SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Avoiding A Long, Disappointing Fall

POLITICS AUGUST 28, 2008

Avoiding A Long, Disappointing Fall

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

I.

The Barack Obama campaign has been floundering. If he had a lead in the polls in late June--and the summer polls are notoriously fickly--he clearly lost it by the convention’s beginning. And so far, the convention--dominated, ironically, by the Clintons--has not particularly helped. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden performed quite well last night, but if Obama fails to deliver a spellbinding oration tonight, the Democrats could be in for a long and disappointing fall.

Why is Obama in trouble? Many of his problems are not of his own doing; they stem from his being the first African American to have a shot at the presidency. The New York Times’ Matt Bai insists that “the race isn’t about race” and that what matters more is Obama’s “remarkably little governing experience.” Obama’s inexperience is undoubtedly a handicap against John McCain, but what Bai misses is the connection: Obama’s race reinforces whatever doubts voters might have about his ability to govern. As several psychological experiments have shown, white voters asked to compare white and black candidates of equal accomplishment will tend to view the black candidate as being less competent.

Stanley Greenberg and Democracy Corps make a similar mistake in what is otherwise a brilliant study of how voters in Macomb County, a white working class area north of Detroit, plan to vote this fall. Greenberg found Obama trailing McCain by 46 to 39 percent in this bellwether county, which Bill Clinton won in 1996 and John Kerry lost in 2004. Greenberg found that a third of Macomb voters were worried that Obama “will put the interests of black Americans ahead of other Americans,” but concluded that Macomb’s voters “do not seem to be voting predominately on race.” Instead, he contended that Macomb voters are more worried about Obama raising taxes.

Concerns about Obama’s race and his being a tax-and-spend liberal, however, are intricately related. Psychological studies showing that white voters will judge a black candidate to be less competent also show that they will judge a black candidate with the same views as a white one to be less moderate and more leftwing. Worries about race reinforce worries about taxing and spending.

So Obama starts the general election with a large handicap that he has to overcome. And as voters have begun to focus on the choice between him and McCain, and as the McCain campaign has gone on the attack against Obama’s experience and ideology, these handicaps have become much more serious.

II.

Obama still has advantages that he can fall back on. Voters prefer Democrats to Republicans by a wide margin. And Obama has attracted intense support from African Americans; upscale, professional Democrats; and Democratic-leaning independents. According to Greenberg’s polling, Obama is running nine points ahead of McCain in neighboring Oakland County, the home of well-to-do professionals and managers. All in all, Obama has a good chance to win in November--but this summer the Obama campaign has made the crucial error of conducting itself as it were on the verge of a landslide victory, comparable to Lyndon Johnson’s win over Barry Goldwater in 1964. And it is still displaying the same overconfidence.

After securing the nomination in June, Obama’s first priority had to be healing the rift between himself and Hillary Clinton. Candidates who can’t put nomination battles behind them well before the convention usually lose. Think of Goldwater in 1964, Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984. There are only two candidates I can remember who succeeded in overcoming intraparty rifts during the convention--John Kennedy in 1960 and Ronald Reagan in 1980--and they did it by nominating their primary opponents to be vice president.

Obama, who evidently did not see a nail-biting election looming, chose not to do that, and is reaping the consequences. I didn’t think so last spring, but I realize now that Obama would have been better off had he chosen Hillary Clinton. Of course, he might have faced a nightmare in January 2009 with Bill and Hillary in the White House, but at least he would have been more assured of making it there. As it is, he may not be able to count on Clinton’s fundraisers in the fall, he may not be able to count on all of her voters, and states that might have been in play with the two Clintons in tow--Florida, Arkansas, and Missouri--probably won’t be.

