Posted on 09/07/2008 6:09:13 AM PDT by Presbyterian Reporter
Let us swing the door ajar and invite the elephant into the room. One big reason Barack Obama is locked in a tight race, rather than easily outdistancing his opponent, is because he is black.
That factor is rarely discussed in polite political conversation. People tend to dance around it, talking instead about Obama's perceived inexperience, or his youth, or his perceived airs, or his liberal voting record. And racist sentiment rarely shows up in the polls, because a lot of people don't want to share their baser instincts with the pollsters; they'll save that instead for the privacy of the voting booth.
But the incremental evidence - anecdotal and even statistical - has become impossible to ignore.
Union organizers in the key state of Michigan complain in the press that, as one puts it, "we're all struggling to some extent with the problem of white workers who will not vote for Obama because of his color." An aging mine electrician from Kentucky is quoted as saying, "I won't vote for a colored man. He'll put too many coloreds in jobs." An elderly woman in a New Jersey hair salon is overheard complaining about Barack and Michelle Obama the other day, about how blacks supposedly have larger bones than whites, and about how she's fleeing America if Obama wins.
Jimmy Carter, while attending the Democratic convention, cited race as a "subterranean issue," yet at times this year it has been bared for all to see. Case in point, Pennsylvania. On the day of the Democratic presidential primary, 12 percent of the white Democratic voters told the exit pollsters that race mattered in their choice of candidate; of those whites, 76 percent chose Hillary Rodham Clinton over Obama. The same pattern surfaced in other states, including the key autumn state of Ohio.
This is worth pondering a moment longer. If 12 percent of Democratic voters are willing to tell exit pollsters, eye to eye, that race was an important factor, to Obama's detriment, isn't it fair to assume that the real percentage (including those who kept their sentiments private) was actually higher? And what might this portend for the general election, when the white electorate will be broader, and hence significantly less liberal, than in Democratic contests?
Here's one hint. Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a "racial sensitivity index," based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category - roughly 30 percent of the white electorate - favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1.
A few prominent Democrats did broach this sensitive topic at the Denver convention. Dee Dee Myers, the former Bill Clinton aide, shared her concerns at one political forum, and with good reason. She worked for Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in the 1980s, when it appeared that Bradley was a cinch to win his U.S. Senate contest despite his race. The final round of polls showed him winning comfortably. He lost.
"I lived through that," Myers said. "We're whistling past the graveyard if we think that race was not a factor in the Democratic primaries. Today's young voters will get us past these attitudes," but it will take time. As for millions of older voters, "they talk about having 'culture' problems [with Obama], but to separate culture from race is impossible."
And Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily Kos blog, said: "It's human nature. A lot of people want to cling to the comfortable world that they've always lived in. The Obamas don't look like what First Families have always looked like. This will be one of the factors in the fall, because a lot of people simply want to stick with what they've known in the past."
The race obstacle is not necessarily fatal, of course, because in the end it may be trumped by other factors - such as McCain's age, or nagging concerns about handing the nuclear football in an emergency to a "hockey mom" as GOP vice presidential candidate whose chief national security credential is the proximity of Alaska to Russia.
But clearly Obama needs to tread carefully, arguably by stressing lunch-pail economic issues and continuing to present himself as a "post-racial" candidate. He will need to dispel these white suspicions, if only because whites will continue to dominate the electorate - they constituted 77 percent of all voters in 2004 - even if he manages to inspire an historic black turnout. He has to bond somehow with blue-collar whites, yet he cannot show too much passion, because, as Democratic strategist Joe Trippi explained to me, "those whites don't like to see a black guy getting angry, it's a dangerous thing for an African American candidate to do."
I'm not suggesting that racism would be the sole explanation for an Obama loss. Nor am I seeking to insult those who object to Obama purely on the issues. But if Obama winds up losing after having posted a seemingly solid polling lead on election eve, we may well find ourselves pondering the words of Henry David Thoreau, who wrote in 1854 that "public opinion is a weak tyrant, compared with our own private opinion."
Yeah, you’re right about this. So much for the post-racial candidacy of Obama. These libs simply can’t understand why we reject 0bama. We don’t reject him because of his race but rather despite his race. I’d vote for a Thomas Sowell-Walter Williams ticket with delight, but I suppose they’re not authentically black in the eyes of Obama, Sharpton and Jackson.
“And when The One goes down in flames November 4th it is going to be said that he lost because he’s black and that American is racist.”
When are they going to take the measure of the candidate? Will they be as judgmental about Obama as they are about the American public, who they don’t know and conjecture about?
Race riots? Prepare.
Newsflash to MSM: It’s not racism on the part of GOP voters that is going to cost Obama the election. Racism, if it plays any more than a miniscule factor, will have been because ‘RATS are racists, not so-called moderates or Republicans. Look no further than the comments of one Billy Jeff Clinton right about the time of the SC primary, for example.
