He’s exactly the kind of black guy who can get elected, because almost all the black characteristics that frighten racists are missing. His skin is light, he has Caucasian features, and he speaks with no discernible accent. There’s no slavery in his past since his father was an African national, so he’s not even a real “African American” in the stereotypical sense. There’s nothing poor or urban about his upbringing – he was raised by globe-trotting, upper-middle class intellectuals. Plus his campaign is not particularly focused on racial issues and he usually only mentions the subject in passing. He’s perfect because all but the most severe racists can stomach him – and even pat themselves on the back for being enlightened enough to vote for a black man.
No, it’s the perceived lack of experience that will kill Obama this time around. After Bush, nobody’s in the mood to gamble on another greenhorn.
I have had literally hundreds of conversations (many evolving into shouting mathces and a few fist fights) where I, as a white, southern male, have asked other white southern males why they had a Confederate flag on their truck/mobile home/girlfriends ass. I have never once, in my 37 years heard any explanation other than candid racism. (I do look like the hick I was raised to be and sorta am)
On TV, in pamphlets and in “mixed” company I have heard otherwise.
Maybe I’m just a bad or unlucky observer and all these people that I have known all my life, was raised with, my family, went to school with, went to church with, maybe somehow I have misinterperted “to hell with them niggers”. Maybe it’s actually a misguided term of endearment. Maybe my neighbors in every town I ever lived in NC & SC in a few dozen white neighborhoods just aren’t really representative of the area as a whole. Maybe my travels to Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia were just unlucky too that I landed with middle class, otherwise educated, church going folks who seemed to want to know relatively soon in our acquaintance to exactly what degree I hated black people. I must be one unlucky white boy in the south to end up with the biggots everywhere I go. Maybe Maurices bar be que over in Columbia is just lucky to be so popular and successful despite the tables of racist literature right in front of the counters and a supposed boycott that seemed to generate more happy supporters than actual boycotts. Maybe all the white folks that support his locations in SC are just civil rights spies there to report on whether or not he has taken down the rebel flag or removed the hate speech yet.
Maybe my friend Jesse is just one unlucky black man…good lord…I’m not even going there.
If you don’t mind me asking, where were you raised and where have you spent your life Martin ? Something does not ring true here.
No doubt, but the degrees matter. My point is not that most Republican voters are white racists, but that white racists are nowadays more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, and that is because the Pubs made an effort to go after their votes. I’m getting this narrative from various sources, but mainly from Up From Conservatism: Why the Right Is Wrong for America, Michael Lind’s 1996 account of how and why he broke with the contemporary conservative movement (without, by his own account, undergoing some personal conversion or changing his own political views very much at all). Lind is, BTW, openly hostile to affirmative action and multiculturalism. From Chapter 8: “The New Social Darwinism: The Revival of Racism on the Right”:
On that last point, of course, the conservative coalition is now begining to crack up – as the populist-nationalist-nativist fears of immigration run up against the business interests’ desire for cheap immigrant labor. And we know which side Bush is on. (But I haven’t heard the leading Pub candidates for POTUS say much about it.)
I think this might be true for most people, but he’s also liberal. Liberal and black, no matter how articulate or educated he is, is still scary to lots of people.
The first black president is not going to be a Democrat. He’s going to be Republican. He’s not going to be liberal or moderate. He’s going to be staunchly conservative–anti-AA, anti-welfare conservative. There can’t be anything “foreign” or ethnically ambiguous about him (honestly, I read the name in the thread title as “Osama”). He will have a military pedigree, not an intellectual one. He will have loud and resounding endorsement from White Leadership, not Oprah Winfrey. He will be so overly qualified that no one can pin his nomination on the novelty of his race.
I think Obama would be more of a sure bet if he came out against AA, said a couple of negative things about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and poor blacks in general (like Bill Cosby has), and left his liberal, afrocentric church so he could join an evangelical, “gay people get out” congregation. Of course, then he wouldn’t be Obama. But he’d get closer to the White House.
I want Obama to get the nomination and to win, but I just don’t think it’s going to happen. For one thing, Hillary is doing a number on him in the debates. People hate Hillary, but no one can deny she’s got the credentials and the abilities. The first thing people say about Obama is, “He looks good, but what’s he got?” That’s not good.
I recognized at least three things in your post that make me a racist, according to your arguments.
I would not vote for Obama if he had a black American accent. i wouldn’t vote for him if he weren’t raised in a family of intellectuals, and I wouldn’t vote for him if his campaign were particularly focused on the same racial issues addressed by the NAACP.
