In this week's Gay Agenda video blog, Jennifer Vanasco and Jon Mallow discuss the question of race as it applies to the 2008 election. Is Barack Obama stuck in the polls because America is racist?
a) The idea that some voters will say they will vote for a black candidate, but then not is called the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect is extremely complicated to prove or disprove. There may also be mitigation in favor of Obama in certain states with a higher black population.
b) The Democrats have been losing since 1964 for a reason. That reason is indeed race. Johnson famously said that the Democrats lost the South for at least a generation because of passage of the civil rights acts. You had people where were former Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party to joing the GOP due to race. The GOP ran with Nixon, among others, on the Southern Strategy-- which went from being blacks, guns and crime to gays, guns and defense.
So, my first point would be to say that race has always been a part of American electoral politics, and why the Democrats have lost.
Second, if you want to understand how this all links up to African Americans and gays, you should realize that much fo the aparatus used to discriminated against gays had its antecedants in the discrimination legally enforced against African Americans. Indeed, laws such the recent repeal of the ban on marriages against social policy found in MA had their roots not in preventing gays from marrying, but instead, were designed to stop blacks from marrying whites.
Indeed, much of the arguments regarding the judiary versus the legislature etc used by conservatives in states like CA had their gensis in the black civil rights era as well. The point is-- one day there will be a gay candidate who will face similarly structural issues, and it will be different- how it plays out, but also the same.
Fact:Women equal 52% of the population, and in most elections equal 60% of voter turnout.
Fact:Women equal only 16% of both houses of Congress, 25% of all state elective offices, and 8 current governors.
Question:When women equal 60% of the voting population, how could Hillary Clinton possibly lose to a man (of any color)?
Answer:Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton.He may not have been the better candidate for president, but he was more skilled at winning votes.
Did Clinton win Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey because those states are inherently more racist or less sexist than states like Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho where Obama won?
While racism and sexism are alive and well in this country, I doubt they played a big enough factor to cause either candidate to lose an entire state.I also doubt racism will play enough of a factor in the presidential election to win entire states.McCain will win the states any Republican could win and Obama will win the states any Democrat could win.Since both are more to the ideological middle than past candidates from their respective parties, certain swing states are up for grabs.
Since the Democrats have not been able to win the working-class vote in decades – Bill Clinton getting the closest – Obama is going to have to focus on offering real solutions to helping the working-class rather than just empty rhetoric.That, and not his race, will determine his success in reaching the White House.
What is the context in which Obama is running. Against whom? What has happened to the working class under the GOP? Under policies that McCain has voted for by 95 percent. If they really cared about the economic issues as you claim (and I am not convinced they are) you would think they compare and contrast candidates to see what is better even if it's not the best rather than pretending as you do that Obama is running without an GOP oponent. I don't notice any particular statements about the GOP candidate. This happens each cycle. The public makes this about one candidate or another rather than compare and contrast. Your kind of view is what is called perfect as the enemy of the good. Obama isn't perfect, therefore he's not good. The question is compared to what? Now, if you said, Obama has failed to provide this contrast- that's true. But not in the sense there isn't one. I am unconvinced it would matter. It's not like this hasn't been an issue in the past, and it doesn't change the numbers- if you look at where Obama is doing well, and not, , it really is demographics such as race. Oh, and I have no idea how you think California and NJ in a primary season disproves the point about race, which is mostly about swing states since those are the places people are really asking why the numbers are seemingly tied. It's not that anyone is saying race is the only thing that matters. Just that its a factor.
When you get past all the rhetoric the GOP has long been, and remains, a party focused mainly on preserving the interests of the rich. Period.
Obviously, however, there are not many votes to be won by telling the working class that your goal is to make their lives harder so that millionaires and billionaires can make even more money than they already have.
Hence the alliance that Reagan in particular worked to build with the Religious Right on "moral issues". "Family values" sounds great and it appeals to many working class people. It also provides a neat distraction from economic policies that aren't in their best interests.
Also, McCain's growing militarism is another problem. Americans have a tendency to forget that military spending still counts as "government". So when we talk about "big government" and "government spending" things like fighting wars do in fact count. Due to the nature of modern warfare, and the use of smaller amounts of high-tech hardware, war doesn't provide the kind of economic boost it did decades ago. Iraq for example has been nothing but a big sinkhole with more money flowing out of America than will probably ever flow back in again. McCain's enthusiasm for war could easily drain our nation's coffers.
Which is why, again, he's swinging to the Right lately and trying to be more visible on issues like abortion. Although one astute person commented in a newspaper that if McCain believes that life begins "at conception" as he stated in the recent religious forum he and Obama did, then his prior support for some stem-cell research is contradictory.
The stuff about gays is just a revised form of what they used to say about African Americans. Rather than being able to openly make the "moral" arguments, they use code words such as experience, which apparently only matters when they have it, and they claim we don't. Many don't realize this, including far too many African Americans, but the Bible was used as a basis for why it was okay to discriminate against African Americans. They would cite sections of the Bible that they claimed condone the discrimination. You will get a lot of present Christian historical revisionists who will claim these weren't real Christians,b ut that only begs the question of the 'moral' they are using. The GOP knows all of this, and I find them to be just deeply manipulative on these issues. I once dated a guy (can't do that ever again) who was a Log Cabin Republican type whom I discovered after dating him had voted for Bush in 2004. His reasoning- politics is about power, and therefore as a guy with money he wants to retain power over his money. With that sort of rational you see how and why people are manipulated.
A lot of people have long since forgotten that the Southern Baptists grew out of the fact that many American Baptists were in favor of abolition and it caused a rift with those in the slave states and territories. There were no shortage of ministers who dug references to slavery as practiced by both the Israelites and people in the New Testament to argue that slavery was Biblically justifiable.