Obama’s pursuit of a 50-state strategy (now mercifully reduced to eighteen) is another sign of overconfidence. This summer, for instance, he spent money advertising and opening up field offices in Georgia. He has even appointed a coordinator for gay Georgians. That’s fine, but Obama doesn’t have a prayer of carrying Georgia in the presidential election. That’s the kind of calculation you make if you think you’re Johnson in 1964 and not Kennedy in 1960. Or if you think that field operations have the same effect in a general election that they do in a party caucus. From my experience, Obama’s field operations were actually superior to those of Hillary Clinton in West Virginia, a state where he won 26 percent of the vote. They were superior in California, too, which Obama also lost. Field operations can be important, but as Karl Rove showed in 2004, they have to be carefully targeted.

Finally, Obama’s rejection of McCain’s proposal to hold weekly town meeting debates probably stemmed from overconfidence. The leading candidate always wants to avoid debates. But I agree with my colleague Michael Crowley, who thinks these town hall meetings could have helped Obama’s campaign. As detailed polling and focus groups have shown, Obama still remains a mystery to most voters; and as an African American, the mystery risks being solved with the usual stereotypes. Obama could have used these weekly meetings to introduce himself to white voters and to reassure them that he wouldn’t put black interests above theirs. And as an extra bonus, McCain may not have been able to maintain his cool during ten or twelve weekly debates.

Add these results of overconfidence to Obama’s Berlin speech (which made an otherwise serious foreign trip look like a political stunt to impress the rubes back home) and his flip-flop response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia (he went from apportioning blame equally to calling for NATO to admit Georgia, which would likely commit the U.S. to military intervention on its behalf), and you have some of the reasons why Obama has faltered this summer. But there is a larger issue--and one that Obama has the opportunity to address in his convention speech tonight.

III.

Some of what Obama has to do in his convention speech--and in the weeks to follow--is simply redress the errors of the summer. In his speech, he has to bestow praise on the Clinton years. That’s a way of continuing the process of reconciliation, as former Clinton aide Howard Wolfson has suggested he do, and it’s good politics to contrast Clinton prosperity with Bush recession. Obama could also use Hillary and Bill Clinton on the campaign trail--particularly in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and (if he stands any chance there) Missouri, where Bill was very popular. Obama himself and Joe Biden need to risk wearing out their welcome in the battleground states. Not a single voter in Ohio should think that Obama is a Muslim or that he agrees with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And he should avoid spending time and money in states like Georgia. Even North Carolina may appear futile by October 1. It’s 1960, remember, not 1964.

But what Obama has to do above all is find a way to focus on the economy--which is voters’ main concern--and to do so in a way that reflects his best abilities and deepest beliefs, and that is cognizant of the obstacles he faces as an African American candidate. To begin with, that means Obama cannot run as a Huey Long-style red meat populist. That’s not who he is, anyway. And in making promises, he has to be careful to avoid endorsing programs that could be interpreted as irresponsible acts of tax-and-spend liberalism. He can propose a detailed plan for national health insurance once he is elected. For the moment, he should avoid anything that appears to require new taxes, or that appears to send a lot of money to inner-cities.

Of course, Obama has to propose programs and attack McCain’s outrageous tax-or-spending proposals, but he needs to do it using a simple economic theme that highlights what he wants to do and draws a contrast with McCain. If you look back at Bill Clinton’s campaigns in 1992 and 1996, they were based on very simple themes. In 1992, “putting people first” highlighted Clinton’s middle class tax cut and drew a contrast with the “patrician” Bush. In 1996, “building a bridge to the 21st century” highlighted Clinton’s economic successes and drew a contrast between the youthful Clinton and the aging Bob Dole.

Obama ran his primary campaign around the slogan “change we can believe in.” That helped burnish his outsider image against Clinton, but it doesn’t work as well against McCain (who, fairly or not, is still identified with outsiderdom and change), and it doesn’t provide the context for any economic program. This has been clear for months, but the Obama campaign has yet to provide an alternative.

