SPONSORED BY:

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
 

After beginning his campaign with a stunning statement of cross-racial appeal—his big win in Iowa--Obama took New Hampshire too lightly, and was blindsided on his victory lap by the wobbly front runner, Senator Clinton. Had he knocked her out in New Hampshire, he perhaps could have run a different kind of campaign. But he desperately needed a big win in South Carolina, and to get it he had to fight the Clinton family's deep ties in the African-American community nationwide.

And so Obama focused heavily on the black vote, first in South Carolina, then everywhere, not to the exclusion of other constituencies, but to perhaps a greater degree than he might otherwise have been required to do. With the help of Oprah Winfrey and others—and the mixed blessing of his wife, Michelle, declaring that she would finally feel proud to be an American—Obama worked it big time.

The bottom line in South Carolina was a racially polarized result that has continued to this day. Obama wins blacks by unprecedented numbers, and, in most states, college-educated and younger whites. Hillary wins less-educated and less-affluent whites, and the lion's share of Hispanic voters. (One reason she is staying in the race: the Puerto Rico primary.)

The legacy of South Carolina remains intact. South Carolina also was the place in which Obama's campaign began crying foul over real or imagined racial slights. It worked in many ways, increasing black voter solidarity and goading Bill Clinton into serial fits of purple rage. Sometimes complaining about others who play the "race card" can itself be a form of playing the race card.

The Obama campaign may be right: that raising the profile of this issue is the way to finally defeat it. America has come a long way, and perhaps younger voters will express their impatience with racial old-think by voting for Obama in the fall as an expression of faith in the future.

We'll see. In this campaign, the new argument over race and personhood hasn't ended. It's just begun.

© 2008

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

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