The Race Perplex

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Far from eliminating racial thinking from politics, the Obama campaign has inevitably drawn attention to the subject—and, looking back, I guess we should have known that it could hardly have done otherwise. In South Carolina (appropriately enough, since that is where the Civil War began) the Democratic campaign divided itself along racial lines, and it has remained that way.

From Iowa onward, Obama has done well among younger, college-educated and upscale white voters. But the heart of his coalition and calculus is the unprecedented registration and turnout of black voters. Sen. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has increasingly retreated into a redoubt of lower-income and older white voters and, in many states, is also relying on an appeal to Hispanic voters that has a racial component to it.

Media analysis, aided (if that is the right word) by exit polls, is more race-conscious (or obsessed) than ever. There are times on television when I find myself blanching at the frankly race-based nature of the discussion. It doesn't seem like progress.

Who made the campaign this way? We are all at fault, especially voters who are admitting that race matters. Those voters overwhelmingly have gone for Hillary Clinton, and while there may be many reasons (Her gas-tax holiday? Her health-care proposal?), it's hard to escape the conclusion that many have done so simply because Obama is black.

The Clintons share the blame. Bill Clinton should never have dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina as a race-based one, just like Jesse Jackson's. (Even though it was in good measure just that the Clintons should have had the wisdom not to say so. Neither should their main argument to superdelegates be that Obama can't get enough white voters to win in the fall. First, that may not be true—especially if Hillary gets out there to help him. And, while it might seem unfair, the Clintons need to have a better reason. They sound too much like they are fanning the prejudice they claim to deplore and that, indeed, they worked throughout their lives to oppose.

But Obama and his campaign are not blameless. His message from the start was race-aware, if not race-based. He was saying: in part because I am in fact an African-American, I have a capacity for leadership in 21st century America that others do not.

And the primary schedule led him to more explicit appeals as a black candidate per se—the very our-kind approach he supposedly had eschewed.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: roncraw @ 05/28/2008 3:26:55 PM

    I've subcribed to Newsweek for years. I will not renew. I buy a news Mag. for objective reporting,Fineman,Alter and Wolffes love affair with Obama on print and MSNBC has soured me on all of them.They all belong on Fox,come to think of it maybe Fox is more fair and balanced than them

  • Posted By: gwhitt @ 05/26/2008 2:43:19 AM

    I don't think Obama supporters are considing Clinton supporters racist just because they won't go Obama. Problem is, it is easy to point or visualize a lot of Obama's faults. Also, these faults are faults of other people; not the candidate himself. Then, did you do the same for the candidate you did choose? Interrogate their background? Search for their faults? I guess what we are looking at is, if you did then you know the dirt trial that leads up to the Clintons door... Unlike Obama that may have some questionable friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton has a lot of dead friends! Not only that but, they have dirt trails of their own (and this goes beyond shadey associates). Hillary is being accused of campaign fraud for her senate run. She's been accused of stealing posessions from the White House. These are not crimes of friends; these are deeds done by the candidate herself! That makes it a little different than Obama. In fact, he can look like a saint in many instances against the dirt of some others. Of course, this would bring question as to why anyone would support a criminal type candidate?

    Has nothing to do with color or gender... We can fantasize that Obama may have dirt but, to date, it isn't true. There IS no fantasizing about Hillary; there is dirt there and it's hard dirt so there IS a bit of a difference. However, people choose who they choose... To me, it's like marrying a criminal while they are still in prison. Some people can do that without a problem; my morals just seem to make me snare at the idea.... Its just difference.. and there is no problem with people being different or having a difference of opinion; that is what makes America beautiful and what it is..

  • Posted By: gwhitt @ 05/26/2008 2:24:58 AM

    I wouldn't consider it a "racist" remark; probably more of an exaggeration. And you are right; there are more accomplished minorities than Barack Obama. However, he is the "new kid on the block" sort of speak that happens to be multi-racial and, the candidate for "change."

    To my understanding, historically minority voters tend to favor "change" candidates. It didn't matter what color they were (i.e., Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc), they seem to put their buck on the new guy. Fortunately or Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), the new guy happens to be a multi-racial candidate in this campaign..!! The turnout numbers for the primaries may be larger than past records but, does that change the overall view that there would be a good chance that Democratic minority voters would favor a new, for change candidate?

    From this particular view point, I don't see anything happening out side of tradition... The difference is in the concept of "change." The "change" candidate in this campaign just happens to be Barack Obama. I am no political whiz but, being around since the Kennedy era, I could even see this trend.. Kennedy was the Democratic candidate for hope and change as well as Carter and Clinton. All of which carried the majority of minority votes! That is, for the majority of minorities that DID vote... Based on trends alone would have laid out the possibility that Barack, being the current day voice for "hope and change" would get the majority of minority voters; no matter what color he is.. I am black but, I would have voted for him even if he was white, mexican, asian, spanish or whatever race because, he is the "hope and change" candidate. His message is to challenge political and economical change....

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now