Clockwise from top: Emmett Till, Harold Washington, Thelma & Louise
As pundits on Tuesday night considered every possible angle to the Obama-Clinton race, a critical factor was largely ignored: the way in which racial and gender stereotypes are framing perceptions of the candidates. The media repeatedly mentions the “historic” campaign between an African-American and a woman, and acknowledges that many blacks and white women are voting for the candidate that matches their own demographic. But the media has avoided more subtle racial and gender explanations for their own framing of the contest. For example, Hillary Clinton is “feisty” and a “fighter” for engaging in a scorched-earth negative campaign. Yet when Barack Obama uses Clinton’s mocking tone he is described as “arrogant,” and he is “angry,” rather than “combative,” when he raises his voice to challenge Clinton. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell stated on February 12, 2008: "you've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." Yet election night pundits ignored Rendell’s message, preferring less accurate but more politically correct explanations for the outcome.
Media Ignores Racial Bias
During the multi-hour punditry session Tuesday night, the media's fear of stating a major reason for Clinton’s consistent success among a certain pocket of voters became obvious. When CNN’s Bill Schneider, its Senior Political Analyst, was asked to explain why Catholic voters consistently voted for Clinton in such high numbers, he said he “had heard a number of explanations” but that none were convincing.
But Schneider never disclosed these explanations, or explained their inadequacy. And when Wolf Blitzer asked him why Jewish voters were equally divided between Obama and Clinton while Catholics were not, Schneider repeated that nothing he had read adequately explained this difference.
When someone like Schneider, who is paid to express opinions on voting trends, looks so uncomfortable about giving any reason for a major constituency’s voting patterns, something is fishy.
And it is even fishier when the answer to Blitzer’s question was so obvious: Jews have historically been the leading white supporters of black candidates, while Catholics have not.
Jews were the only whites to back African-American Harold Washington in both of his winning Chicago mayoral races. They were the key white demographic behind Tom Bradley’s repeated victories as Mayor of Los Angeles, and the only white group to support the racial integration of Detroit neighborhoods in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
Since Jews have been the white constituency most willing to support major black candidates, it is no surprise that Jews are splitting about evenly for Obama, despite the Clintons’ long record of Jewish support.
In contrast, the Catholic community has historically shown far less support, and even fierce opposition, to racial integration and black candidates in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and Philadelphia. And given that at least a third of Catholic voters in Pennsylvania were over 60 years of age, the likelihood that this group was among those that Rendell says will not vote for a black candidate is quite high.
Schneider knows this history, but was afraid to reveal it for fear of “injecting” race into the contest. Instead, he and other pundits knowingly propounded exclusively non-racial explanations for Obama’s alleged “failure” to win over white working class voters.
In fact, pundits downplayed or ignored the racial component of the Pennsylvania contest even after exit polls showed that nearly a fifth of voters said racial attitudes impacted their decision, and that most of these respondents backed Clinton.
Feminism’s Next Wave: Moving the Goal Posts
When Clinton campaign chief Terry McAuliffe announced Tuesday night that the nomination should go to the candidate who won the most popular votes rather than the most delegates, many pundits jumped on the Clinton camp for seeking to “move the goal posts.” But the media has often framed Clinton’s repeated efforts to change the rules of the race as an example of her “feistiness,” and of a “fighting spirit” that refuses to accept defeat.
Based on email responses to articles in Beyond Chron, many female Hillary supporters not only have no problem with changing the rules, but actually see it as “payback” for a male dominated culture that constantly changes the rules against women.
Hillary Clinton’s rule breaking is seen as an act of feminist empowerment; she is a one-woman Thelma and Louise battling the barriers---in this case, the Democratic Party rules that the Clintons largely created-- that have kept women down.
In contrast, Obama has no choice but to continually emphasize his commitment to the rules. If he sought even the smallest deviation or modification, he would quickly be accused of demanding a form of “affirmative action” or special treatment because of his race.
“Obama Is Not A Fighter”
How many times have we heard pundits claim that Obama is “too passive” during debates, and that he needs to do a better job of convincing voters that he will “fight” for them? Yet when Obama criticizes Clinton or the media coverage of “gotcha” issues he is called a “complainer,” and instead of crediting his “fighting spirit,” pundits see such strong responses as evidence that he won’t be able to take the Republican “heat” in the fall.
Obama faces a challenge little different from that Jackie Robinson confronted with the Brooklyn Dodgers over 60 years ago. A black man who stands up for himself too strongly is “angry” and “defensive;” but failing to aggressively defend his position renders him “passive,” and not a “leader.”
Of all the racial stereotypes that have dominated the United States, none is more lasting than that of the “angry black man.” And when you study the history of accusations made against black men for their alleged misconduct toward white women— Emmett Till was lynched for allegedly looking at a white women “the wrong way” ---it is easy to understand why Obama has been hesitant to unleash a “fighting spirit” against Hillary Clinton.
And had Obama displayed the anger and fury that leads the media to describe Hillary Clinton as a “fighter,” he would have been tarred as another Al Sharpton before the first primary and been long gone from the race.
Obama will not face such obstacles in running a spirited campaign against John McCain. And after the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Clinton’s continuation in the race will change the perception of her from ‘”feisty” to delusional.
POST COMENTS BELOW:
BeyondChron.org
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5601
