Race

Some interesting (or not for the reasons they might think it's interesting) analysis in the FT this morning.  It seems, less than a month before the election, they're keen to start the blame game if The Chosen One loses.  If that "sad" event happens, well, of course, it will be because of Obama's race. 

{...}“It would give me confidence that white people are not always looking at the colour of my skin,” says Dwight Thomas, a 51-year-old African-American, during a visit to the Sweet Auburn district of Atlanta where Martin Luther King grew up and was laid to rest. “It would show black kids that anything is possible.”

Recent opinion polls have shown Barack Obama leading John McCain, his Republican rival, by an average of 6 percentage points. If the election were held today, and the polls proved accurate, he would win by a landslide.

Yet, lingering doubts remain. Can a young African-American with an exotic name and a cosmopolitan background really triumph over an “all-American” war hero in a country where three-quarters of people are Caucasian?

For much of the campaign, racial prejudice has looked a serious threat to Mr Obama as he struggled to open a significant lead even in a political environment that McCain advisers describe as the most hostile for Republicans in 35 years. Mr Obama’s relative inexperience and liberal record may provide part of the explanation but many Democrats fear race is the biggest factor.

“There are 1,000 reasons to vote for Obama and one reason why you won’t – race,” Thomas Letson, a Pennsylvania congressman told his local newspaper.{...}

Yet, given the virlity of the quote, surprisingly, there is no Thomas Letson who is a Pennsylvania congressman.  He's, in actuality, a Democractic State Representative from Ohio.   But let us not quibble about who's a congressman and who's not.  Letson's a Democract.  That's ALL that matters.  And if he says race is an issue, well, then darn tootin' it's an issue.  Or so the FT would have you believe.

Over the past few weeks, however, Democratic paranoia has eased as polls have shown Mr Obama starting to pull away. The surge has coincided with escalation in the financial crisis, leading some analysts to argue that economic concerns have neutralised race as a factor. “At some point, economic self-interest overcomes the discomfort that some people have about Obama,” says Camille Charles, an expert on race at the University of Pennsylvania.

Some of Mr Obama’s biggest gains have come in rustbelt states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where he has had most difficulty winning over white working-class voters. The McCain campaign has just wound down its operation in Michigan, a state with raw race relations where Mr Obama was thought vulnerable, after seeing the Democrat open a solid lead.

The next few days will go a long way to revealing whether those trends are irreversible. The McCain campaign is intensifying attacks against Mr Obama’s character and background in what many commentators view as a thinly veiled attempt to fuel racial prejudice. The strategy involves highlighting his associations with controversial figures such as Bill Ayers, a leftist radical whose group bombed the Pentagon in the 1970s, and Tony Rezko, a Syrian-born convicted money launderer. There is nothing overtly racist about the attacks and many conservatives believe they raise legitimate questions about Mr Obama’s character and judgment. But critics argue the McCain campaign is sending a clear message to white voters: Mr Obama is not one of us and cannot be trusted. “Who is the real Barack Obama?” Mr McCain asked at a rally on Monday.{...}

{my emphasis}

Questions about character and associations=racism. 

Unless they're questions about John McCain's character and association.  In which case, they're, obviously, fair game. 

Moving along, however...there's more RACISM to get to...

{...]Many pundits question whether the electorate is in the mood for negative attacks while the economy is in crisis. But there is ample evidence to suggest the US remains fertile territory for racial demagoguery. A recent AP-Yahoo survey found that 40 per cent of all white Americans and a third of white Democrats hold partially negative views of African-Americans, leading the pollsters to estimate that race could be depressing Mr Obama’s support by up to 6 points. “There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean there’s only a few bigots,” said Paul Sniderman, the Stanford political scientist who analysed the data.

Prejudice is usually kept well hidden but just occasionally bursts to the surface. At a McCain rally in Santa Cruz, New Mexico, a young black woman was picked from the audience to ask a question. “What are you going to do about the communities who have nothing?” she asked, struggling to get her words out through nerves. Mr McCain gave a polite answer about how his economic policies would benefit everyone. But the response from the overwhelmingly white audience was more hostile. “Help yourself,” muttered one person, as the questioner melted back into her seat to a chorus of grumbles.

