I usually look at the editorial page of the Las Vegas review-Journal on Sundays, just to see what Vin Suprynowicz has written. I don't allways agree with him, but as one of the few true libertarian voices in media, he makes for an interesting read. While I'm there, I usually read the other columnists, including the paper's Geoff Schumacher, who this week seems to draw precisely the wrong conclusion about Barack Obama's chances for winning the White House.

As a college senior in Reno in 1988, I recall proudly standing up for the Rev. Jesse Jackson at a Democratic presidential caucus meeting. This precinct, encompassing the university district, ended up going to Jackson -- perhaps the only Nevada precinct he won that year outside of Las Vegas.

But I believe most of us who supported Jackson knew he couldn't win. By contrast, if Obama runs this time, I think he has a legitimate chance to go all the way. He appears able to transcend racial politics in a way that Jackson could never manage.

Nevertheless, I fear that the country's still not ready, that in the privacy of the voting booth, we will not take the leap.

I hope I'm wrong.

So there we have it -- Obama's failure will not be about his qualifications or policy positions. No, it will be because we, as a country, are unwilling to vote for a black man for the nation's highest office. No doubt he would make a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, and claim that her defeat would be based upon our unwillingness to elect a woman.

Nonsense!

Barack Obama is an interesting man. He has, however, only weak credentials for the office he seeks. Furthermore, he is an unabashed liberal, unquestionably an inhabitant of the left quarter of the political spectrum. As such, there is a percentage of the American public that will reject him not over questions of race, but over questions of preparation and ideology. Indeed, many of us who fall into that category are quite ready to support an African-American in a run for the highest office -- and many were unabashed supporters of Condoleezza Rice until she unreservedly and unquestionably took herself out of contention for the GOP nomination. Similarly, many of us were supporters of Michael Steele, not Mel Martinez, for head of the GOP. Our opposition to Obama is based upon other criteria -- and we conservatives are doubtless a sizable segment of the American population.

Indeed, Schumacher unintentionally falls into a trap that many commentators on Obama's candidacy and race fall into -- the notion that votes against the man would be based upon his race, and that his defeat would prove that America has not gotten bast the racism of the past. But I'd argue quite the opposite. That Obama -- or Rice -- could be seen as a credible candidate by the overwhelming majority of Americans is the test, regardless of whether or not one of them ever reaches the Oval Office. Even the defeat of Obama, in a race based upon ideas and issues, would be a sign of the elimination of racism as a significant factor in American life, because Obama would have been treated precisely like any other candidate.

And after all, what more can we ask for as proof that we have achieved the goal of treating African-Americans like everybody else?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.