The "experience" issue is also a smokescreen in many ways. For example, Republicans never saw Bush's lack of real military experience as an issue (flying around the deadly skies of Texas in the National Guard while thousands of men his age were overseas at war not counting in my book).
Doesn't McCain argue that he's an individualist in the DC insider culture? Is that really different than Obama being a newcomer to that same culture and thus not as married to it's outdated games?
The experience issue, and that of arrogance, is one about race. It's just code language. Growing up black down in the rural South- especially growing up black and intelligent, I got that sort of stuff alot from white counterparts. I have black professional friends who have 20 years of experience in corporate America being questioned about whether they have enough experience. I have friends who are called arrogant merely because they have opinions and acted as any other candidate acts. For example, McCain goes abroad, and gets no press, but Obama goes abroad and gets press. Therefore Obama is arrogant for having gone abroad. McCain right now has argued that he favors the Georgian/Russian conflict (playing on Americans history with the Russians rather than the facts on the ground), but no one calls McCain arrogant. It's a double standard that works effectively and best as code. Unfortunately Obama can never mention any of this directly or else he's playing race rather than aknowledging that race is being used against him.
The arrogance argument is certainly debatable, but I don't think the experience argument is in this case. As you say, if black professional friends have 20 years of experience and are then questioned it's an indication of something in the attitude of the questioner. But the following fact is irrefutable: if you compare the "political" experience of all candidates who have been nominated by major parties for president the last 100 years, Obama would be near the bottom, if not AT the bottom. Bill Clinton was hit for lack of experience, Jimmy Carter was hit for lack of experience, JFK was hit for lack of experience. The only way your argument can make sense is if the candidate actually HAS a lot of experience, and is then dismissed for a lack of same. That just isn't the case here.
I am also a lawyer who once did lobbying work. I am saying all of this to put my next comment into context:
There is no such thing as having the right experience to be President of the United States. My argument isn't that people don't have experience, but that the argument is wholy irrelevant.
You can , of course, pretend that they make these arguments for other reasons. I refer to this with regard to race as the anything-but-theory of race. If there are other possibilities, however, unlikely, those possibilities will be given a greater weight than race. I don't pretend all arguments regarding Obama is about race. However, I do know that the two- arrogance and experience are about race. Just as I know that discussions about whether he's an authentic American (again further code although more overt) are.
The experience argument is irrelevant to who will make a good or bad President. Grant was a horrible President. Lincoln was a great one. Nothing in their records would indicate which would be which.
The key element is judgement. Experience is a shell game constructed to avoid that conversation that dovetails nicely into concerns and fears over race that no one talks about but are pointed to with a wink and nod. McCain's people know this. That's why they and Clinton when she tried had to argue this. They certainly can not argue look at my judgment.
Finally, this conversation as a guy who grew up down South is interesting if only because I remember having to say the exact same things to people in the 2000 elections about how Bush was speaking in code to Evangelicals to anyone who understood the dog whistle. These campaigns need to be understood in their totality. When I look at what's being said,a nd when it's often said- it's very much in part racial.
I completely agree with your analysis of the merits of experience in this context, especially as opposed to judgment and basic intelligence and understanding.
However, I don't see how you can leap from that to the raw assertion (not a speculation, but a "sure thing" assertion) that negative judgments about Obama are based on race. I say that for a number of reasons, but two stand out and strike me personally as essentially irrefutable:
1. If Obama were white, I am totally confident that we would be hearing every bit as much from the Republicans about experience. That's because it would be the most obviously workable criticism. As I said before, JFK, Carter and Clinton were all literally pounded on the issue of experience. Here in Minnesota Sen. Coleman is pounding Al Franken on the experience issue. If Al were black I'd guess you'd be suggesting that the attack was just a code for race. Many people care deeply about the experience issue, whether you and I think it's valid or not. That has been proven in election after election, at all levels of politics.
2. I know people who I know absolutely do not have racism within them, but who are genuinely leery of Obama because of the experience issue. Many of these are middle of the road type people or people who lean somewhat left. These people are genuinely concerned about the issue.
The concept of experience as a prerequisite is strongly ingrained in our culture at all levels. In business, we hire people more on the basis of their experience than on the basis of perceived intelligence. In sports they hire managers and coaches often on the basis of experience - that's why the same old guys keep getting recycled despite failures in the past, and promising newcomers are overlooked.
I do not know why other people are not voting for Obama, but my main issue (though there are others) is his very soft support/subtle opposition to a woman's right to choose. There is a great deal of conflicting data on Obama's position on abortion rights -- his voting record in Illinois vs DC, his statements as a politician vs a Christian, etc. -- but from everything I have read Obama would be one of the worst Democratic presidential candidates on a woman's right to choose since Jimmy Carter. Since this leaves me with two major party candidates who are far from "perfect" and not very "good" on a woman's right to choose, I will either vote for a third party candidate or leave the presidential portion of my ballot blank in protest.
As for the rest of the country, I am still unclear whether you are saying Obama did in fact lose certain states in the primary because the voters in those states are more racist than the voters in the states Obama won.Do you believe Obama lost swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana because they have a high level of racist voters, yet won solidly red states like Wyoming, Utah, and Iowa because there are far fewer racists?What about a state like Texas where he both won the caucus and lost the primary?Is Texas both racist and not racist?
Al Gore and John Kerry lost because the Republicans spend more time thinking about staying in power than running the government.They know how to win elections no matter how awful their candidates and positions are.2006 was a stumble for them, but do not underestimate their evil genius.If the election were held today, Obama would win; but the same could have been said of Kerry and Gore at this point in their elections.It does not help anyone to assume Obama losing in November could only be the result of evil, racist voters.He just needs to watch out for the same (not racist) smear attacks that took down our last two candidates.
