Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack Is Playing the Incognegro, but It Is Not a Risk-Free Strategy
Historically, there's been a last-minute swing away from black candidates by white voters. Will Obama change things?
Doug Wilder, 77, still meets people who wanted to vote for him when he stood for governor of Virginia back in 1989 but found they just could not do it. They said they would. They even thought they would. But when it came down to it, they just could not vote for a black man. "I've had people who tell me 'I didn't vote for you for lieutenant governor or governor. I wish I had that chance again'," he says.
On the eve of his election he led in the polls by 9%. On the day he won by less than 0.5%. They call it the Wilder effect - the shortfall between white voters' professed support for black candidates and their propensity to actually vote that way. They also call it the Bradley effect, after the Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley who stood for California governor in 1982. Back then the deception continued even after some had cast their ballot. Bradley's exit poll lead was so significant that early editions of the San Francisco Chronicle projected his victory. He lost by just over 1%.
The question over the next two months is: will there be an Obama effect? And if so will it end like Wilder, in victory; or like Bradley, in defeat? At its heart lies the issue of how America understands the relationship between race and racism, and the degree to which claims of his post-racial candidacy have been misconstrued.
The issue here is not whether racism will cost him the election, but whether the race we think we are watching is in fact the race that is taking place. In essence, the Wilder effect exposes the gap between how comfortable a minority of white voters are in admitting their prejudice and how ready they are to act upon it.
Over the past 40 years racism has ceased to be socially acceptable. Nonetheless, it maintains broad appeal. The nation's most popular radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has referred to Obama as the "little black man-child"; and Fox News branded his wife, Michelle, as his "baby-mama". Yet while few are comfortable being called racist, racism persists. "Do I think there's been a seismic change?" asks Wilder, who is now the mayor of Richmond. "Yes. Do I think racism is still around? Yes. Do I think it's as pervasive as it has been? No. I don't subscribe to the idea that the majority of Americans are racist."
Quite. Yet black Americans are three times more likely to live in poverty and twice as likely to be unemployed or drop out of school. Such disparities do not happen by accident.
So we have racism but no racists. A system of discrimination - albeit much altered from 40 years ago - remains, yet no one will take responsibility for it. There are views that pervade, but apparently no one who actually holds them. Such is the contradiction that plays out between what some people tell pollsters and what they actually do at the polls.
Navigating these particular incongruities is the challenge of a new generation of black candidates. "In so much of the work I've done, I've found that you had to put people at ease on the question of race before you could even start to talk about what you were doing," explains the Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick. "I don't fit a certain expectation that some people have about black men. And I don't mean that as anything other than an observation about my life."
This is simply a candid assessment of black middle-class life in America in or out of politics. Those who are keen to succeed must first negotiate racism in all its subtlety and plausible deniability. Wronged or not, they must avoid any hint of complaint lest it be taken for grievance; talented or not, they must avoid any hint of over-accomplishment lest it be taken for hubris.
Last week, one Georgia congressman referred to the Obamas as "uppity". After Obama delivered a throwaway line about Republicans trying to scare voters because he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills", the Republican attack machine went into overdrive.
"There's no doubt in my mind that what Senator Obama is trying to suggest - that he's a victim of something," said the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham. An uppity black man playing the victim - meet Willie Horton's 21st-century cousin.
"Is it fair?" asks Wilder, referring to the demands placed on black candidates. "No. Life isn't fair. That's what you have to overcome ... If that's the bar, you meet it. What do I have to do to have that door opened for me? Knock on it. Or break it down. You tell me what I need to do. If it doesn't open and I have to break it down, I will develop the strength. If I knock on it and it doesn't open, I want to know why. Don't complain about it. Just do the job."
Obama has so far been knocking firmly and politely and doing the job with a sly cunning. His strategy has been to play up the historical resonance of his candidacy while downplaying any overt mention of either race or black people. This was particularly clear during his nomination acceptance speech in Colorado, which was deliberately timed to coincide with the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Yet he didn't once mention King's name, referring instead to a "young preacher" and quoting one of the more forgettable parts of the most memorable speech in American history. Race is central to his meaning, but absent from his message.