I am not clever enough to come up with such a theme, but I can say that it should be an extension of Obama’s underlying appeal to the unity of American races, religions, states, regions, and even parties. That’s what brought him to Americans’ attention in 2004 when he declared at the Democratic convention that “there's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America.” What he has to say from now on should be framed as an attempt to prevent the wide disparities in wealth, income, and power that are undermining the promise of American democracy. By articulating a positive picture of a unified America, this theme also has the virtue of directly addressing voters’ fears about his favoring African Americans over whites.

Obama will also have to address foreign policy, but he needs to find a way to contrast his own concern about creating a new America with John McCain’s relative indifference to what goes on in Sheboygan or Akron. Bill Clinton did that brilliantly against George H.W. Bush in 1992; and in his speech last night, he may have showed Obama how to do it against McCain. “Most important, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home,” Clinton said. “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.”

I want to say one final thing; it’s about Obama’s oratorical style. In response to the criticisms of his Berlin speech, some Democrats suggested that Obama should tone down his high style and seek a more direct conversational approach, even at the risk of being dull. That would be a tragic error. Obama’s mistake was giving an uplifting speech to a huge crowd in Berlin; not giving an uplifting speech. High-flown oratory has always played a very large role in American politics--going back to Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson--and Obama’s ability to perform in that manner is one of his greatest strengths. Obama’s presentation isn’t the problem; it is his message. And his first and best opportunity to fix it will come tonight.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 120 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

120 comments

Perhaps it is his lofty but unfocused oratory and bland easy going persona that are his greatest strength and at this stage of a campaign his greatest weakness. Obama has encouraged people of all sorts to project their desires and opinions onto him. He allows them to see what they want to see. Now all successful politicians do this to some degree, but with Obama this projection is the major part of his appeal. I am what you want in a leader he assures them. This is coupled with a very passive and conventional campaign. His choice of Senator Biden as his running mate is a typical Obama compromise. When he should have followed Kennedy and Reagan and nominated his only rival, HIllary Clinton, Obama picked a safe running mate, the well liked Senator from Delaware. While it is safe it is also a choice that leaves him with many of HIllary Clintons supporters feeling ignored and left out. While both Bill and HIllary Clinton has endorsed Obama they did so in clear yet an oddly disembodied and impersonal and generic way. Sure most of these people will eventually vote for Obama, it they vote, but he has left more than enough of them feeling resentful to give John McCain a chance to scoop them up and change as many as half a dozen close Blue states into the Red column. Far more than the obvious and overstated racial problems with white voters, most pundits overlook social class and voter age as vital issues. Obama is very much a young affluent professional with a very urban and academic style. He often seems too cool for school. He is proud of being cool. The problem here is he has to convince people who shop at Walmart not Whole Foods. He has to convince older voters who are wary of cellular phones and the internet, who do no own or want to own Ipods or Blackberries, people who grow their own organic tomatoes and vegetables, people who hunt and fish, people who drive pickup trucks not BMW's and Lexus sedans. Barack Obama wears suits imported from England, he shops for organic and artisan food at Whole Food, he avoids the often heavy or greasy local and regional specialties beloved by working class people. He likes exotic things like sushi and sate (in fairness these are the local specialties of Hawaii where he grew up.) He doesn't seem to like Philly Cheese steak or scrapple, tamales or burritos in the southwest, nor drinking draft beer with shots of rye whiskey like Mrs Clinton did in Pennsylvania and the Midwest. This is hardly a moral failing and he is no doubt wise to avoid heavy and spicy food while rushing about in planes and busses from campaign event to event. However wise it may be, it makes him seem distant and a bit standoffish. Bill Clinton was just the opposite and he readily chowed down on jelly doughnuts, blintzes, barbecue, cheese steaks, burritos, gumbos or whatever the local folks offered. At this stage of the campaign he needs to get more and more specific and his sweeping broad high minded goals in foreign policy need to turned into practical items. Working with our allies is big and agreeable. Exactly how to get France and Germany to actually work with us is tricky. High diplomacy is one thing, the actual specifics of what do about Georgia and Russia is another. the same is true with domestic policy: Can he square educational reform with the teachers unions, Can he keep vital improvements to our roads and railways from becoming an orgy of pork barrel spending, Can he bring major health care reform without getting trapped in the same thicket that has stopped reforms fro the past generation, Can he stop the keep GM and Ford from failing and selling the wreckage to German and Japanese auto firms? It is not going to be easy. In the past month Obama has allowed his team to be knocked off stride by John McCain and his new and very scrappy campaign team. Even worse if he has more encounters like the joint appearance at Saddleback Chruch last week, he is in real trouble. It was the much old McCain who was sharp and quick and Obama who seemed plodding and out of touch. Finally, Obama has to come to terms with the "Surge" and it's success in Iraq. This is where McCain thundered for years about the falures of Dopn Drumsfeld and the conventional approach to Iraq. Two years ago President Bush finally took McCain's advice and fired senior officers right and left and appointed a new leadership including General Petraeus. So far Obama has stiff armed the fact that both he and George Bush were wrong about Iraq and McCain was right. Not easy but if he doesn't get real, McCain will use his stubborn attitude like a stick and beat him with it. Can Obama win, sure. However he has to overcome his previous mistakes and focus. If not he will loose the contest. The surest way to loose is to think it is not possible. After all Adlai Stevenson lost twice.