Assessing the impact of racial prejudice is notoriously difficult because few people are prepared to admit race could affect their vote. “It’s not about race, it’s about values,” says Billy Williams, a retired car plant worker in Covington, Georgia. Referring to the black former general who was secretary of state for Mr Bush’s first term, he adds: “I would vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat. I just don’t trust Obama.”

Without prompting, however, Mr Williams and his friend, Harold Esslinger, are soon talking about the perceived ills of black culture across the table of a budget diner close to where The Dukes of Hazzard, the television series, was filmed. Mr Esslinger, a Vietnam veteran wearing a Marine Corps T-shirt and baseball cap, complains about corrupt black politicians and a “crack house” near his home. Both men would almost certainly have voted Republican whatever the race of the Democratic nominee and Georgia is a long shot for Mr Obama. But there are many people like them in battleground states such as Virginia and Ohio.{...}

Ah, yes.  Let's go to Georgia, and talk to REDNECKS, near to where the Dukes of Hazzard was filmed.  We should be able to find some bigot there!  And they may even go on the record about their bigotry!

Even though they didn't. 

They said race didn't have anything to do with it, that they'd vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat,  but, WITHOUT PROMPTING, they started talking about  "the perceived ills of black culture," giving this particular reporter a gift from God.  Never mind that there actually are corrupt Georgia politicians who just happen to be black.   By the lovely associations and hints the reporter drops into the descriptions, well, he's pretty sure they're racists at heart, aren't they?  And even if they aren't, well they admit flat out that they know people who won't vote for Obama because he's black.  So that seals the deal, doesn't it?  And no just in Georgia.  No sirreee.  He goes on to assume there are many people like them in battleground states like Virginia and Ohio. 

This is the problem with reporters from overseas who try to cover the "race problem" here in the States.  They assume that whatever they've seen in the movies and on our exported tee vee shows is actually true.  They cannot fathom that some people would not vote for the chosen one because of his race, so hence make the argument that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama has made that choice for the same reason.  All generalizations, tied up neatly with a Dukes of Hazzard reference, just to nail home the racist angle.  After all, which flag was painted on the "General Lee?"  Answer: It's sure as hell not the Stars and Stripes. 

As the man says, go read the rest, for some scintillating non-conclusions. 

Here we have an African-American candidate for President.  Yes, it's fabulous, given our history, where as little as forty years ago a man like Barack Obama could have been lynched simply for the color of his skin, that he's a nominee for President.  I have no problems seeing the wondrous historical precendent in that.   However, people aren't perhaps buying what he's selling as he's in a tight race with a veteran politician who sure as hell is a lot more experienced than he is, and who has more sound judgment.  Yet, Obama is the Hope,. the Light, and the Future---and his supporters literally cannot conceive that someone wouldn't want to vote for those wonderful intangibles.  Because intangibles they are.  You cannot vote for Hope or Change---you must know how he manages to achieve those aims.  Because hope is nothing by itself.  Change, as well, is nothing by itself.  They must be achieved through actual methods, actual programs---that some people would disagree with.  And, because his supporters refuse to believe other people wouldn't want to support Hope and Change, they have to go looking for a reason why.  And their reason is because Obama is black. 

Which is a load of shit, if you don't mind me saying so. 

Look, if Democrats are going to claim a month from now, that the only reason Obama wasn't elected president was because of his race, then they must admit the only reason he became the Democratic nominee for President is because he's black.  You don't get to have it both ways: you cannot claim he has fabulous ideas to change the country, and that you want to elect him because of these ideas, not because of the color of his skin, and then claim he lost because of the latter---and that's the only reason he lost.  The Democrats just don't get to do that.  Neither do they get to deflect criticism of Obama's Hope and Change by pointing a finger at McCain and Palin and screaming "RACISTS!" whenever the questions aren't what they'd like to be asked.  They just don't get to do that.  You are either a "Post-Race" candidate, or you are not.  It's just that simple.