Is the Democratic Party ready for a "Black" nominee?

I was interested to see what some of the political buzz was going to be after Barack Obama swept to his dominant win in the Democrat party South Carolina primary yesterday. So I spent most of the day surfing the web, visiting various political forums, reviewing the "talking heads" of the news organizations, to see what the lay of the land was in the Democratic Party.

On Sunday Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of JFK, wrote in an Opinion piece in the NY Times titled "A President Like My Father", that she was endorsing Obama. As well on Sunday the Associated Press reported that on Monday, Ted Kennedy will be also endorsing Obama. While not earth shattering, these endorsements still carry weight and importance within the Democratic party, both in fund raising and organizational implications.

But the real story isn't in the endorsements Obama is receiving, it is in the discussions that his win in SC has evoked. A cursory walk through the political forums, would lead you to believe that his win was a fluke of demographics rather than the broad win that it actually was. Even Bill Clinton compared Obama's win with that of Jessie Jackson in 1984 and 1988, to some implying that it was strictly a matter of getting the African-American vote, while not bothering to mention his own wins in SC during his presidential races in 1992 and 1996. A phrasing that may further add to African-American displeasure with Clinton campaign tactics. In a party that has prided itself on the vast support of minorities, both views of Obama's win seems disingenuous.

Which leads me back to my original question. At no time in the history of the Democratic party has there been a truly viable national African-American candidate for president. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton were never true viable candidates, and they would probably admit as much if they took a serious look at their candidacies. After wins in predominantly white Iowa, and a dominant win across most of the significant segments of demographics in South Carolina, anyone would be hard pressed to say that Obama's candidacy is not viable. Will the Democratic hierarchy be able to put aside it's paternal perspective of it's minority voting base, and allow that base to speak for itself through the auspices of the party nominee? A lot of these questions will be dependent on how the Clinton campaign continues to be waged. It is well known that a majority of the Democratic leadership has been behind Hillary Clinton for some time, and a majority of the party organization is at her disposal.

Should Barack Obama be able to win sufficient delegates to win the nomination of the party come August in Denver, will the leadership be prepared to stop being the shepard of the "oppressed" masses, and be able to allow it to be led by the "children" of the party.