- John Kelly

August 28, 2008 at 6:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You mention that white voters tend to vote for other whites when the experience/skills of the candidate are perceived as equal. You made no mention of the percentage of black voters that vote based solely on skin color. What percentage of black votors do you suppose for Seantor Obama? A time will come in the future where there will be multiple black candidates and blacks, like whites, will be forced to choose a candidate based on something other than skin color. Obama will fall. When he does, it will not be because of the color of his skin or his radical associations. It is because he has no accomplishments.

- Mike Rice

August 28, 2008 at 8:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shame on every and all journalists which decide to posit: "Because Obama is black; that is, or this is the reason, (or a reason) why he will lose the election." It is a repugnant logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

- Otto

August 28, 2008 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is going to be the theme from the media if Obama loses. It has got got to be because a majority of whites can not suppor the black candidate. That is not true at all. It is because this man started running for president the day he arrived in the Senate. He has limited experience and is worries many people. Do you want to give the keys to your car to someone who has never been in the drivers seat of any vehicle? So to the media, stop using the race card.

- James

August 28, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Black Americans do choose candidates dependent on their credentials and thats why many of them will not vote for Obama.

- Jane

August 28, 2008 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew those home schooling, self employed, keep your families together, law abiding, play by the rules, pull yourself up by your own bootstrap people were racists. Thanks for the heads up John.

- DCortez

August 28, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This election will be won by Barrack if Hillary's supporters can forgive and forget Barrack collective giving Her and them the finger and if Bitter Whites that cling to Guns, Religion, Love of American and believe in our Constitution against Invasion and the rule of Law can be convinced by Barrack that the largest invasion in world history, by any country, at any time, by any means and that is taking their jobs and lowering their standard of living while killing, robbing and raping American citizens by the 10,s of thousands and slowly but surely changing American into an Spanish speaking third world cesspool of Crime, Corruption, Poverty and Misery modeled on Mexico is a good thing for them and American. Why he and most Democrats Believe that Article IV Section IV of our Constitution against invasion, enforcement of our Immigration Laws and their Oath of office are all null and void! He will need to convince them that attending the church of hate, supporting and listening to Hate American, Hate Whites and hate everything but Blacks and Muslims for 20 years while hanging out with criminals, terrorist and racist is no big deal and no harm intended!

- black saint

August 28, 2008 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Obama loses, it's because white people are bigots." There you go. Why waste all that extra space? White people ALWAYS vote for inexperienced white candidates, so therefore if they don't vote for the inexperienced Obama, they're bigoted. Therefore, Obama is Socrates. Or some such "logic."