Joey - I'm not sure why you refer to Obama as having "subtle opposition to a woman's right to choose". Based on everything I know he's been totally consistent in his votes and support of Roe v Wade. Saying that you'd prefer to make abortion less common is not tantamount to being soft on a "right to choose". I say myself that I'd prefer to see as few abortions as possible.
Remember also that a president has virtually no power in the "choice" fight apart from his ability to name Supreme Court justices. McCain has said he would name justices that oppose Roe, and he's said he thinks Roberts and Alito are justices to emulate. Meanwhile, Obama would surely name supporters of Roe. In real terms, the ONLY way to eliminate abortion rights is to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe. If McCain wins, that will likely happen. If Obama wins, it won't happen. It's really as simple as that.
This is from the L.A. Times:
Despite their efforts to downplay the issue, McCain and Obama almost certainly would steer the country in opposite directions on abortion through their appointments to the Supreme Court, which may be just a conservative vote short of overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
"Whoever is elected president will have the power to fundamentally transform the future of abortion politics," said Cynthia Daniels, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
but your post has no link to reality. Obama is anti choice, but then, that begs the question- what again is McCain? You say he's worse than Carter. That's a lie, but let's pretend for the sake of argue that it's not. Compared to McCain what is Obama?
Let's now go to race- I describe the American view as the anything-but-race theory. Race isn't possibily ever the explaination for how Americans today think. Never mind the stats on job situations, nevermind the data on how the subprime fallout occured and to whom. Nevermind the fact, that if you look at Obama's numbers- where he does poorly nationally is in the demographic regions such as Apalachia. He may lose by pointing this out, but it doesn't meant that those of us who aren't politicians have to pretend that race doesn't matter.
I also like how at the end you say smears are what takes down Democratic candidates, but seem to ignore that part of the smears that can and will be used against the president nominee is race. ie, the experience argument, that he's arrogant (translation- uppidy or further translation- he's a black guy, so how dare he thinks he can say and do these things), saying that he's using the race card when in fact by saying that McCain was the one injecting race as a negative into the campaign, and on and on.
Craig - You're confusing me. Did you switch the names in your second sentence, and mean to say that McCain is anti-choice, and then mean to refer to Obama in conjunction with Carter? I'm assuming that must be the case.
I'm with you on the idea that race will be a factor in this campaign. It's shocking and hard for some to believe, but I've heard comments and read internet postings from too many people to not realize that.
Nonetheless, I think you overstate your case when you try to assert that a complaint of being "uppity" or arrogant is code for race, and especially when you say that experience is code for race. It's a 100% certainty that any Democratic candidate with Obama's experience level would be hammered on that issue. It's a bit less certain, but I think it extremely likely that any Democratic candidate who did some of the things Obama has done (his faux presidential seal, a campaign rally in Germany, a "cool" aloof attitude) would be criticized for arrogance.
I'm a huge Obama supporter. I think the "uppity" thing is completely bogus. There is some meat in the experience criticizm. My answer to that is that I'd MUCH rather have a smart, fast-learning person with the proper ideas and proper instincts, than a more experienced person with the wrong ideas. I remind people that the people who got us into Iraq had huge amounts of experience (Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the neocons). I also remind them that JFK had FAR less experience than Nixon, and Lincoln had an extremely limited amount of experience. Experience is a BAD thing if it teaches you the wrong lessons, as appears to be the case with McCain.
that's the first thing. And racial code works precisely because of deniability. That's why it's a shellgame. There are other possibilities that can always been seen as credible unless one understand the subtext of the language and to whom it's directed. That's how communications, films, books and politics works. I didn't support him or Clinton during the primary. I supported Edwards because of his economic populist message.
...I will either vote for a third party candidate or leave the presidential portion of my ballot blank in protest.
I'm sorry, but it's exactly this same dogma that resulted in our getting stuck with Bush for the last eight years. Our nation cannot take another four of the same.
Do you have any other objections to Obama? It baffles me that one would throw a vote away merely because of an issue over which Obama has very little control. Obama's economic policies scare the crap out of me, but McCain stands for almost everything that I oppose. I'm gay, single, don't plan on marrying now or ever, nor do I ever want kids. Obama's economic policies are going to hit me harder(and more directly) than McCain's policies on gay adoption and gay marriage, but to even consider voting for McCain or a third party candidate is completely out of the question. His stance against gays and gay rights is as staunch or more staunch than Bush's. I can't live with that for four more years. I'd rather feel the pain in my wallet than to be beat down by the pathetic republican right.
He has said it is morally wrong.He has stated that his religious beliefs flat out lead him to believe having an abortion is immoral.
He voted neutrally (“present”) on all abortion laws, whether they were strengthening or weakening a woman’s right to choose, while in the Illinois Senate.He did this to reconcile his strong personal beliefs on the issue and yet to not go against the Democratic Party’s continued support of women’s rights.He changed this habit when he entered the US Senate, and was probably thinking ahead to this election.
He was endorsed by anti-choice Democrats during the primary because they specifically felt his beliefs and actions on the issue of abortion were more in line with theirs than his rival Hillary Clinton.
He has clearly stated as a politician he does not support legally protecting a woman’s right to choose in the third trimester unless she could potentially die without the abortion.Therefore, a woman has a right to control her body up until the six-month period, at which point she has to begin asking permission to make her own medical decisions.
He has spoken about how woman who have had abortions regret their decisions.He compares this regret to that of white people who were once racist but now no longer are bigots.
He is strongly considering, by all news reports, a fellow anti-choice VP candidate, Gov. Tim Kaine.This seems like a clear indication of how important the issue is for him.I would imagine he might choose Kaine to be VP for a variety of reasons, but his anti-choice beliefs clearly do not concern Obama.They do, however, concern me.