This is less a criticism than a description. Obama is navigating uncharted and decidedly choppy waters. It is difficult to see how else he could play it. And yet it is not without its problems. At any moment, while passing for the presidency, he can be outed by anything from a preacher to a fist bump or a magazine cover. Such is the lot of the incognegro.
For what people really mean when they refer to his candidacy being post-racial is that it is "not too obviously black". The trouble is that is as racial a category as any other, albeit a negative one. The paradox is that, with historically low levels of black and Hispanic support, John McCain's is the most "racial" candidacy we've seen for a long time.
The days of the Wilder effect may be waning. A report by the Pew Research Centre, following the 2006 midterms, found the polls on black candidates to be highly accurate. "Fewer people are making judgments about candidates based solely, or even mostly, on race itself," it concluded.
But then it only takes a few, and Wilder believes they are still out there. "It doesn't have the same salience. It doesn't have the same impact. But are there going to be people who swear they're Democrats; who swear they like him; who swear they believe in what he's saying? But yet when they go to the polls and grab that lever their hands will shake and tremble and they won't be able to pull it? Yes."
But the chance that Obama may follow in his footsteps does not worry Wilder. "I hope he does," he says. "Because if he repeats it, notwithstanding what it looked like, he would still win ... The only poll that counts is the one on election day."
Video: Gary Younge talks to Doug Wilder
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllIt is not the race that is killing Obama. It is his long term weakness of allowing the rightwing to FRAME him plus his pro-GOP voting record in the Senate. Stop calling voters racists just because they don't vote for him. He should have been a populist.
No, his problem is that he is a weak candidate. He has no real record of achievement. He has no passion over any issues. He will lose because of a poor campaign. The Democrats have a problem: what works in their primaries is what does not work in the general election. So they nominate the wrong candidates! Barack Obama is a Republican, not a "Democrat" and certainly not a progressive. He SHOULD be so far ahead in the polls that his race wouldn't matter at all.
I'df say you were mostly right. And if anyone missed it, Hillary's campaign is still goimng. its just being used by McCain.
Whites will swallow their racism and vote for a Black person if they see him as being for their own interests. But how can anybody think much of Obama after he picked a hack like Joe Biden to be at his side? Not even McCain picking a nitwit can repair the damage that Obama did to himself, since after all Americans are often content with nitwits much like themselves holding power.
I keep forgetting Obama is black, then damn, someone comes along to remind me again.
I love the wit of the title of this article's otherwise, nyahhh...
Poet
It really doesn't matter if Obama is black, white, or pink. He has done all that he can do to turn himself into John Kerry who back-peddled and "ran to the middle" until he had completely turned off his base and ostracized all of the progressives and anti-war democrats in his party, and then couldn't figure out why his campaign lacked energy and focus. What is different from Obama now from Kerry? How well did this work last time, and the time before that? Bush Light is Bush Light, it's not a matter of color, but smell. It stinks!
Given McCain's age (and likely post traumatic stress disorder, or ANGER problems) it puts Palin damn close to "the hot seat." Can't the same arguments be raised that many are afraid of a woman president? (I would LOVE to see a strong female who's principled where it counts, but not this "END TIMES" worshiper).
REAL WORLD: You wear lenses of tunnel vision and show a marked COMPASSION deficit. It's so easy to be glib about the SURFACE of things, and generalize about problems without having walked in others' moccasins. When was the last time you watched Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"? A child raised in poverty to a single Mother who can't make ends meet may grow up with far fewer options than you seem to take for granted. Maybe if you hang around a while and read enough, you'll grow a more comprehensive CONSCIOUSNESS.
I am so sick of self-righteous English writers lecturing us about how racist we will be if Barack Obama isn't elected!
Where's your black candidate for Prime Minister, Mr. Younge?
Has there ever ever ever been a serious black candidate for Prime Minister in the history of England?
Absolutely not!