- Dave H

August 28, 2008 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Race is an issue in one sense. A black candidate is judged to be less centrist, less open to compromise, and a more doctrinaire liberal Democratic than others because these are the only types of black politicians who gain national media coverage. Conservative black politicians like Michael Steele or black officials like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are routinely denigrated and dismissed by the media as unrepresentative of American blacks. Obama will have a very hard time changing his image as an ultra liberal Democratic politician because that is the only image of a black politician given credibility in the media. Once again the national media bias has set the Democrats up for a fall.

- joetnyc

August 28, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good, honest analysis. I don't agree with every point [specifically the black/white voting tendencies], but I appreciate the candor. As a McCain supporter, I'd welcome a similar piece on him next week.

- VGW

August 28, 2008 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Consider the meaning of standing before a Greek Temple this evening: a potent symbol of worship and adoration, of banking power and wealth, and of attachment to the past. If that is what Obama wants, he might be better speaking while mounted on a cross as Biden and the Clintons arrive onstage on camels, bearing gifts. At lest the religious right will get it!

- boggdown

August 28, 2008 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As several psychological experiments have shown, white voters asked to compare white and black candidates of equal accomplishment will tend to view the black candidate as being less competent." Maybe white voters are taking the effects of affirmative action into account, Mr Judis...yet another reason that affirmative action has become self-defeating. If the perception is that a candidate has received an unfair boost in reaching a level of accomplishment, perhaps an observer might prefer the candidate who arrived there purely on the merits. Racism is real and is undoubtably a factor, so why stack the deck against a fair evaluation of the candidates by adding affirmative action to the mix? We've come far enough that a level playing field best ensures equity when choosing between candidates with differing racial and ethnic backgrounds.

- Raconteur

August 28, 2008 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The second paragraph of this article tries to apply some unrelated black/white research to make a racial case about why whites are not flocking to Obama. That's a bunch of baloney. If Obama had a reasonable amount of experience (say, at least ONE full term at the national level), then, maybe, arguments that he does not have "enough" experience may be considered through a racial lens. However, it's the freakin' reality: Obama has NO experience at the national level, has shown no willingness to make tough votes that go against his party in favor of "unifying America", and, he has been wrong or naive about the foreign-policy statements he has been specific about. I don't CARE what color his skin is. Those are the facts about his (short) record.

- PhillyPhoton

August 28, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Otto, Mike, Some advice, get over yourselves. You're simply putting all your insecurities on display. People are tribal, just deal with it in a mature fasion instead of blubbering like a little kid, no no no it's not true. Ofcourse this tribalism can be overcome, but it is there, especially when dealing with the new and unfamiliar. If you really can't accept the empirical facts then you might as well just be silent. It's more dignified.

- Northern Observer

August 28, 2008 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis writes: "what he (Obama) has to sy from now on should be framed as an attempt to prevent the wide disparities in wealth, income and power that are undermining the promise of American democracy". Mr. Judis, if we did not have these 'wide' disparities in this country it would NOT be a democracy, it would be a socialist/communist style of government which is what Obama will happen under his administration. You only have to dig a little into his smoke & mirrors past to realize Obama and his wife are Marxists. Marixism if a far cry from a democracy. Glowing rhetoric and fancy speeches do not a good president make. You need substance and Obama is 'an empty suit' with very radical ideas who are way TOOOOOOO far to the left for me and a major portion of the voters in this country. I am 68 years old and I'll de damned if I want to spend what I left of this life under the rule of a Marxist "messiah".

- Susan Brookover

August 28, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can hardly rebut the presumption that people tend to assume that Obama is more liberal because he's more black. I can point out, though, that his voting record identifies him as the most liberal member of the Senate, and his committee vote in the state senate on live-birth abortions didn't help. I can't say whether anyone is uncomfortable with his view of racial relations because he's black. I can say that lots of people were profoundly uncomfortable watching video of Rev. Wright and Pfleger, and reading quotations from Michelle Obama. It's that substance thing.