So I say again, Obama has to be one of the most anti-choice Democratic candidates for president since Jimmy Carter, certainly more so than Kerry and Gore. He is superior to John McCain on the issue, but that is not enough for me. I have never voted for an anti-choice politician, and I sure as hell am not going to start with Obama.
At least the Democratic Party seems to be strengthening their support of a woman’s right to choose:
I have a straight friend who is a very staunch Catholic. He believes in all the things in the Bible about egalitarianism, and helping your fellow man, and giving to the poor, and being good stewards of the earth, etc. In other words, he should be a fellow bleeding-heart liberal. But he feels he has to vote for Republicans because of the abortion issue. And who knows, maybe there were enough people just like him in Florida in 2000 that threw the election to Bush. And so we have 8 years of idiotic, anti-choice, homophobic, anti-environment rule. We have a loooonnnggg, completely unnecessary war that has cost over 4000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, while making us all less safe from terrorism.
How ironic it would be if enough people thought like you, and this election went to McCain because of it. And then he appointed two more Alitos, and Roe v Wade were overturned, resulting in no more choice in many states, back-alley abortions, etc.
Perception and interpretation are interesting concepts. Here's a quote from a story about an evangelical teleconference reacting to the recent Rick Warren "debate":
"During the NewsGuests teleconference a member of the media asked the evangelical commentators what the Presidential candidates will do in reference to the abortion issue. Replying to the question, Janet Folger stated, '…The real answer …. that accurately reflects his record – at what point does this baby receive human rights? According to Barack Obama, never. Not at conception, not in the first, second, or third trimester. Not when the baby's three quarters of the way delivered. Not even at birth, as he voted three times as an Illinois State Senator against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.' "
So if I read what you wrote in your post above, and then what Janet Folger said, talking about the same issues, I would think I am reading about two people at polar opposites of the abortion issue. And yet both of you are talking about Obama.
Further, NARAL (of which I am a member) has enthusiastically endorsed Obama. Here's a quote from "prochoice.org":
"Sen. Obama has a fully pro-choice record, and we are confident that as president he will be a champion for women's reproductive rights."
And yet, you find Obama deficient enough that you would act in such a way as to help elect a candidate who would likely be able to overturn Roe v Wade. (To say nothing about the myriad of other issues that would be decided by the Supreme Court for a generation.)
Unfortunately, one must work with what one has. That is the truth of politics.
Also, and let's be realistic here, because so much of Americans are in the middle, most presidential candidates campaign there and then lean back towards their native inclination once they win.
Bush campaigned heavily as a "compassionate conservative" who was going to reduce the partisan rancor in DC. Then once he was in office he veered way to the Right and ended up being one of the partisan presidents in living memory.
No third party candidate is going to win in this election so symbolically voting for one and risking McCain (with whom I agree about very little) winning is a pointless gesture. While I don't agree with Obama on every single topic he is closer to my views. I admit that I voted for him and not for Clinton in the primary and I fully support his run for the presidency.
Some issues, like gay marriage, are not directly on the table with either candidate. Presidents can't legalize same-sex marriage from the Oval Office anyway. That would have to come from Congress or the Courts. However, with Court aging and several slots likely to come up soon, I would much rather have Obama nominating judges than McCain doing so. People worried about abortion rights should feel the same. Because McCain is very likely to appoint more Scalia's to the bench and that would sink Roe vs Wade pretty darn fast.
Another point to
consider....It's my belief that both Obama and Clinton likely believe
deep down that gay marriage should be legal, though both may well be
ambivalent enough to make their public stances less than complete
hypocrisy. It's a simple fact that a major candidate in today's world
can't overtly be for gay marriage and have much chance of winning. I
believe the only candidate in the primaries who was for gay marriage
was "Mr One Percent" himself, Dennis Kucinich. (Though "Mr. One
Twentieth of One Percent", Mike Gravel may have been for it.) This
reality will change eventually, and probably sooner than most people
think, but we aren't there yet.
You rightly point out that no third party candidate has even a remote chance of going anywhere. So, like it or not, we have to choose between Obama and McCain. (And for the record, I'm totally fine with Obama.) I could probably make a list of 100 areas where I think the country will be better off with Obama as President rather than McCain. If people sit on their hands and McCain wins, then we as a group, and the country as a whole are worse off. And with the likely Supreme Court vacancies, we could be worse off for a very long time....
Thanks dude! This is why I think we need to play the game.
I also agree that Obama and Clinton both secretly support the idea of same-sex marriage, but won't say it out loud for obvious reasons. Some argue that McCain is also secretly sympathetic. However, he has proven far more willing to throw us under the bus (in this case his own "Straight Talk Express") if for no reason other than the fact that his party's voter base strongly opposes gay rights. I doubt that it's lost on him how little traction gay-friendly Rudy Giuliani really got with GOP voters outside his home turf.
So for me we're almost really holding elections for the Supreme Court here. SCOTUS justices sit until they die or retire. Thus a judicial appointment can affect civil rights for decades. If McCain wins he will very likely appoint judges like Alito and Roberts at the very least, possibly like Thomas or Scalia if he feels he needs to throw a bone to conservatives. I cannot understate what a potential disaster that would be as it could lead to a reversal on the issue of state sodomy laws, the reversal of Roe vs Wade and most definitely would all but guarantee opposition to same-sex marriage by the SCOTUS.
Additionally, I find McCain's enthusiasm for war to be very disturbing. He's becoming more hawkish as he ages rather than less and that is troublesome as Iraq continues to bleed America's resources away and makes us more vulnerable. I don't want a president who is determined to "stay the course" just because he has lingering issues over our rout in Vietnam. Worse, I don't want us to pick any more unecessary wars when we have too many hot spots to worry about as it is.
So personally I think it's crucial that Obama wins, both for gay rights and for the direction of the nation.