Gary Younge claims America is a racist country becuase "black Americans are three times more likely to live in poverty and twice as likely to be unemployed or drop out of school. Such disparities do not happen by accident."
There are also some other disparities that "do not happen by accident" in England, Mr. Younge!
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6069
"They found that Caribbeans in the United States were more than twice as likely as Caribbeans in England to say their health was good.
They also found that whites and Caribbeans in the United States had similar levels of good health whereas Caribbeans in England had much worse health than their white counterparts.
The team also found that Caribbean Americans are wealthier than their English counterparts—with an income profile close to that of white Americans. In addition, Caribbean Americans reported less discrimination at work than their English counterparts."
So judging by income, health, and every other measure of well-being, it's obvious that England is a racist miasma compared to the United States, and Mr. Younge should stop giving sanctimonious lectures to Americans until he solves a few problems in his own miserable country.
Jacob Freeze
Correction: Gary Younge is actually an American writer who chose an English venue in the Guardian to publish his tirade against the United States. That makes it so much better!
Jacob Freeze
progressiveparty,
"No passion over any issue"(?). I don't get it. And do you really know as much about the real art of politics as this man has ALREADY demonstrated? For that matter, do you know what it's like to be black? Are you one of the persons who always drives around with his windows sealed?
All four of the candidates have to compete in an arena, and game, that highly favors white males. Usually younger ones. Money helps, but it doesn’t have to be your money. But as usual, White privilege goes a long way in today’s game. So, all the candidates have a certain amount of covering up to do. They don’t want to show their non colors. Biden and McCain have two of the favoring factors of the game. So, they must try to hide or diminish their age. It's the only thing that they each lack for a hat trick, and less problems. But they do have the experience of having once been young so they can do a good job of covering up. They both know and accept that they are incumbent puppets.
Palin has one of the home team advantages. She’s white. And although white can go very far in America, if it’s not attached to a male, or a male god, she will find herself an expired product waiting on the shelf. So, her admission into the game is that she will be subservient and do what the man, or male god says to do. She won’t think for herself and will always accept and promote being an outsider. Palin has to hide her femininity so as not to scare the males, so she’ll have an easy game. Palin is an Aunty Tom who is being set up to go against Cindy Sheehan.
Obama has two of the hometown perks, but the most problems. He’s a male and he’s comparatively young. Because Obama comes with baggage not found in most white males. He has had to defend his ethnic background as well as his childhood connections to a world wide religion. And, being black denies him instant credibility. White privilege at work. Still he moves along, trying to join the Uncle Buck party in D.C. and figure a way to stop the empire from dying. Obama, just like all of them, is willing to pretend they are someone they know it their heart, they aren’t.
None of the candidates are ideal in the eyes of the policy makers. But they are all willing participants. That’s what makes it so easy for it to look like Democracy is actually working in America. When what’s really happening is fascism at a very dangerous level.
Hoa binh
The game highly favors white males
Yeah, tell that to Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich and the other white males who couldn't compete with Hillary and Barrack. Your argument has a slight problem with recent events.
If your argument was true, the Hillary and Barrack would have finished behind Kucinich.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Some one is actually paying attention to what happens!
It does happen Thomas, sometimes when you least expect it. But it's always refreshing.
Hoa binh
To Jacob Freeze:
Go ahead and be sick of self-righteous Brit writers. They've always been fair game.
As an American, though, I can tell you with considerable certainty that if Barack Obama isn't elected, it will be because, as a nation, we are still racist.
How can I say that? He has too many positive attributes for me to think anything else, especially after the eight years we all will have experienced.
To Leeea:
You make a very good point about how Obama can make people forget about the black-white issue.
However, racism works on an unconscious level, and so much of the current discourse is a masque....
Racism is a huge factor in this election and is not out of bounds for discussion.
(See the article on Doug Wilder today.) Because of American history, the importance of race discussion should far transcend any stupid cliche about playing a card.
Oh yeah, sorry. This IS the article about Doug Wilder.
Bottle September 15th, 2008 4:49 pm
I simply have to disagree with you on Obama. If he's not elected it won't be because of race it will be because of many unanswered questions about him.