- Texan99

August 28, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So far, the only people who have had an opportunity to vote for or against Obama are Democrats in the primaries and we know that half of them voted against him. So I guess half the Democrat party is racist or does this reasoning only apply to Republicans?

- Scott

August 28, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The liberal set are already making their bed for defeat. Of course, when Obama loses, it's going to be about race. Because, that's ALL this democrat party is about. That's all they can see, talk about, preach about, think about. It's their downfall. Obama will lose in a landslide, because, Americans will not put a rookie into the White House in this dangerous age. Say what they will, it's not race, it's that he has no substance, no experience, no track record.

- J.W. Robertson

August 28, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is by now clear is that the coalition that Obama put together to win the nomination is not sufficient to win the general election. The problem for the Obama campaign is that the campaign strategy that brought him the nomination was designed to fit the primary process of the Democratic Party. As has been the case for the last forty years, this strategy compounds the difficulties in expanding the candidates coalition to a winning strategy for the general election. The primary strategy was based on three parts. 1. Secure the black vote. 2. Attract the white activist base, particularly in the caucus states where the rules favor the most politically motivated. 3. Control the interpretation of the votes and rules in the most favorable light for Obama so that the superdelegates don't through a nearly even pledged count to Clinton. The Obama campaign succeeded in achieving all three and securing for him the nomination but not without cost. To achieve the first Obama had to convince the black voters that he could actually win. Then he had to cut deeply into the support that Clinton had among black voters and public officials. This was accomplished by making it look like he was under attack because he was black. Bill Clinton's comment that Obama's portrayal of his views of the Iraq war as uniform opposition was a fairy tale was spun as racist. His comparison of Obama's win in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson's similar success in 1988 was deemed as racist. Hillary Clinton's point that Lyndon Johnson was important in passing civil rights legislation was portrayed as more racism. This was all nonsense but it helped insure that Obama got close to 90% of the black vote and that Clinton got almost none. The role of Michelle Obama during the primaries was also helpful in this regard. Her southside roots, lifestory and strong personality resonated with black voters. While it strikes a lot of whites as edgy and angry, it came accross as strength of character to many blacks. Obama's margin of victory was obtained almost entirely by garnering huge delegate advantages in the caucus states. Without them, the pleged delegate count was a virtual tie. These states are almost entirely white and the participants in the caucuses constituted a small percentage of the states Democratic Party voters and a much smaller percentage of the overall voting population. In reality, they reflect the voting of the small blue communities in red states. Finally, the Clinton campaign was finished off by the decision to not accept the results from Michigan and Florida and to accept the notion that the votes of the super delegates should under no circumstance reverse the outcome in pledged delegates no matter how narrow the margin of victory. The strategy worked. Obama got nominated. Now he has to undo some of the damage that has been done by the strategy. He has to refocus his campaign from securing the votes of blacks and anti-war activists who believed the war in Iraq was a moral failing, to appeal to blue collar whites, and patriotic voters who were critical of the war because it looked like a failure but now are more favorable when it looks like we may win. It should be an interesting fall.

- Jonathan Cohen

August 28, 2008 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What about the simplest explanation of all. He is a pathetically weak and unsubstantial candidate ! As hillary said - his one great accomplishment was giving one good speech at DNC in 2004. Other wise he's is a young, inexperienced, far-left Chicago politician with no substance. In addition he has a huge ego, bordering on messianic megalomania. As for race. He's half black, half white. If it were not for the color of his skin and white guilt he'd be a nobody......

- Ben

August 28, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Add these results of overconfidence to Obama's Berlin speech (which made an otherwise serious foreign trip look like a political stunt to impress the rubes back home) and his flip-flop response to Russia's invasion of Georgia (he went from apportioning blame equally to calling for NATO to admit Georgia, which would likely commit the U.S. to military intervention on its behalf), and you have some of the reasons why Obama has faltered this summer...//// True that and oy vey!