I'm glad someone else finally voiced exactly the concerns I have about McCain's foreign policy, especially the idea that he continues to fight the Vietnam war (and the Cold War as well). The public seems to see him as the better leader, and the better bet in a crisis, but if your response to a crisis is invariably a simple-minded resort to bluster and military might then give me a guy with less experience.
I read an interesting article in the German newspaper Die Zeit (basically like the New York Times only for Germany) which debated precisely this issue, why he isn't doing better in the polls.
Their outsiders theory was that Obama started on a buzz of being a truly different candidate, particularly when pitted against Hilary or when travelling around the world and meeting world leaders. But since his return things have been more quiet, the extacy has died down a bit and people are more likely now to see him as just another politician again. And their theory is that if he really is just another politician just like everybody else then why vote for somebody whose politicial record isn't really known when we can vote for the old and reliable guy (who actually has an acceptable line on some things like immigration).
Interestingly I peeked through the anti Obama book by the same guy who wrote the "Veterans against John Kerry" propaganda book and he seems to work along the same lines, portray Obama as just another politician. Somebody who defended a known slum lord when he worked for a law firm, let that slum lord help get a good price for his house, who joined the Wright church not because he is a Christian but because he is rather an atheist current passing himself off a Christian because back then having a home church helped his community organizing, somebody who portrays himself as pro-Israel even though he has many pro-Palestinian people among his advisors who then fires from his campaign while claiming he never knew anything about their associations, that he stabbed a former supporter in the back to secure his own election etc. Now the book is an obvious ranty slander book, but I think it might be a decent predictor of the line of attack that will be pursued in the general election.
They also aim to show that Obama really is the nightmare leftist on all issues that are traumatic for the Republicans, from abortion to gun law to Israel to Cuba to have personal association ties with known communists in his youth (and then disowning them when the association is found out).
But aside from this proposed line of attack, I am fearful that this might be a repeat of the John Kerry situation. I remember how I got a bad feeling back when they said that Kerry was made the candidate because previously unseen record number voted in the primaries. I thought to myself, that can't go well, if there is a bigger than usual number of people voting in the primaries then it probably isn't a good indicator of the general election precisely because this result was created by atypical circumstances. Back then when Kerry was made the candidate it from the outside looked like people didn't vote for him in the primaries out of conviction but because they caught in the hype of him unexpectantly winning an important primary. I don't agree with the Republican propaganda piece, but it made a good point, that the Democrats have a tendency to fall in love with their candidate and vote for that and then have it be followed by disillusionment (with the exception I guess being Clinton who actually managed to fullfill his promise to dazzle and rake in the viewers).
Either way, it does seem that the Democratic primaries reward the more left candidate (with the candidates having to prove that they are more believably Democratic on key issues than their opponent) while the general election rewards the more centrist candidate (where there candidates now have to change course and prove that they are more centrist than they portrayed themselves in the primary).
As for racism, I do wonder if it plays a role. I do think it does, though maybe in new and different side angles. Like the aforementioned Republican propaganda piece trying to prove that Obama isn't really "black" in the ghetto/descendants from slaves/disenfranchised kind of way, hence the whole elitist discussion in an attempt to confuse voters. I also wonder if cases like Kwame Kilpatrick where an African American seemed like a good idea at one point, was voted into office and then was revealed to be embarassingly corrupt (yet no word of all the African Americans who were elected into office and did an amazing job and stayed untarnished beginning to end).
I tend to think that Obama needs to campaign more aggressive to let voices like that not even come up and I think he needs to focus heavily on the economy because that seems like an angle where while Obama is inexperienced, it likely is a weak spot for McCain too.
Race
Win The Working Class
Fact: Women equal 52% of the population, and in most elections equal 60% of voter turnout.
Fact: Women equal only 16% of both houses of Congress, 25% of all state elective offices, and 8 current governors.
Question: When women equal 60% of the voting population, how could Hillary Clinton possibly lose to a man (of any color)?
Answer: Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton. He may not have been the better candidate for president, but he was more skilled at winning votes.
Did Clinton win Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey because those states are inherently more racist or less sexist than states like Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho where Obama won?
While racism and sexism are alive and well in this country, I doubt they played a big enough factor to cause either candidate to lose an entire state. I also doubt racism will play enough of a factor in the presidential election to win entire states. McCain will win the states any Republican could win and Obama will win the states any Democrat could win. Since both are more to the ideological middle than past candidates from their respective parties, certain swing states are up for grabs.
Since the Democrats have not been able to win the working-class vote in decades – Bill Clinton getting the closest – Obama is going to have to focus on offering real solutions to helping the working-class rather than just empty rhetoric. That, and not his race, will determine his success in reaching the White House.
What real solutions is McCain offering the working class?
Hence the focus on "moral" issues
When you get past all the rhetoric the GOP has long been, and remains, a party focused mainly on preserving the interests of the rich. Period.
Obviously, however, there are not many votes to be won by telling the working class that your goal is to make their lives harder so that millionaires and billionaires can make even more money than they already have.
Hence the alliance that Reagan in particular worked to build with the Religious Right on "moral issues". "Family values" sounds great and it appeals to many working class people. It also provides a neat distraction from economic policies that aren't in their best interests.
Also, McCain's growing militarism is another problem. Americans have a tendency to forget that military spending still counts as "government". So when we talk about "big government" and "government spending" things like fighting wars do in fact count. Due to the nature of modern warfare, and the use of smaller amounts of high-tech hardware, war doesn't provide the kind of economic boost it did decades ago. Iraq for example has been nothing but a big sinkhole with more money flowing out of America than will probably ever flow back in again. McCain's enthusiasm for war could easily drain our nation's coffers.
Which is why, again, he's swinging to the Right lately and trying to be more visible on issues like abortion. Although one astute person commented in a newspaper that if McCain believes that life begins "at conception" as he stated in the recent religious forum he and Obama did, then his prior support for some stem-cell research is contradictory.