Racism simply isn't the problem it was even 20 years ago. Its here, but Obama won't lose that way.
Thousands of disenfranchised Black voters in Florida might argue otherwise.
I think that after I don't vote for Obama because he too closely resembles McCain, I will be told by the media that I didn't vote for him because of his race.
Yep.
Because they sure won't tell you how many people didn't vote for him because he supports the same pro-war, pro-corporate rule that benefits the corporations that own the media.
The last thing on earth that they want you to know is that there are many people around who feel that way.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"I think that after I don't vote for Obama because he too closely resembles McCain, I will be told by the media that I didn't vote for him because of his race."
I think that after I don't vote for McCain because he too closely resembles Genghis Khan, I will be told by the media that I didn't vote for him because of his age.
"Historically, there's been a last-minute swing away from black candidates by white voters. Will Obama change things?"
I'm not waiting for the last moment, but it's not color that has driven me under the bus. It's Obama himself and his Republican politics. I suspect he WILL lose... but it won't be a last minute loss. He lost immediately after he sewed up the nomination and demonstrated unequivocally that he didn't need my support.
No big deal. America may benefit more by going through a COMPLETE nationwide disaster than by any Republican-lite bandage that Obama offers.
Real change is not "more of the same" and perhaps Americans need to learn that message... even if it is the hard way.
If you want to know what a complete disaster looks like, just visit my state and you'll see the future. It can look terrorizing and depressing but eh, well I don't know.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
This is an insightful article whether written by a white guy or not. Racism is what this election will ultimately be about. The worst financial crisis in a 100 years unfolds in front of us and in any other democracy on this globe they would throw the ruling party out. Thats been the norm. Its a testament to how deeply riven our society is that the two candidates are actually running even ! Older white people in the South and elsewhere can NEVER get themselves to vote for a Black guy. Thats the crux of the issue.
I have to disagree with you. Racism is a very small factor in this election and certainly not a deciding factor unless there should be a revelation that Obama is a racist.
The racism argument no longer holds water. Make it if you like, but it simply fails the smell test.
"Older white people in the South and elsewhere can NEVER get themselves to vote for a Black guy."
If you believe that, you'd believe anything. At this point there is a lot more racism left in the North than the South. Just what I see there, not scientific polling or anything.
Most Old White Folks, where ever they are, would vote for a Red onion if we thought he (or she) could straighten out this mess.
Thank you. Most voters in my state aren't even considering race or gender. My state is so deep red anyway that even Alan Keyes would win it in a landslide. Don't get us wrong. We welcome Democrats. We just hate the national ones who write us off and join the Republicans all too often and then lie about being liberal. Oh, and we do have a strict requirement on anyone running that they can show that they're against any gun control or they don't get our ears on the issues. I happen to be slightly different since I don't take guns seriously unlike my neighbors and friends. Obama is still welcome to visit our state and campaign on economic issues. We may not like government but we do look at the individuals nonetheless.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Bull. What DO you see there? Is "there" the South or North? And it's not just South/North thing, but a rural and suburban thing as well.
As a white guy born and raised in Georgia and who has lived there for all of his 30 years, I can say without a doubt that there is most definitely a strong racist undercurrent to things. Even if it's not overt to the outside observer, it's definitely a significant factor. Not that long ago my grandmother asked me if we had any "B-L-A-C-K-S" in our neighborhood. Yes, she spelled it out. (I guess since my young son was in the car?)
And in case you weren't aware of the fact, you should know that when my moronic fellow GA voters ousted Max Cleland (because, you know, that triple-amputee Vietnam vet was TOTALLY a coward, unlike the HONORABLE Senator Saxby "Deferment" Chambliss) our state's delegation in Washington became segregated. All the Democrats were Black, all the Republicans White.
Does that mean all the Whites here are racist? No. Nor are all Republicans. Nor would I say that most of either group are racist. But race does, without a doubt, play a significant factor in things. There is no other way to account for the fact that our representation in D.C. just HAPPENS to fall along party and racial lines so nicely.