- itzik basman

August 28, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you want to see racism, look at the 98% of Blacks that are backing Obama in a block, and how quickly they dumped "America's First Black President" and his wife - who did so much for Blacks over decades - for an untested and inexperienced Black.

- Heather Jackson

August 28, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece is lazy. Obama has a new slogan (the change we need). Reconciliation with the Clintons is underway. And the new campaign theme is ALL ECONOMY ALL THE TIME. If you did more reporting and less armchair analysis, you might know these things. Also, you have nothing to say about the predictions about African American turnout in places like Georgia. A 10% boost in turnout is meaningful. Are you unaware of these discussions (if so, why?) or do you just choose not to talk about them (if so, why?)

- ceekay

August 28, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Racial politics or trust. Judis, if Obama was never associated with Trinity church do you think those voters would still be concerned about his noble intentions. The question of "does he see who we are". I am all too familiar with this twisting of diversity and racial politics to blame white people for alleged privilges that stubbornly refuse to share. However, Obama is a master of both speaking out of both sides of his mouth on every issue,(politics as usual) but like my mama told me, actions always speak louder than words. Attending Trinity church to further his political ambitions was the mistake that cost him people trust. His race speech did little to honestly address his error in judgment. There are plenty of Chicago churches without the seperatist agenda Obama could have chosen. So while elite pundits like to undercut poor undereducated whites as having an hidden racist agenda, there are wrong. The elites are the privileged whites protected from urban neighborhoods filled with underclass problems and the government enabling social programs. We cannot afford leadership who does not understand our values, problems and concerns for America's future.

- laura

August 28, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would suggest that this and other left-leaning media keep piling on the race stuff. I'm white, yet I would never consider voting for, or against someone because of their race. I have a brain. I know what I want in a president. It is insulting to the masses who don't see Obama and presidential material to keep telling them it's because of his race and their supposed bigotry, and it is indeed likely to cause a rejection reaction on election day! We'll show you how "post-racial" we can be!

- spk2moi

August 28, 2008 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans are in full desperation mode with a unified Democratic party. This over analysis of the American electorate says nothing about the fundamentals of the race. The last eight horrible years under Republican rule.

- KQuark

August 28, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps if TNR had not given such blind, knee-jerk support to Obama, he would not be so overconfident.

- Donna

August 28, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fascinating analysis--but, perhaps too complicated by half. His color is, frankly far more important to his supporters, it seems than to the rest of us. He's black. That's nice...but, so what? It would be interesting to see a black president---but then, a female president, or a bald president, or one with antlers would be interesting, too. Doesn't make it relevant to his talents. Barack is inexperienced, exceptionally liberal, and allergic to public unwavering stances. People often dislike one or more of these in a president. Simple as that.

- M Lyster

August 28, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am puzzled: is Mr. Judas recommending that Obama hide his true posiitons in order to calm voters but implement expensive programs after he's been elected? If Obama believes in handing out money to various constituencies, or spending it on a more comprehensive health care system (which I do) then he should stand up and say so.

- David Twersky

August 28, 2008 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here we go. The problem "The Obama is having is race. It has nothing to do with sitting in Rev Wright's church for 20 years, nothing to do with being the most arrogant politician ever nominated by a major party (we are the ONES we've beenw waiting for", nothing to do with heaping contempt on Hillary & Bill Clinton (a 3am text msg announcement). Nothing to do with not offering Hillary the VP spot to bring the party really together, nothing to do with changing Harry Truman's (The Buck Stops HERE), to (That's Above My Pay Grade). Well "That's Above My Pay Grade Obama' has created his own problems, and they have nothing to do with race!

- valwayne

August 28, 2008 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the coda of your article itself points to the root of the problem. He doesn't have a foreign policy and needs to get one; he also doesn't have a domestic policy and needs to get one of those. Isn't it rather bizarre that a Presidential candidate, 60 days before the eelcetion, has neither a foreign policy nor a domestic policy? Isn't this the most significant confirmation that those who criticize his lack of experience, judgment and gravitas are correct?