Ah, all the fun of an election year.
Yes that's about right
Too true Craig
A lot of people have long since forgotten that the Southern Baptists grew out of the fact that many American Baptists were in favor of abolition and it caused a rift with those in the slave states and territories. There were no shortage of ministers who dug references to slavery as practiced by both the Israelites and people in the New Testament to argue that slavery was Biblically justifiable.
The "experience" issue is also a smokescreen in many ways. For example, Republicans never saw Bush's lack of real military experience as an issue (flying around the deadly skies of Texas in the National Guard while thousands of men his age were overseas at war not counting in my book).
Doesn't McCain argue that he's an individualist in the DC insider culture? Is that really different than Obama being a newcomer to that same culture and thus not as married to it's outdated games?
It's called hide the ball
The arrogance argument is
My background is in American Government and Foreign Affairs
The experience factor
I completely agree with your analysis of the merits of experience in this context, especially as opposed to judgment and basic intelligence and understanding.
However, I don't see how you can leap from that to the raw assertion (not a speculation, but a "sure thing" assertion) that negative judgments about Obama are based on race. I say that for a number of reasons, but two stand out and strike me personally as essentially irrefutable:
1. If Obama were white, I am totally confident that we would be hearing every bit as much from the Republicans about experience. That's because it would be the most obviously workable criticism. As I said before, JFK, Carter and Clinton were all literally pounded on the issue of experience. Here in Minnesota Sen. Coleman is pounding Al Franken on the experience issue. If Al were black I'd guess you'd be suggesting that the attack was just a code for race. Many people care deeply about the experience issue, whether you and I think it's valid or not. That has been proven in election after election, at all levels of politics.
2. I know people who I know absolutely do not have racism within them, but who are genuinely leery of Obama because of the experience issue. Many of these are middle of the road type people or people who lean somewhat left. These people are genuinely concerned about the issue.
The concept of experience as a prerequisite is strongly ingrained in our culture at all levels. In business, we hire people more on the basis of their experience than on the basis of perceived intelligence. In sports they hire managers and coaches often on the basis of experience - that's why the same old guys keep getting recycled despite failures in the past, and promising newcomers are overlooked.
Not "Good" On A Woman's Right To Choose
To Craig Young:
I do not know why other people are not voting for Obama, but my main issue (though there are others) is his very soft support/subtle opposition to a woman's right to choose. There is a great deal of conflicting data on Obama's position on abortion rights -- his voting record in Illinois vs DC, his statements as a politician vs a Christian, etc. -- but from everything I have read Obama would be one of the worst Democratic presidential candidates on a woman's right to choose since Jimmy Carter. Since this leaves me with two major party candidates who are far from "perfect" and not very "good" on a woman's right to choose, I will either vote for a third party candidate or leave the presidential portion of my ballot blank in protest.
As for the rest of the country, I am still unclear whether you are saying Obama did in fact lose certain states in the primary because the voters in those states are more racist than the voters in the states Obama won. Do you believe Obama lost swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana because they have a high level of racist voters, yet won solidly red states like Wyoming, Utah, and Iowa because there are far fewer racists? What about a state like Texas where he both won the caucus and lost the primary? Is Texas both racist and not racist?
Al Gore and John Kerry lost because the Republicans spend more time thinking about staying in power than running the government. They know how to win elections no matter how awful their candidates and positions are. 2006 was a stumble for them, but do not underestimate their evil genius. If the election were held today, Obama would win; but the same could have been said of Kerry and Gore at this point in their elections. It does not help anyone to assume Obama losing in November could only be the result of evil, racist voters. He just needs to watch out for the same (not racist) smear attacks that took down our last two candidates.
Abortion
Joey - I'm not sure why you refer to Obama as having "subtle opposition to a woman's right to choose". Based on everything I know he's been totally consistent in his votes and support of Roe v Wade. Saying that you'd prefer to make abortion less common is not tantamount to being soft on a "right to choose". I say myself that I'd prefer to see as few abortions as possible.
Remember also that a president has virtually no power in the "choice" fight apart from his ability to name Supreme Court justices. McCain has said he would name justices that oppose Roe, and he's said he thinks Roberts and Alito are justices to emulate. Meanwhile, Obama would surely name supporters of Roe. In real terms, the ONLY way to eliminate abortion rights is to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe. If McCain wins, that will likely happen. If Obama wins, it won't happen. It's really as simple as that.
This is from the L.A. Times:
Despite their efforts to downplay the issue, McCain and Obama almost certainly would steer the country in opposite directions on abortion through their appointments to the Supreme Court, which may be just a conservative vote short of overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
"Whoever is elected president will have the power to fundamentally transform the future of abortion politics," said Cynthia Daniels, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
I know this term is out of vogue now
Craig - You're
Craig - You're confusing me. Did you switch the names in your second sentence, and mean to say that McCain is anti-choice, and then mean to refer to Obama in conjunction with Carter? I'm assuming that must be the case.
I'm with you on the idea that race will be a factor in this campaign. It's shocking and hard for some to believe, but I've heard comments and read internet postings from too many people to not realize that.
Nonetheless, I think you overstate your case when you try to assert that a complaint of being "uppity" or arrogant is code for race, and especially when you say that experience is code for race. It's a 100% certainty that any Democratic candidate with Obama's experience level would be hammered on that issue. It's a bit less certain, but I think it extremely likely that any Democratic candidate who did some of the things Obama has done (his faux presidential seal, a campaign rally in Germany, a "cool" aloof attitude) would be criticized for arrogance.