Since Obama out-polls McCain on pretty much everything but war, it's pretty hard to explain away race so easily. Either many Americans are too scared to vote based on any issue other than war, or many are racist to the point that they just cannot vote for Obama. Probably both to some extent.
And remember the West Virginia primary? OVER ONE FIFTH of people ADMITTED in exit polling that race played a major factor in their decision. That didn't even include Republicans; who knows what the percentage would be when you include Republicans and take into account those who won't admit it?
Whenever someone speaks against Obama - the liberals shout racism - and thereby curtailing any genuine critique of Obama's bush like policy statements.
The reason why Obama will not win is because he is acting a lot like Bush, his policy of more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is now also Bush's policy.
The period Obama was strongest was when he appeared to be taking a somewhat of an anti-war stance.
Now, that is all history, he is primed and ready to lead America in its imperial missions around the world i.e. same as Bush same as McCain. If Obama had made the links between war and the spiraling down economy, he may have won - now he is good as lost - he should consider folding, and donate his $$$ to a community organizing group, they'll be able to put it better use.
This is why Obama will not win, he is a war monger - when a war monger runs against another war monger - the war monger who is more trusted with security (McCain)wins.
Obama = Bush = McCain
From Washington Post, 9/15/08:
U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government’s approval — an idea that Obama first endorsed.
When Bush announced the new troop deployments to Afghanistan, for example, Obama said he was “glad that the president is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years.”
Obama, although supportive of the shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, criticized the effort as too little and too late.
via press tv:
US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.
Obama supported the raids but described them as "baby steps" by the Bush's administration.
"The Bush administration has come to that point of view. That's the kind of policy we have to pursue and continue ...This is a baby step, but it's a baby step in the right direction and something that John McCain hasn't been willing to acknowledge," Susan Rice, the top foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, said.
"Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, in fact, has been saying frankly since before the invasion of Iraq that the central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to invest there," she noticed.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
So Obama decides to make Pakistan accountable for the $10 Billion that was pumped into Musharrafs regime and he gets blamed for invading Pakistan even before he is elected, thereby giving Bush a free pass. Lovely. This ass-backwards logic doesnt holdup. Assuming we live in a 'democracy', however flawed, we need to hold the culprits who created this mess accountable first. I have no love for either Dems or Pukes and i plan on voting for mah man Matt Gonzalez (go baby !) but im pointing out the single issue that no one wants to touch with a barge-pole and the Obama haters always line up with machetes. Where was this outrage all these years ? All im saying is if Obama was a clean cut white guy or palinesque in some form he/she would stomp the opposition.
"This is why Obama will not win, he is a war monger"
Bull. He may not be as much of a pacifist as many of us would like, but if so many people actually BELIEVED Obama was a warmonger then you and others wouldn't spend so much time on here begging the question.
Many on CD keep attacking Obama from the left, as if that's where he would lose. Do you not realize that apart from right-wing trolls everyone of us on here is likely to be fairly significantly left of the majority of Americans? Sewing up the voters on the left 5% of the political spectrum sounds great, but not if it means losing the middle third. And make no mistake -- as much as I would like to see a far more progressive agenda in D.C., nominating a pacifist, a socialist, or whatever else everyone on here is always clamoring for will do nothing but drive 2/3 (or more) of the country to whoever his or her opponent happens to be.
Ill settle for scientific polling but then the Bradley effect may kick in and skew the polls !! I live in the most liberal State in the country and trust me, racism is an issue and is generally very well concealed. My granddad ofcourse is a shining example ! Whether its in the North or South or West or East it is an issue that will definitely tilt the elections one way or the other. Obama lurching to the Right or Left wont matter. Hillary stood a better chance. Again, except for a few journalists (Younge, Solomon, etc) in the recent past no one tackles it head on. All of us Greens, Dems, Pukes, Indies would love to believe otherwise.
riddimboy: "Where was this outrage all these years ? All im saying is if Obama was a clean cut white guy or palinesque in some form he/she would stomp the opposition."