I have heard this expressed very clearly by the only lefties I know. My blue collar, union, yellow dog Ohio in-laws. I have only met them once and they had no qualms about sharing this sentiment.
Lately, it seems like the MSM/RATS have been explaining Obama’s defeat more and more, two months before the election.
I guess what they are really telling us is that he’s a pretty weak candidate.
I am getting the same sense the liberal MSM is gradually turning against Obama.
Even MSM realizes Obama has always been a loser.
MSM is seeing the direction America is going and they do not want to be known forever as the media promoting extreme leftist ideology.
this is crap, the notion he'll lose because he's black. if you really want to play the "because he is black" card, let's. the only reason he has the nomination is "because he is black" A white guy, especially a republican, with no resume to speak of would have been laughed off the stage 18 months ago. And "because he is black" is the only reason the demholes didn't throw him overboard once Jeramiah Wright hit the fan. A white guy would have been dumped in favor of Hillary.
I think the polls are off because so many whites are scared of being called racist. But they will pull the lever for their true candidate in private.
Every time I say that I’m not voting Obama to a white lib they all call me racist and say Obama will ONLY lose because of racism.
The fact that he’s a total ZerO Marxist elitist doesn’t even cross their minds. He is the definition of a candidate chosen for the color of his skin and not the content of his character.
lets cut the BS!!
Soetoro is not black he is multiracial.
He pretends to be black because the coalition of black racists and white liberals who vote black to “feel good” put him over the top in the primaries and may do so in the general election.
Even though these words are directly form their own statements, those same people would vote for Clarence Thomas is a heartbeat.
I personally think what these particular types of white people are afraid of is more affirmative action type crap being forced down their throats... just my humble opinion.
One big reason Barack Obama is locked in a tight race, rather than easily outdistancing his opponent, is because he is black. That factor is rarely discussed in polite political conversation..
What. A. Crock.
He is simply not ready and never will be for the big chair. I’ll say it again...if I had his associations with despciable reverends and convicted terrorists, I would not have a security clearance. How he gets beyond that confounds me.
Sorry Mr. Poleman, you are mistaken. The reason many white folks won’t vote for Obama is not because of his race.
What we see is that Obama and his associates seem to have it out for white folks and America in general.
The actual voters aren’t the problem, it is the candidate you have chosen and the efforts that people like you have used to cover up the real truths about Barack Obama.
Being a black man is really not an issue.
My question is how does ROBERT BYRD D/WV refer to him.
Imagine his quandry as it is definitely a threefer.
Is OB a white n.....?
Is OB a sand n.....?
Is OB just a n.....?
Byrd D/WV is the only pol in America who the press allows to say what is on his ‘hateful’ mind and not get castrated over it.
It may be. I know at least 4 hardcore dims who have said they will not vote for UHHbama, because he’s black.
How can blacks, including some conservative blacks, who overwhelming support Obama and openly admit his race is a factor complain about racism? Are these blacks condoning voting for a candidate because of racial affinity?
The other candidate has extreme leftest leanings, no meaningful experience and is well, a complete idiot. His V.P . candidate is an arrogant, condescending political hack.
But I had better vote for the second candidate, lest I be labeled a racist.
They are describing the Bradley Effect, where many people don’t want to admit they will not vote for him because of his color. So the polls probably show him 3 to 5 percent better than reality.
Well, too bad! Liberals have been pushing political correctness for years. The BE is the ultimate PC result. So liberals, look at the polls and whereever the One is, subtract 5 percent and that’s probably closer to the truth. Does that put him way behind? Well, boo-freakin-hoo!
“Next are the race riots.”
Last week a Philadelphia columnist promised a race war if Obamachev loses. This kind of threatens ensures a big McCain win.
I hope they keep it up.
There may well be a sizeable chunk of voters that may vote solely on the basis of the color of a candidates skin.
I am not one of them.
But I am hearing more and more from white, Union member, lifelong democrats that that is precisely what they intend to do, or sit this one out.
Of course, on the other hand, a lot of black people I spoke politics with over the past 18 months are thrilled for the chance to vote for the black man.
The numbers, based solely on my own intuition, should be a wash. 15-17% for NObama because he is black, somewhere between 10-20% against NObama for the same reason.
The only good news in this is that all of those votes are for or from the Dem side.
And before anyone paints me as racist, I was thinking about sitting this one out, because I cared nothing for either candidate, and I am of the mind that the president can do little without the House and Senate. But, I intend to vote for McCain, now, because he has shown the very good sense to choose Sarah Palin (R) AK and because after the Heller decision it will be vital to maintain or increase the number of constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.