I'm a huge Obama supporter. I think the "uppity" thing is completely bogus. There is some meat in the experience criticizm. My answer to that is that I'd MUCH rather have a smart, fast-learning person with the proper ideas and proper instincts, than a more experienced person with the wrong ideas. I remind people that the people who got us into Iraq had huge amounts of experience (Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the neocons). I also remind them that JFK had FAR less experience than Nixon, and Lincoln had an extremely limited amount of experience. Experience is a BAD thing if it teaches you the wrong lessons, as appears to be the case with McCain.
I am not a strong Obama supporter
Please rethink your stance
...I will either vote for a third party candidate or leave the presidential portion of my ballot blank in protest.
I'm sorry, but it's exactly this same dogma that resulted in our getting stuck with Bush for the last eight years. Our nation cannot take another four of the same.
Do you have any other
Mixed Signals
Obama on the issue of abortion:
He has said it is morally wrong. He has stated that his religious beliefs flat out lead him to believe having an abortion is immoral.
He voted neutrally (“present”) on all abortion laws, whether they were strengthening or weakening a woman’s right to choose, while in the Illinois Senate. He did this to reconcile his strong personal beliefs on the issue and yet to not go against the Democratic Party’s continued support of women’s rights. He changed this habit when he entered the US Senate, and was probably thinking ahead to this election.
He was endorsed by anti-choice Democrats during the primary because they specifically felt his beliefs and actions on the issue of abortion were more in line with theirs than his rival Hillary Clinton.
He has clearly stated as a politician he does not support legally protecting a woman’s right to choose in the third trimester unless she could potentially die without the abortion. Therefore, a woman has a right to control her body up until the six-month period, at which point she has to begin asking permission to make her own medical decisions.
He has spoken about how woman who have had abortions regret their decisions. He compares this regret to that of white people who were once racist but now no longer are bigots.
He is strongly considering, by all news reports, a fellow anti-choice VP candidate, Gov. Tim Kaine. This seems like a clear indication of how important the issue is for him. I would imagine he might choose Kaine to be VP for a variety of reasons, but his anti-choice beliefs clearly do not concern Obama. They do, however, concern me.
So I say again, Obama has to be one of the most anti-choice Democratic candidates for president since Jimmy Carter, certainly more so than Kerry and Gore. He is superior to John McCain on the issue, but that is not enough for me. I have never voted for an anti-choice politician, and I sure as hell am not going to start with Obama.
At least the Democratic Party seems to be strengthening their support of a woman’s right to choose:
www.slate.com/id/2197363I have a straight friend
I have a straight friend who is a very staunch Catholic. He believes in all the things in the Bible about egalitarianism, and helping your fellow man, and giving to the poor, and being good stewards of the earth, etc. In other words, he should be a fellow bleeding-heart liberal. But he feels he has to vote for Republicans because of the abortion issue. And who knows, maybe there were enough people just like him in Florida in 2000 that threw the election to Bush. And so we have 8 years of idiotic, anti-choice, homophobic, anti-environment rule. We have a loooonnnggg, completely unnecessary war that has cost over 4000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, while making us all less safe from terrorism.
How ironic it would be if enough people thought like you, and this election went to McCain because of it. And then he appointed two more Alitos, and Roe v Wade were overturned, resulting in no more choice in many states, back-alley abortions, etc.
Perception and Interpretation
Perception and interpretation are interesting concepts. Here's a quote from a story about an evangelical teleconference reacting to the recent Rick Warren "debate":
"During the NewsGuests teleconference a member of the media asked the evangelical commentators what the Presidential candidates will do in reference to the abortion issue. Replying to the question, Janet Folger stated, '…The real answer …. that accurately reflects his record – at what point does this baby receive human rights? According to Barack Obama, never. Not at conception, not in the first, second, or third trimester. Not when the baby's three quarters of the way delivered. Not even at birth, as he voted three times as an Illinois State Senator against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.' "
So if I read what you wrote in your post above, and then what Janet Folger said, talking about the same issues, I would think I am reading about two people at polar opposites of the abortion issue. And yet both of you are talking about Obama.
Further, NARAL (of which I am a member) has enthusiastically endorsed Obama. Here's a quote from "prochoice.org":
"Sen. Obama has a fully pro-choice record, and we are confident that as president he will be a champion for women's reproductive rights."
And yet, you find Obama deficient enough that you would act in such a way as to help elect a candidate who would likely be able to overturn Roe v Wade. (To say nothing about the myriad of other issues that would be decided by the Supreme Court for a generation.)
What about OUR issues?
Obama is a disgrace. Just look at this performance at this past weekend's Christianity-o-Rama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdST0rJZ5Mo
We have a choice this November between Bad and Worse.
Some choice!
And speaking as an African-American I find him disgraceful. Has he even HEARD of Bayard Rustin?
We haven't had great choices the last several elections
Unfortunately, one must work with what one has. That is the truth of politics.
Also, and let's be realistic here, because so much of Americans are in the middle, most presidential candidates campaign there and then lean back towards their native inclination once they win.
Bush campaigned heavily as a "compassionate conservative" who was going to reduce the partisan rancor in DC. Then once he was in office he veered way to the Right and ended up being one of the partisan presidents in living memory.
No third party candidate is going to win in this election so symbolically voting for one and risking McCain (with whom I agree about very little) winning is a pointless gesture. While I don't agree with Obama on every single topic he is closer to my views. I admit that I voted for him and not for Clinton in the primary and I fully support his run for the presidency.
Some issues, like gay marriage, are not directly on the table with either candidate. Presidents can't legalize same-sex marriage from the Oval Office anyway. That would have to come from Congress or the Courts. However, with Court aging and several slots likely to come up soon, I would much rather have Obama nominating judges than McCain doing so. People worried about abortion rights should feel the same. Because McCain is very likely to appoint more Scalia's to the bench and that would sink Roe vs Wade pretty darn fast.
Well put
I could have written that post myself!