I’m not feeling particularly enlightened, or giving myself a pat on the back for voting for him. I’m actually a little insulted by that implication, actually. Why would you want to insult people who are going to vote for your candidate just because they aren’t voting for him for the right (according to you) reasons?
Is there really any evidence that having a military pedigree helps you win the Presidency? Ever, in any circumstance?
Sure George Bush I was a war hero. Of course, he then lost to a draft dodger. Bush II was a draft dodger who beat two decorated veterans. Ronald Reagan’s military resume was pretty modest.
–Presidential elections are rare and unique events that happen in radically different circumstances, so generalizing the past to the present isn’t that useful. Every President is the first something to be President, and every candidate has something that makes him or her “unelectable”. This seems more true in this race than it has been in a long time.
–The reason why I think Obama could go all the way is that he’s one of the few major candidates who learned something from Gore and Kerry’s misadventures. When negative crap starts floating around about him, his campaign hits back hard and fast, and he isn’t afraid to call out the media outlets that perpetuate it.
This will become important if the primary gets ugly, and will be indispensible in the general.
George Washington, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower – would any of them have become president if they had not first been generals? JFK got a lot of boost from his war-hero status. Teddy Roosevelt’s record as leader of the Rough Riders didn’t hurt him any. Colin Powell’s name was floated as a presidential prospect even though nobody seemed to know anything about his politics.
(“Pedigree” is not the applicable word here, of course. Nobody ever became a serious presidential contender by being the son of a soldier. “Record” would be better.)
The idea that George W. Bush was a “greenhorn” is ludicrous. Two terms as a State governor is viewed as significant pre-Presidential experience, because that is a long period of time in a “chief executive” governing role. George W. Bush, for all the criticism he has received throughout his Presidency was considered by just about everyone to have been a capable Governor in Texas and a “safe” candidate. It’s hard to remember the perception of Bush pre-Presidency because obviously he has made his biggest splash in our consciousness as President. But he was basically known as a solid governor who had a propensity to blurt out “Bushisms” and who didn’t really have any strong or objectionable views about most things. My impression of Election 2000 at the time was, “wow, two guys who have vaguely differing plans for governing the country.” It’s only because of the radical, and unforeseen path of history that Bush has made some extremely controversial decisions.
What more experience can one possibly expect than 8 years as governor? The truth of the matter is most of the time you can only be governor for 4/8 years maximum (depending on which State we’re talking about) and while legislative experience can accumulate well into the multiple-decades, history has shown legislators typically do not fare well when running against persons who have executive leadership credentials.
I think Obama is a bit inexperienced because of the fact that the Senate is ran mostly by seniority. The more senior you are, the more important committee positions you receive. So even though Obama has what would appear to be a respectable number of years in the Senate, in truth since old guys like Byrd and such have decades of experience Obama really hasn’t even gotten his feet wet in the Senate, it takes decades to really make a name for yourself there.
FWIW I do not think Obama will lose the nomination because he is perceived as inexperienced, he’ll lose it because Hillary is just simply more powerful politically. She has more connections and also seems to me to be more ruthless a politician, I don’t think Obama is enough of a politician to beat Hillary. I think if I had to chose between one of them as a leader I’d pick Obama no question, however politics is a dirty game and the person best suited to lead is rarely the person elected.
Southwest Virginia; and I can’t really imagine what world you grew up in, because it’s never been “common place” for me to be asked within short period of meeting someone to what degree “I hate niggers.” I guess you just hang out with a much lower quality of person than I do. I imagine you probably grew up relatively poor, so your experiences don’t surprise me as the poor are almost universally ignorant.
I’m not saying that the South isn’t full of racists, I think it is. I think the North is, too, as well as most places in general–is all I’m saying. The South isn’t any harder to win for a black politician than a white, in my opinion, simply because even if the South were more racist, it also has way more blacks than the rest of the country who would ostensibly not be opposed to voting for a black presidential candidate.
Nope. I grew up middle class, small town, good schools, top of my class. But yes, still ignorant folks.
Check that map again and see what you can figure about the racial diversity of SW Virginia and how that might affect your region and the people differently than say, the Tidewater area of VA, NC or SC. SW Virginia reflects one of the lowest concentrations of black people in the south. You think maybe actually having to live in say, a 60 / 40 mix might bring to light racism just a teensy bit more than living in a region mixed at 90 /10 ?
I like in Arkansas and even in communities that are overwhelmingly white, like 98% or more, I don’t see a whole lot of Confederate flags. Oh, I see them once in a while but they’re not exactly attached to every vehicle, hanging from every building, or for sale on every little corner kiosk. Come to think of it I do see more Confederate flags for sale on corner kiosk during the summer than I do anywhere else. I don’t really know why.
