That feels like a long time ago.
Although Obama hasn't framed his candidacy around race, hasn't run as a Jesse- or Sharpton-type candidate, the media are now constructing a racial narrative around his bid. There are a number of reasons for this:
· He's lost the white vote, especially among the working class, in a whole lot of states while routinely racking up 90 percent of the black vote. This gets into the guts of the strength of his candidacy, and besides, reporters love exit polls.
· The Jeremiah Wright controversy, which prompted Obama to make a major speech on race and then to publicly divorce his former pastor, dragged the question into the spotlight.
· Obama's very success, bringing him to the brink of closing out the Democratic contest, had made journalists slap their foreheads and say, " It's really happening! A major political party is about to nominate an African American . . . Wait a minute! Is the country ready to elect a black man?"
Some of this was inevitable, given that for 220 years we've only had white presidents. Even as Obama tries to run as a post-racial candidate, he understood that race could not be cordoned off as a factor in his campaign.
But how much ugliness is surfacing in the process? The question arises because of this Washington Post report on how some Obama volunteers have encountered "a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated." Reporter Kevin Merida quotes Danielle Ross, who is white, recalling her experience in Kokomo, Ind.:
"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person.' People just weren't receptive."
"For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president . . .
"Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: 'It wasn't pretty.' She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: 'Hang that darky from a tree!' . . .
"The bigotry has gone beyond words. In Vincennes, the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other political messages: 'Hamas votes BHO' and 'We don't cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright.' "
Well. Rather sobering, to say the least--a reminder that we don't yet live in this mythical post-racial society. But the piece is drawing some criticism, especially on the right.
"Here it comes, folks," says Bull Dog Pundit. "The MSM, and some Obama supporters, are starting to talk about how tough it's going to be for him to win the Presidency because of all the racists out there, especially among the 'bitter' demographic where Hillary [Clinton] happens to be trouncing him . . .
"Now look, racism exists in this country, and to deny that would be foolish. And I'm sure that there have been some hateful and ignorant racists who say and do the sort of horrible things that are mentioned in this article.
"However, to make a larger point about a few isolated incidents is patently ridiculous. Should these sort of incidents be hidden from view and not discussed? Of course not. But to draw the conclusion about the electorate as a whole from what a few jackasses do or say is foolish.
"But the Obama campaign gets to be in the catbird seat on stories like this. They say how wonderful the overwhelming majority of people have been to their message, but also get the sympathy from the MSM over how it's going to be to overcome all the idiot racists out there . . .
"So remember folks. If you don't vote for Barack Obama, it very well may be that you're a racist."
At Townhall, Carol Platt Liebau offers similar criticism:
"These incidents are deplorable, awful and totally wrong. Anyone who is refusing to vote for Barack Obama just because he's black is a racist, and should be ashamed. (And how shocking to learn that this is going on in a Democratic primary . . . haven't we always been instructed that the Democrat Party is the party of the enlightened?!). There's a lurking danger in these kinds of narratives, as well. When stories like these go into wide circulation, it's a sure bet that some on the left are going to start asserting -- not that America is a great country with (unfortunately) some racists (all of which is true) -- but that America is a predominantly racist country with some great people (i.e., those who support Barack Obama). If Barack loses in the fall, the USA will officially be labeled a racist country by many of its left-wing citizens.
"Back in the realm of reality, it's the sad truth that there will probably be some people who won't vote for Barack just because of his skin color. But there will be many, many more who oppose him because of his leftist policies and his radical associations. It's important to distinguish between the two."
But it's not just conservatives. Time's Ana Marie Cox opines that "you talk to enough people, you're going to turn up a racist or two. Most reporters have probably come across at least one in this long campaign season -- I have -- the attitude is ugly and awful, but whether or not it's representative is another matter. The sheer numbers voting for Obama would suggest it's not. What's more, giving these clowns (the racists, I mean) a front page story does a huge injustice to, you know, the non-racists non-Obama supporters."
It doesn't seem to me that the piece portrayed the incidents as signs of rampant racism, just a glimpse of what some staffers are encountering.
Will the racial voting patterns we've seen so far cripple Obama? The New Republic's John Judis thinks it's a possibility:
"Clearly, Obama gained some votes in the early primaries from college-educated Democrats who liked the idea of an African American candidate transcending the historic conflict over race. And, if he had not been running against a popular female candidate, he might have won more support among white women. But Obama also lost voters to racial prejudice.
"One indication is the exit polls. The percentage of voters who backed Hillary Clinton (or, earlier, John Edwards) while saying that the 'race of the candidates' was 'important' in deciding their vote is a fair proxy for the percentage of primary voters who were disinclined to support Obama because he is black. That number topped 9 percent in New Jersey; in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two crucial swing states, it was more than 11 percent. And that's among Democratic primary voters, who are, on average, more liberal than the Democrats who vote in general elections . . .
"If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should be able to inherit the white women who backed Hillary Clinton. As political psychologists have shown, these voters should be largely amenable to his candidacy. He should also continue to enjoy an advantage among white professionals. But Obama is likely to continue having trouble with white working-class voters in the Midwest--voters who tend to score high on racial resentment and implicit association tests and who, arguably, decided the 2004 election with their votes in Ohio. Obama will also have trouble with Latinos and Asians, groups that score high on both indexes, and that can be important in states like California. It's not hard to quantify Obama's problem: If 9 to 12 percent of Democratic primary voters in swing states have been reluctant to support him because he is black, one can assume that, in the general election, 15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents may not support him for the same reason."
