolic spew, that he was referring to the other candidate(s), plural, who he's faced this entire election cycle? McCain, Edwards, and the like? Not to mention other factors such as age and outsider status that set him apart from the entire field of candidates (including Senator Clinton).
The author's hypervigilance over assumed male privilege is disappointing. Seek something else as a reason to drag Obama through the mud. You know, something like a page from Sen. Clinton's playbook: dirty politics, against-the-rules campaigning, or race-baiting throughout the South. You won't find one.

A stupid article - written by a bitter woman

Oh, DEAR Abny! Thank you for articulating how I, too, feel about these two candidates and gender/race issues. I have been agonizing about this for quite some time. Let me state right away, I support Senator Clinton's candidacy, but I will support the candidate chosen at the Democratic Convention. I REALLY, REALLY want a CLINTON/OBAMA TICKET, and why the heck not?! (Or Obama/Clinton if it comes to that.) This ticket would give us (almost) everything we could possibly want. I do find that the race question comes up time after time, but there is not a lot of dialogue about gender. Oh, sure, it's brought up on occasion, but not in depth, unless I'm reading the wrong blogs and websites. On Real Time with Bill Maher this past week, Obama's name was mentioned several times, but I did not even hear Senator Clinton's name once. I feel as if there is a not-so-subtle intent to "ignore the little woman and she'll sit quietly in the corner." This is a HUGE reason why we are long past due to have a credible, intelligent and driven female in the highest office in the land. It is NOT the primary or only reason, it is just my catalyst for change. Gender bias is more real, in my opinion, than racial bias. 50% of the population is female. I have been so anxious to hear from black women, and wondering if, when she wakes up in the morning and looks in the mirror, if she first sees that she's a woman, and then her color, or visa versa. I am truly interested in this perspective. As a American of Italian decent, I see I am a woman long before I acknowledge I am Italian American. But it would be presumptuous of me to believe that women of color automatically would answer the same as myself. Women of color, I am very, very interested in your take on this election and your choice, so far, and why. Thanks MoJo for this engaging blog!

I'm from Illinois and a Hillary Clinton supporter. I support Hillary because she is the best qualified and because I am a woman. She has certainly been unconventional in that she kept her name, kept her job, participated as a partner in her husband's efforts both to become and be president. She has a record of her own -- of standing up for women. We won't have to tell her what Supreme Court nominee to appoint. We won't have to explain to her why equal pay for women is important. We won't have to even ask her to fund the provisions in the violence against women act. The list goes on. The woman is terrific.
In contrast Obama voted present in Illinois 130 times. Many of his key supporters and staff are Chicago politicians. We can see from the nastieness of his campaign and his supporters that he is just an old time Chicago pol.
As for humorless feminists -- I am proud to be one.

Isn't "humorless feminists" redundant?

Tyrone,
This is not the forum about Israel so I won't get too long winded but I'm not going to sit around and listen to slander like that.

Israel's position is completely different from our own. Terrorism in the US is distant, save for 9/11. In Israel they face it in their daily livesevery day and have to do their best to control it. We don't live with rocket fire *constantly* on our doorstep. We don't live with people cheering that someone went in to a school and killed 8 jewish students, 7 of whom were under 18. We don't live in a place where getting on the bus might be the last thing you ever do. Do not treat this situation as one-sided. Israel has made mistakes and innocents have gotten hurt. I don't applaud that. But I've known people in the IDF and I know directly from sources what care is taken to try to avoid that, no matter what you hear in the news. Before blaming Israel, blame the ones firing rockets from schools or neighborhoods.

To everyone else on this blog, my apologies for the digression from the actual topic at hand.

PI, you should apologize because you disc my heroes, the Nobel Peace Prize winners, Bishop Tu Tu, Nelson Mandela and Pastor Wright who is right. PI, you remind me of the Crackers, they use to justify their positions as well.

WHY? What is the point of your article? Focus your energy on the other candidate who is lying to the people about her experience by being married to the first black president. Please stop it with Obama already the establishment media dedicates 25 hrs a day trying to destroy him. Don't join their efforts.

I salute the writer for sharing these thoughts, probably realizing that they would expose her own limitations to scrutiny as much as any issues of the candidates.

In a general sense, I am a bit troubled by the way we liberals simultaneously look for saviors and relentlessly scrutinize every word and gesture, waiting for the trap to spring and the dreaded Categorization to happen: "Aha! So, you're just a typical [insert category here: man, woman, feminist, black, white, etc.] after all! I can no longer trust or support you, or see any of your actions without using the lens of your role in the oppressive power structure!"

We're all human. We're all flawed, unenlightened, beset with prejudices and fears and misunderstandings. We're all ignorant of the meanings our words and actions may have to everyone, because we can't control for all possible meanings. In short, we're all part of the problem, and there's no escaping it. No degree of historical or present victimhood, no amount of rich culture and education, nothing at all can make us un-flawed.

What that means is that we have to find a different way to evaluate each other and our leaders.

I can understand not finding Obama one's ideal candidate. Or Clinton, or McCain, or Nader, or whoever. But the combination of rigid idealism and equivocation is what helped get George W. Bush elected in the first place--while liberals grumbled about Gore and/or fought the power with Nader, Bush showed us exactly how much difference there is between the parties in many areas we care deeply about.

No candidate for any office in the history of the world has been my ideal candidate. Anyone who seems perfect is just doing a good job of avoiding offending people with their real thoughts, and everyone's real thoughts are offensive to someone. We use ourselves as our standard for judging others, and we don't even really know or see ourselves fully.