Outrage? Do you live in America, dude/ss? There is never outrage in America, only a little whimper here and little whimper there... and if you express outrage, then you'll be called full of rage, and angry, and told to not get emotional. Possibly the most unAmerican thing you can do is express outrage.
If Obama was a white dude, the liberals would have abandoned him in favor of Hilary a long time ago.
No white guy would have withstood what Hilary gave out - Obama=Bush=McCain won because he was able to play the "first black man" yadda yadda to his advantage, while all the time claiming to not be playing that... The liberals esp. the white kind wanted to make some kind a history, and they did... good for them...
They got a reactionary black man egging on Bush - pretending to be anti-war - and yeah, Bush is implementing Obama's policies, deal with it, don't be crying.
Obama = Bush = McCain.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Yeah ... you sound like a stuck record that keeps playing the same line over and over again till someone accidentally knocks you off the perch. Nothing else seems to matter to you other than the fact that Obama made some noises about Pakistan. I suppose if I were sitting in Pakistan i would be a little concerned about this but Obama did unequivocally state that he is against a full scale invasion of Pakistan. Ofcourse you dont wanna hear that coz that will upset your pre-programmed fixed mental state. Get a grip.
Yes, of-course, you as a red blooded American need not worry about a few children and families getting knocked down in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. Nope - for you that is just a broken record, happens every day.
No red blooded American need worry about that... Obama is calling for more of the same from Bush - read his lips, if you can, or just read his words that I posted.
Obama wants Bush to do more attacks in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, what he is doing is not enough.
***US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.***
Oh so sorry, you were tired of hearing about Obama's policies that will and is leading to more and more killings. And you had to read it all again. Hey, a few children killed here, and a few there... so what? It is all the same for a true red blooded American. As long as we get to see cute children paraded at the convention floor, we're happy.
Riddimboy - go get yourself a heart, might do you some good.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Firstly it doesnt make an iota of difference if I was white or black or red-blooded american. I still think you are have taken Obama's Pakistan comments out of context. Even though he repeatedly stated that he is NOT in favor of a full-blown invasion or anything of that sort, it serves your world-view to paint him as the bogey-man. Feel free to do that. Every single administration in the last 60 years has been extremely friendly and supportive to a series of Pakistani dictators (despite your protests) and the Pakistani Military and ISI is fully complicit in not only creating the Taliban and destroying Afghanistans fledgling socio-economic life but also crushing its own people by investing in a massive arms build-up as well as embarking on a nuclear program.
Ofcourse you probably dont give a shit if the Taliban ends up controlling Afghanistan and entire swaths of Pakistan as well, and in turn oppress and stifle anything that moves (except bearded mullahs ?!!). Compassion, apparently is a two way street. What about all the families then ? What about all the women and children ? The ONLY entities that would be ecstatic about the Taliban controlling the region would be the Taliban (men) and Pakistan Military establishment. You know thats the truth so please stop misrepresenting ...
jacob freeze wrote:
"Correction: Gary Younge is actually an American writer ..."
Correction: no, he isn't. He was born, raised and educated in the UK.
"... who chose an English venue in the Guardian to publish his tirade against the United States."
I didn't hear a tirade: I heard a British writer, writing an opinion piece about US politics while on assignment to do just that for a British newspaper, trying to explain to its readership his take on how race will (or won't) be a factor in the upcoming US election.
If you disagree with Younge's points, fine: tell us why. But denigrating him for being a foreigner, as if non-USans have no right to hold any remotely critical opinion about the US, and then denigrating him (incorrectly) for being an uppity black USan concerned only with personal and (crucially, in your mind, apparently) racial - promotion ... well, it makes you look stupid or craven or racist or all of the above. Was that your intent?
Obama should show some integrity by honoring Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Fred Hampton and Stokely Carmicichael. Too bad he is too cowardly to bring these names into his speeches. His big goal is getting elected, integrity be damned. His careful, cautious speeches will cause him to lose.
He has lost my vote.
So he lost your vote because he didn't mention Huey P. Newton?? He's cowardly.