Another point to consider....It's my belief that both Obama and Clinton likely believe deep down that gay marriage should be legal, though both may well be ambivalent enough to make their public stances less than complete hypocrisy. It's a simple fact that a major candidate in today's world can't overtly be for gay marriage and have much chance of winning. I believe the only candidate in the primaries who was for gay marriage was "Mr One Percent" himself, Dennis Kucinich. (Though "Mr. One Twentieth of One Percent", Mike Gravel may have been for it.) This reality will change eventually, and probably sooner than most people think, but we aren't there yet.
You rightly point out that no third party candidate has even a remote chance of going anywhere. So, like it or not, we have to choose between Obama and McCain. (And for the record, I'm totally fine with Obama.) I could probably make a list of 100 areas where I think the country will be better off with Obama as President rather than McCain. If people sit on their hands and McCain wins, then we as a group, and the country as a whole are worse off. And with the likely Supreme Court vacancies, we could be worse off for a very long time....
Political games
Thanks dude! This is why I think we need to play the game.
I also agree that Obama and Clinton both secretly support the idea of same-sex marriage, but won't say it out loud for obvious reasons. Some argue that McCain is also secretly sympathetic. However, he has proven far more willing to throw us under the bus (in this case his own "Straight Talk Express") if for no reason other than the fact that his party's voter base strongly opposes gay rights. I doubt that it's lost on him how little traction gay-friendly Rudy Giuliani really got with GOP voters outside his home turf.
So for me we're almost really holding elections for the Supreme Court here. SCOTUS justices sit until they die or retire. Thus a judicial appointment can affect civil rights for decades. If McCain wins he will very likely appoint judges like Alito and Roberts at the very least, possibly like Thomas or Scalia if he feels he needs to throw a bone to conservatives. I cannot understate what a potential disaster that would be as it could lead to a reversal on the issue of state sodomy laws, the reversal of Roe vs Wade and most definitely would all but guarantee opposition to same-sex marriage by the SCOTUS.
Additionally, I find McCain's enthusiasm for war to be very disturbing. He's becoming more hawkish as he ages rather than less and that is troublesome as Iraq continues to bleed America's resources away and makes us more vulnerable. I don't want a president who is determined to "stay the course" just because he has lingering issues over our rout in Vietnam. Worse, I don't want us to pick any more unecessary wars when we have too many hot spots to worry about as it is.
So personally I think it's crucial that Obama wins, both for gay rights and for the direction of the nation.
War and Peace
Obama = Kerry? Hopefully not.
I read an interesting article in the German newspaper Die Zeit (basically like the New York Times only for Germany) which debated precisely this issue, why he isn't doing better in the polls.
Their outsiders theory was that Obama started on a buzz of being a truly different candidate, particularly when pitted against Hilary or when travelling around the world and meeting world leaders. But since his return things have been more quiet, the extacy has died down a bit and people are more likely now to see him as just another politician again. And their theory is that if he really is just another politician just like everybody else then why vote for somebody whose politicial record isn't really known when we can vote for the old and reliable guy (who actually has an acceptable line on some things like immigration).
Interestingly I peeked through the anti Obama book by the same guy who wrote the "Veterans against John Kerry" propaganda book and he seems to work along the same lines, portray Obama as just another politician. Somebody who defended a known slum lord when he worked for a law firm, let that slum lord help get a good price for his house, who joined the Wright church not because he is a Christian but because he is rather an atheist current passing himself off a Christian because back then having a home church helped his community organizing, somebody who portrays himself as pro-Israel even though he has many pro-Palestinian people among his advisors who then fires from his campaign while claiming he never knew anything about their associations, that he stabbed a former supporter in the back to secure his own election etc. Now the book is an obvious ranty slander book, but I think it might be a decent predictor of the line of attack that will be pursued in the general election.
They also aim to show that Obama really is the nightmare leftist on all issues that are traumatic for the Republicans, from abortion to gun law to Israel to Cuba to have personal association ties with known communists in his youth (and then disowning them when the association is found out).
But aside from this proposed line of attack, I am fearful that this might be a repeat of the John Kerry situation. I remember how I got a bad feeling back when they said that Kerry was made the candidate because previously unseen record number voted in the primaries. I thought to myself, that can't go well, if there is a bigger than usual number of people voting in the primaries then it probably isn't a good indicator of the general election precisely because this result was created by atypical circumstances. Back then when Kerry was made the candidate it from the outside looked like people didn't vote for him in the primaries out of conviction but because they caught in the hype of him unexpectantly winning an important primary. I don't agree with the Republican propaganda piece, but it made a good point, that the Democrats have a tendency to fall in love with their candidate and vote for that and then have it be followed by disillusionment (with the exception I guess being Clinton who actually managed to fullfill his promise to dazzle and rake in the viewers).
Either way, it does seem that the Democratic primaries reward the more left candidate (with the candidates having to prove that they are more believably Democratic on key issues than their opponent) while the general election rewards the more centrist candidate (where there candidates now have to change course and prove that they are more centrist than they portrayed themselves in the primary).
As for racism, I do wonder if it plays a role. I do think it does, though maybe in new and different side angles. Like the aforementioned Republican propaganda piece trying to prove that Obama isn't really "black" in the ghetto/descendants from slaves/disenfranchised kind of way, hence the whole elitist discussion in an attempt to confuse voters. I also wonder if cases like Kwame Kilpatrick where an African American seemed like a good idea at one point, was voted into office and then was revealed to be embarassingly corrupt (yet no word of all the African Americans who were elected into office and did an amazing job and stayed untarnished beginning to end).
I tend to think that Obama needs to campaign more aggressive to let voices like that not even come up and I think he needs to focus heavily on the economy because that seems like an angle where while Obama is inexperienced, it likely is a weak spot for McCain too.