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."
What a farce!
What reverse English!
The only reason that such a vacant, unfit, inarticulate, radical grifter from the Chicago machine
is anywhere CLOSE to the White House
is precisely because because of his race.
Every one of his supporters should be ashamed
of putting our country’s well-being so much at risk
just because he is half-African.
Really just 20th century ethnic politics. Makes perfect sense. It means Obama hasn't convinced all voters that he's the post-racial candidate. He blew that to hell when he did the Presidents on the money riff.
his candidacy has shown that conservative women are attacked by the left based on their ideologies, race and gender have nothing to do with the choice
the interesting revelation is when race and gender biases are accorded to voting blocks, the accuser has run out of compelling defense of position and wishes to obfuscate the nature of discourse
Early on, Obama appeared to be a different sort of black. He was fresh, clean and articulate and people flocked to him.
Then came along the Rev Wright and many folks pulled back thinking maybe Obama wasn’t so different after all.
No he isn't, he just says he is.
His mother was white.
He's as much white as he is black.
“when race and gender biases are accorded to voting blocks, the accuser has run out of compelling defense”
WoW, that is the most powerful line I have heard on here in days...that is it...that is all the left has to hold on to.
It’s over, they know it’s over, so, instead of being about ideas and ideology — it must be about race, since obambi has promised every entitlement and free give away of tax dollars and redistribution of wealth program under the sun to the masses and they still are not buying his BS — America has finally awaken to the idea that truly, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” You or someone you know — will always have to pick up the check. If the American Indian had been smart — they would have refused the free blankets...but look what free blankets got em...
Obambi can promise all the give away’s he wants, but in the end, you are either going to give up freedom or money or both...that is all he has to offer — that has nothing to do with race — and I say, — “NO THANK YOU,” me and my family and my friends, we will take care of each and our community ourselves.
Another idiotic screed. The very reason Obama made it this far is because of the white vote. Oh I see. Writer wants just enough of the white vote to win. Anything short of that is racism. That’s surely a winning argument.
Not likely. Neighborhoods would form and organize loose militias overnight to protect their families. If there are riots, they will be confined to the neighorhoods of the rioters. One step out of the area would be their last step.
We had race riots in Saint Louis after MLK was killed. My father joined with the neighbors and barricaded the entrance to our street. They saw some gangs trying to approach but most rioters were smart enough to avoid them.
My mom always tells me that was the nicest group and best neighborhood we ever lived in.
The Messiah’s race is as “little discussed” as the weather, or the Super Bowl. But of course, we flyover country imbeciles are not supposed to notice this!
You bet his race is a factor. WITH DEMS!!!!!!! He is in a close race because 98% of blacks are voting for him based on his race. If they based their vote on anything other than race, like , THE ISSUES, it wouldn’t be close. He’s a Fraud and a Dope.
Let’s be perfectly clear. This is all about DEMOCRAT racism.
We are talking about those who would have voted Dem changing their vote because of race.
Those on the right are perfectly race neutral, and would vote against Obama regardless of his race.
The Democrats keep chanting the mantra “If you don’t vote for Obama, you’re a racist”. This is the culmination of years of race baiting and identity politics where nothing matters but ethnicity, and intimidation and reactionary hysteria displace rational discourse. It’s politics on the level of pre-adolescent playground taunting and name calling which has been successful at some level, i.e., the prominence of race warriors like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The debate has now emerged on the national level and the American people have to determine if skin color eclipses qualifications and character. It’s a much easier matter to support race selection for medical and law school candidates when it’s unlikely that such candidates will end up as your lawyer or surgeon, but now we must decide whether to place the safety of America and the Free World in the hands of an affirmative action choice. Is the world so secure that we can use the U.S. Presidency to demonstrate our magnanimity to ourselves and the world? Are we prepared for the consequences?
Philadelphia Inquirer. It sickens me that I have to buy this piece of crap every Sunday because my wife wants the coupons. At least, it’s half price at the Dollar Store.
If you are white or black and you're in a cafeteria, who do you sit with? With people like yourself of course. It's not racism, it's just human nature.
Yep, the whole country will be defined as racist. And just how can we prove not so, why only by electing a DEMOCRAT/COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST black man as POTUS. Nothing else will do. It means nothing that people of all sexes and races, including black, have been assigned prominent positions in the Bush Presidency and the Republican party. No, those are the WRONG minorities, it just doesn’t count unless it’s a DEMOCRAT/COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST.
The thing here is that it's the DEMOCRAT voters who are biased, and they may end up costing Obama the election.
The irony... LOL!!!
Actually Barack Obama is only half black - the other half is good old Kansas white. If he had not cultivated his “black identity”, we would never have heard of Obama; he is where he is solely because of skin color and attitude. He is, however, 100% leftist, which is why I would never vote for him.
That’s right, I’d sit with white folks as well. Does that make me racist? I’m sort of proud of being white, and of German descent. Oops, now I guess I’m a Nazi sympathizer as well.Oh well, I guess I just can’t please everyone.Can a person be proud of his race and thier accomplishments without being racist? Only if they are black?
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.