Here's hoping we can get to the point where we can replace the phrase above with, "Damn right this person is a typical [insert category here], but I'm no better, and I believe in 'em and want to work with 'em to make this world better."

the race/gender implications just aren't there. obama is running on "change" and talks all the time about wanting a different kind of politics. he may indeed be subtley pandering to his big youth vote by invoking the unconventional--like any good tennis shoe commercial. and he is certainly, awkwardly claiming underdog status just as his equally famous well-funded opponent has in the past. but he isn't talking about race unless you take "change" to be code for "less white". i think you have to agree he's a more complex individual than that.

Any woman paying attention might do well to recall Michelle Obama's remarks about the Senator leaving his dirty laundry on the floor for her to pick up. How different am I supposed to believe this guy is? What does this suggest about his attitude towards women, and his sense of male privilege? What can I, therefore, conclude about his commitment to my own equality?

Kazelle dear, men will be men. Most all men(except the gay ones) are dirty and are not neat. Get over it. Get a woman.

"Here's the flip side of the black feminist complaint that black women are either forced to choose between the two identities politically—or more typically, just have their preferences assumed to coincide with those of black men (See: Clarence Thomas) on pain of ex-communication."

LMAO! Excommunicated from our community? PA-LEEEZ, honey! Over here, we are one half of the sky! We run all this all up in here over here! You should have asked us! We'd've told you we bitterly resented the idea of Thomas succeeding Justice Thurgood Marshall, no matter what the bought-n-bossed black RePunkniCon talking heads told you.

Seriously, how many free-thinking black sisters have you actually chatted up? Because, that above stated tripe is pure B.S. We black women tend to support the lying crooks who best deceive us into believing that they have our best interest at heart, hence FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Black women probably haven't taken much political advice from our men folk since my grandparents elected Woodrow Wilson as the lesser of electable evil.

In the future, try to resist the urge to broadly ascribe majority feminist trends to all women who vote. Justice Clarence Thomas was a Bush41 appointment approved by the legislature of that time. Had black women been any semblance of the deciding factor on his appointment to the court, Clarence Thomas would still be practicing law in some nondescript firm far out of the public's eye. Sistas were home praying that Thomas died trying to pass through the congressional gauntlet, hoping anyone but him made it through. Clarence Thomas did not represent the Black Community in our eyes. Clarence Thomas was little more than another conservative loyal Bushite who just happened to be black. That he was a black Bushite married to a white woman, coupled with his obvious disdain for our community as demonstrated by the Anita Hill mess, made it official that there was not enough of ANYTHING influential in the whole of Black America to convince sistas that the likes of this bitter, oppressive, angry, hostile, self-hating, chauvenistic heel had Black America's best interest at heart. Please believe that.

there is not enough of ANYTHING influential in the whole of Black America to convince sistas that the likes of Obama,this bitter, oppressive, angry, hostile, self-hating, chauvenistic heel has Black America's best interest at heart. Please believe that.

"there is not enough of ANYTHING influential in the whole of Black America to convince sistas that the likes of Obama,this bitter, oppressive, angry, hostile, self-hating, chauvenistic heel has Black America's best interest at heart. Please believe that."

I don't think so, Latasha. Women get that Obama is more the Playa than the heel.

Obama's mention of the "conventional candidates" has nothing to do with race or gender (which seem to be the interpretive lense that folks have a hard time putting down at the moment), he's talking about the fact that his opponents are part of the old guard, top down, political machine politics of the past (see HRC). This fits into his whole CHANGE narrative (whether you believe it or not...which I do). OBAMA has always tried to define himself as the outsider, reform oriented candidate of the future. It helps that he is the first ever black candidate with a change at the POTUS, but his stance on ethics, bipartisan efforts to tackle hard issues (ie health care, iraq) etc are what makes his campaign unconventional and his opponents campaigns conventional.

For Joyce from Marin: Thanks for the advice. Been there. Done that. You're making my case for Hillary Clinton.

Obama's verbal legerdemain is clear to see if one is willing to do so. From his references to his father as an African American to characterization of "Hillary" as nothing more than a representative of the same old Washington guard, disingenuousness flows as needed.

African American men received the franchise and began holding elective offices decades before women did; therefore the odds of his election may be significantly better than any woman's would be. Current poll results suggest this.

It disgusts me that Obama vows he would never appear on the ticket with Senator Clinton, when it seems far more of a sure bet that he will be the first African American president if he serves 8 years as a loyal vice-president, then succeeds to the presidency as a relatively young man.

kokuaguy, your comment is racist. Obama is going to be the next President. Get use to it. Practice singing hail to the Chief, Cracker.

I came across this article a while after it was written. I find it to be intriguing not necessarily because of the questions it brings up about race and gender, but rather the question of what constitutes a "conventional" candidate.

I was talking to a friend and we realized that neither Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain are "unconventional" candidates. Their policies and ideas aren't really all that radical and are pretty much just variations of pretty much what mainstream politicians have been doing for the past 16 years.

The true "unconventional" politicians are: Kucinich and Nader on the Left and Huckabee and Paul on the Right. Those four candidates have ideas and policies that are a true departure from the way business as usually has been played in Washington.

Essentially, both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are unconventional because one is a women and one is of mixed race. That's what makes them "unconventional". Other than that, their policies and way of governing is pretty much right in line with mainstream politics in Washington.