In the same magazine, Cinque Henderson says Obama can't take all African Americans for granted:
"Ninety percent of black Democrats support Barack Obama. So that might leave an observer wondering: What the hell is up with that other 10 percent? Are they stupid? Do they hate their own race? Do they not understand the historical import of the moment?
"I can shed some insight on this demographic anomaly. In gatherings of black people, I'm invariably the only one for the Dragon Lady . . .
"I disliked Obama almost instantly. I never believed the central premises of his autobiography or his campaign. He is fueled by precisely the same brand of personal ambition as Bill Clinton. But, where Clinton is damned as 'Slick Willie,' Obama is hailed as a post-racial Messiah. Do I believe that Obama had this whole yes-we-can deal planned from age 16? No, I would respond. He began plotting it at age 22. This predisposition, of course, doesn't help me in making the case against Obama, especially not with black people. But, believe me, there's a strong case to be made that he isn't such a virtuous mediator of race. And it's this skepticism about Obama's racial posturing that has led us, the 10 percent, into dissent . . .
"Once you stare past the radiant glow surrounding Obama and begin to study the exact reasons for his so-called racial transcendence, you can't help but conclude that it is mostly hokum. Why do black people love Obama? In large part, it's because of the dark-skinned woman on his arm. Black people (especially black women) are nuts for Michelle. Had Barack married a white woman, his candidacy would've never gotten off the ground with black people."
That's an angle I hadn't considered.
As for the late-breaking John Edwards endorsement, I watched him on the tube a few days ago saying his backing wouldn't matter very much at this stage. I agree with him. But the media love endorsements, he led all the evening newscasts, in part because his appearance with Obama was timed for the 6:30 programs. In fact, ABC's "World News" switched to the event live as Edwards joined Barack on stage in Michigan. "This is the kind of publicity that you can't buy," Charlie Gibson observed.
Chris Matthews asked whether Edwards might be Obama's running mate. Hasn't he already been there, done that?
The MSM applauds the move. NYT: "Offering potential help in his efforts to win over working class white voters in the general election."
Boston Globe: "Especially valuable to Obama, acting as a balm for his bruising loss in West Virginia and giving him a symbolic lift as he courts white, working-class voters."
Chicago Tribune: "An effort to transfer his appeal among white, working-class voters to a Democratic front-runner who has struggled to win them over."
LAT: "A blow to Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose bid for the Democratic nomination appears all but lost."
WP: "Sends a strong signal that Edwards, at least, thinks the nomination battle is over."
Daily News: "A dramatic move that brings Obama ever closer to donning the party's crown."
Perhaps it will do more than Ted Kennedy's embrace did for Obama in Massachusetts.
Some questions from Mark Halperin: "1. Would Edwards consider being on an Obama-Edwards ticket, although he ruled out such a thing a few weeks ago?
"2. What will Elizabeth Edwards do -- or will she do nothing?
"3. How many hours and hours of cable TV coverage in the next two days will be devoted to speculation about whether the endorsement will help Obama with white, working-class voters?"
Answer: thousands.
The media continue to discount Hillary's West Virginia blowout. Roger Simon puts it this way:
"SHE WON THE WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY BY A KAZILLION PERCENTAGE POINTS TUESDAY NIGHT, AND THAT, SHE SAYS, HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING!
"Except the press doesn't think so. The press is unimpressed. This may be the first time in election history in which the press has withdrawn from a race before the candidate."
After failing to crack 30 percent in WVa, Obama needs a different game plan, says National Review's Byron York:
"Her landslide 67-26 victory over Obama in West Virginia -- she won by 147,410 votes -- won't change that situation. The oft-repeated fact that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia won't change it, either. But together, those two facts show just how far Democrats have ventured into uncharted territory this year. If Obama is to win the White House, he'll have to do it in a brand-new way, winning states that Democrats haven't won lately with diminished support in states that have been important to Democratic victories in the past. Clinton's campaign reminds Democrats of that, and it makes some of them nervous."
At Mother Jones, David Corn asks: Why should we care about West Virginia, anyway?
"It's not unusual for a primary not to matter. In previous elections, candidates often skipped territory not deemed favorable to them. And late states often have had little impact. This year shows that it's hard to know in advance which states and which period will be crucial. Who'd thought that those medium-sized, in-the-middle-of-the-calendar states would be so important? But that was where and when Obama gathered momentum and vacuumed up a bunch of delegates.
"So nothing against West Virginians, but, like voters in late states of previous contests, they don't have much of a say in who will be the Democratic nominee. And neither will Kentuckians, who next week are likely to tilt toward Clinton, while Oregonians near-coronate Obama. The Democratic primary, as red-hot as any recent primary contest, is petering out. Seemingly with a whimper, rather than a bang. Which is a good thing. Clinton at the moment seems to be coasting, not calculating how best to destroy Obama."
The big Beltway buzz is over a Democrat winning a special House election in Mississippi in a GOP stronghold that President Bush easily carried in 2004. Conservative bloggers aren't trying to spin it away. Here's Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:
"My takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican.
"Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn't necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill."
On the other hand, the GOP losers in these special elections kept trying to tie their opponents to the very same Barack Obama.
Finally, Obama apologizes for calling a Detroit reporter "sweetie." Hey, it beats what some politicians call the press.
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
WashingtonPost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051501045.html