- And what if he did? He would turn more people off by those references and make them feel uneasy.
- I don't find it cowardly to be the first individual on a presidential scale to truly and accurately address race.
- The truth is, America isn't ready for this question, because they aren't ready to question themselves about their own fears and insecurities.
So when people dont want to talk about it, why jam it down their throats?
I agree. When you want to reach people unlike you, you have to frame yourself more like them or at least present your message in a manner they find familiar. White teachers in inner-city schools don't reach students by playing Garth Brooks. Barack Obama will not appeal to Whites (or other minorities) if he fits the "Angry Black Man" stereotype. He's going to be President, not Nat X. To not vote for him because he isn't acting like a Black Panther is stupid, because if Obama's not President McCain will be and he was just about the last person in the USA to agree to the MLK holiday.
The world now needs an intelligent man capable of diplomacy as US president and that is obviously Obama. Get over it. I suspect the problem for many non-blacks is not simply about acknowledging black people as people but with acknowledging black people as highly intelligent people. The idea that black people are as or even more intelligent than most non-blacks is the issue, I suppose. I only hope that some level of reason will rule the day in the coming weeks, on both sides of the 49th.
I see Obama dodging and fudging a lot of issues. Actually I think Obama's a bit timid on a lot of things, not just race.
Thing is, if he was "dangerous" to the elites, he'd probably win over a lot more people. That's called populism. But instead, he wants to have everyone over for dinner.
I'd like to vote for him BECAUSE he's not a WASP, but he's just not offering enough change, so I'm voting for Nader, a Lebanese guy. Sure he's not gonna win, but a message needs to be sent. And when Obama gets in, hopefully instead of McCain, that's when we have to get down to work.
Oh the racism is there. I've dealt with it head on. But I'm finding that most people, black and white, seem to be enamored with Obama and won over by his charisma. Me, I just see a very light neo-con.
I spoke with my aunt and uncle yesterday, two senior citizens, both white, both Republicans at one time. My uncle shocked me when he said he's voting for Obama. He sat out the last two elections, but is voting this time. He said to me "anyone who voted for Bush deserves what they get."
If anything, I think most people are giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. His most vocal critics, the right-wing media goons, are just attacking him based on racial, jingoistic, paranoid hogwash.
Gun-control, not race defeated Tom Bradley.
I don't question the reality of the "Wilder effect" and strongly suspect it will be seen in the next election.
However, the "Bradley effect" that cost Tom Bradley the governership of California wasn't his race, it was his strong, constantly repeated, adamantly unwavering position in favor of gun control that cost him the election.
I was in California during the election of 1982 and I saw the overwhelming grassroots response from the anti-control people to spreading the message that Bradley was going to take away their guns. Just the people the "gun rights" folks sent running in fear to the polls was unquestionably enough to wipe out that 1% loss plus quite likely a few percentage points more.
Even so, I found it amazing, and a huge credit to the quality of person Tom Bradley was that he only lost by 1%. California natives (there are are some believe it or not), have an historic cultural tie to the mythical Old West, and guns. Add to that the countless thousands of folks from gun-loving Texas and the deep South that have emigrated to California, and Tom's almost-win is truly astounding.
Another one of those rare, exceptionally decent human-beings that have made it into public office, Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania is another who got shot down in an election from a volley of votes cast out of hatred and fear from gun owners.
The genocide of Southeast Asians was in full swing in 1968 and the country desperately needed the tiny handful of decent Senators who stood up against the imperialism of the day. Yet, like Tom Bradley years later, Clark took a strong stance for gun-control, and destroyed any hope he had for re-election. Worse, his gun-control position turned a lot of Pennsylvania Democrats into Republican voters. At the time Pennsylvania issued more hunting licenses than any other state - and all those licenses represented votes against Clark.
Economics, jobs, health care, quality schools, the nearly constant slaughter of innocents abroad somewhere by the US for investment capitalists' profit, are all surely more important than risking all to clamor for gun-control. But more than one politician has thrown it all away on that one issue.