Well said Ms Kate, I think the generational difference alone would change things even if he were white.

I think the biggest divide in this election (that will probably be overlooked by the media) will be age. Obama will handily win among white voters under 35, just as he did in the primary. He has more of a senior problem than a white voter problem.

Now, if he can just remind seniors that John McCain wants to effectively abolish Social Security, that will go a long way towards solving that problem.

Krugman’s error isn’t just in tone.  He’s talking past Obama.  Krugman’s column focused on race, and while Barack’s success illustrates an important shift in American racial attitudes, that’s far from the only change he is trying to accomplish.  The most fundamental difference he wants to bring about is changing our discourse from one of fear to one of hope.  That means focusing on how we can improve our country rather than endlessly touting the dangers that face it.

Being successful in that requires more than just collecting votes.

Again, one of those “just enough truth to make it hook us, while still missing the point entirely.”

Yes, the fact that Barack Obama is a serious contender for the Presidency does in fact show a transformation of America from some (not all that long-ago) point at which it was inconceivable - as does Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

What it doesn’t show, though, is that just any black man or just any woman just has to step up (great metaphor with the “Help Wanted” sign idea) automatically gets the job. Yes, change has happened that unlocks the doors, but these particular people, and their closest and hardest-working supporters, turned the knob and opened the door.

Krugman’s still sore that Obama won.  He spent column space after his nomination talking about digital copyright issues, interesting and all.  Now, he’s grudgingly admitting that something special has happened, just not because of Obama.

While I generally like Krugman, I think he’s showing one of the chief problems with our governing elite.  Principle is all well and good, but their real motivations comes from personal and professional connections and alliances, the details of which are rarely mentioned in the public. 

This is also one of the reasons for all the sneering disdain from our chattering classes toward the public’s views on politics.  They know the real reasons things happen in D.C. and NY and we look silly for having opinions that don’t revolve around this knowledge, despite the fact that no one is actually telling the public what it needs to know to make the same conclusions.

Which is why I support Obama.  The best solution to this problem isn’t to change the way that Washingtonians think.  It’s to expel and marginalize them from government in favor of a new group that is not as insular and disconnect from the nation they govern.

MikeEss, I was always interested in how the generation of WW2 vets was bookended by Kennedy and Bush the Lawfully-Elected (yes, I know Eisenhower served in that war, too, but there’s a reason that Kennedy declared that “the torch has passed to a new generation”, and nobody disputed it).

And yes, Clinton and Bush the Wasn’t may well be the only Boomer Presidents, and frankly that’s okay by me, if they were any kind of sample….

Well TECHNICALLY Obama is a Boomer, but hes at the very end and in his personality and is background hes Gen-X.

For me, a Baby Boomer is someone who never stops fighting the 60s.

Actually many of the war protestor’s in the 60s, the main civil rights leaders, etc, were born during WWII. It wasn’t until the draft when the Boomers themselves were about to be on the line that many of them bothered to protest.

When he becomes president, it won’t be because he put together a remarkable campaign that took on the best opposition available and triumphed over it

I was going to point out that McCain has hardly the best possible campaign, then I realized you were talking about Sen. Clinton’s campaign.

I really think defeating Sen. Clinton was the hard part. McCain will be easier.

I’m already tired of accomplishments that aren’t accomplishments because they were accomplished.

That actually makes sense to me, which I find deeply disturbing.

It seems that Boomers, which Krugman is one, desperately want to believe that they transformed the country for the better.  Most Boomers either backed Hillary or McCain, the Hillary supporters freqentely argued that a black man could not win the presidency. Now that it appears Obama might not only win, but might really transform the country the boomers want credit. 
This is sort of a variation of the argument over at talkleft where they keep arguing that the only way Obama wins is if he makes Hillary his running mate.  In other words the boomer can save the naive black man, after all, only boomers can save the rest of us from themselves.

if he wins in November, it will be because our country has already been transformed.

No. Only if a doofus like W., but black, won in November would demonstrate that our country has already been transfomed.  A legacy admit who failed at everything he ever did in life, some mope who relied on the kindness of Daddy’s friends to bail him out. Not to overpick on W.: a black Warren G. Harding would also fill the bill.

It’s very interesting how little the generational aspect of the nomination race was played up.  I always had considered it to be the primary motif.

Jesse,

The problem is that you believe “blackness” is enough. Well, if that were the case, the libs would have gotten behind Clarence Thomas and would spend endless hours reading Thomas Sowell’s columns. while both of these men’s skin color is very dark, they are somehow not black enough.

Color means little and even if elected, Obama is not an American negro. He is truly an African-American who has had a middle class upbringing. It will be a hollow victory.

It’s sort of like telling a farmer that the soil did all the work.  Yes, the ground is fertile, but it still needed the right seed and plowing, planting, weeding, etc.