In 2005 I travelled through Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia on the highways and I didn’t notice a high concentration of Confederate flags being visible anywhere. I saw them once in a while but I didn’t see what I thought to be a whole lot of them.
I’m a little curious by your statement that Confederate flags are damned near everywhere because I don’t see them everywhere
Listing some characteristics that racists dislike is not the same as saying those who dislike these characteristics are automatically racists. I’m sorry you were offended.
There are almost certainly people who will vote for Obama because of his race, and I don’t necessarily see anything bad about that. Ideally people wouldn’t care one way or another about it, but we don’t live in an ideal world. I have to admit that I’m tired of seeing old white guys in the most powerful offices, and I’d get a bit of a thrill seeing a black guy elected president, even if I didn’t agree with his politics.
You may be right. I’ve always suspected that the first woman president would have to be conservative as well, just to make up for being female. I also expected that a black man would make it before a woman, since black men gained the vote long before any woman did. This election may prove me wrong. (Actually I hope it doesn’t, because I like Obama).
Notice Arkansas, Tennesee, kentucky and VA. What is the population density of black people in those areas ? With the exception of the Mississippi river areas and tidewater VA, you were in low density areas of black population. The confederate flag is incorporated on the GA state flag for heavens sake. They tried to have it removed completely and only managed to get it shrunk. SC only stopped flying the Confederate flag over the Capitol in 2000. Mississippi has the Confederate flag incorporated on it’s state flag. The Alabama state flag is an actual battle flag of the confederacy.
Just to clarify, I was wrong to say the confederate flag is everywhere. Forget pick up trucks and tattoos. Lets just narrow it down to every Welcome Center, rest stop, post office, town hall, school, VFW, court house, court room, police station, fire station, Armory, Highway Patrol car, Highway Patrol uniform, and other state installation in the states of Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.
I don’t think Obama is going to get the nomination, Hilary is the front-runner, she has more experience, more connections and she will be the Democratic nominee unless something unforeseen happens.
However, I don’t think Obama being black will influence the election as significantly as others seem to believe. In fact, the main problem is the perception that it will influence the election. Just like last time the Democrats are in danger of becoming too concerned with who is electable rather than picking the best candidate and then ensure that he/she is elected.
This election will not be about swaying voters, it will be about convincing the people already leaning towards your party to get up off their couches and vote. This PEW survey shows that more registered voters identify as Democrats than Republicans and a majority of Independents lean Democratic. The Democratic Party has the support they need to win an election, but in a country where only 50-55% of the voting-age population actually vote you need to make sure that the people staying at home are not the ones who would have voted for you.
By the same token, the South is not as important as it seems. If the Democratic nominee win all other states, he/she won’t need the South, however, that is not seen as very likely either, but maybe they could if they just decided that most of the South is a lost cause (not Florida, Florida can probably be swung).
Can I ask, why not? Would you vote for a president with a deep Southern accent (like Clinton or Jimmy Carter)? What about a Texas accent (Bush) or Boston accent (Kennedy)?
If one has no problem with these kind of accents, but they do have a problem with a “blaccent”, why would it be so unfair to lobby the charge of racism at such a person?
I’ve actually addressed this exact point in another thread. Every State governor has differing levels of power, Texas has one of the weakest governors in the country in terms of what their actual powers are, however perception and reality are two different things. Primarily because perception is what is most important in politics, not reality.
“Eight years of success as Governor of Texas” is a more powerful message than, “George W. Bush may have been governor of Texas for eight years, but under the Texas constitution the governor is a relatively weak officer compared to the same office in other states, so really it is not that significant an executive experience” primarily because the first message is simpler, less nuanced. The second message requires greater sophistication to understand and thus, the average voter will never concern themselves with it.
I think “personal intangibles” are quite possibly one of the biggest influences on voting behavior, though (after policy positions on issues key to a given voter.) I think past resume isn’t necessarily as important as people make it out to be. I think your prior credentials have at least as much chance of being used against you successfully as they do being used by you successfully. Being a legislator is hard because you’re one among many, and you have to make compromises pretty much constantly to get anything done. What this means from the perspective of running a presidential campaign is that somewhere in your legislative record there is going to be at least some votes you can’t really defend and probably are not proud of, this happens because as a legislator you pretty much have to vote for things you don’t like sometimes to get other things which are important to you accomplished. It’s all about give and take. This should make legislators ideals candidates for the Presidency since someone who is an expert at bringing together compromise and working with others would, ostensibly be a good leader. In reality what it means is your opponents will mercilessly hound you for the bad votes you’ve made, even if they were more than a decade in the past.