- Bob Acker

August 28, 2008 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Judis still cannot accept that BHO continues to demonstrate he is a European style social democrat th committed to income/asset redistribution, centralized industrial policy, and appeasement in the face of a growing Russian threat. He maintains a pre 9/11 mind set that terrorism is a law enforcement problem as opposed to an overt security threat to freedom loving people globally. This is why BHO is softening in the polls and why JSM is gaining among voters who Mr. Judis feels have a mis-placed consciousness. B. Marks Richardson ( Dallas) TX

- B. Marks

August 28, 2008 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Totally agree...We like what we are familiar with. At its most basic level, I don't know if there is anything wrong with that. The problem comes when our prejudices and biases cloud the lens we're looking through.

- Skee

August 28, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Many of his problems are not of his own doing; they stem from his being the first African American to have a shot at the presidency." Outside one or two states, and even there only partly, this is simply not true. Read the polls. Talk to real people. Few are in the least interested in Obama's genetic background. But they are highly concerned about his political background.

- Jeff Perren

August 28, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama’s biggest advantages this year are the demographics of the American population, John McCain, the mass-communications media, the fact that "people like to think that it's their idea," and a rigged procedure by a "crooked-as-a-dog's hind leg" government (to the contrary of those who believe that it is the imminent return of Christ to establish a thousand-year-reign of the elect, a cabal of Jews, multi-national corporations, a vast right-wing conspiracy, '4th Generation theory,' a sneaky Communist Russia that took one-step back so as to make two-steps forward, All of these, or whatever other various so-called “conspiracy theory” is widely popularized somewhere).

- p.

August 28, 2008 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agreed with many things said but disagreed with a few big ones. Most voters just a candidate on a few basic issues and it is clear in most polling that the three main issues have been oil prices, terrorism, and the real estate crisis. McCain clearly won on energy, closing the gap there and then surpassing, McCain has held his substantial lead in foreign affairs, and the real estate crisis has been a muddle. The other reason that Obama is doing badly is on values. This is sad since african americans as a whole are much more values oriented then the democratic party. Obama was correct in thinking that a number of evangelicals were ready to vote for a black man, but he blew it with the born alive act, his Saddleback performance is his ambivalence to the feelings of most values oriented workers. This will not hurt him will all but the most conservative blacks, but is a near death blow to the 15% of the democratic party and 30% of independents who are values oriented. Lastly Obama is not performing to expectations because of what I would like to call the "balls" factor. Most people including most Obama's supporters would like to have heard him once rebuke his pastor or Bil Ayers during some non-political situation. Harry Reid and a number of other democrats have tried to crtiticise McCain because in the senate he was a bully, but of course leaders have to be a bully sometimes and Obama has never shown that.

- craig5

August 28, 2008 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This entire article seems to reiterate what many articles do, that the United States is full of racists. I am not voting for Obama just as I wouldn't vote for Hillary or any other Democrat. I do not believe in Demand side economics. I do not believe in social welfare programs. This is not to say that the Republicans are perfect, far from it. In and ideal world I would vote for a Libertarian candidate if they could actually win. Reality is that I am left with a moderate Republican or an extemist Liberal. I totally resent that so many news articles focus on attempts to call me a racist because I don't want undefined liberal change. If Hillary had won and I didn't want to vote for her would political commentators call me sexist?

- tayloao

August 28, 2008 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article mentions Obama's 50 state strategy. I am sure he said he has a 57 state strategy. Am I wrong?

- walliat kahn

August 28, 2008 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give me a SMART president anyday. Mc graduated with a 1.5gpa, crashed 5 jets(anyone else would have been grounded, good thing his daddy was an admiral) left his first wife to marry his rich mistress, and has NEVER held a 'real' job. Nope. I'll take the magna cum laude, that can motivate a nation.

- k6

August 28, 2008 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The contempt with which Obama has treated the Clinton's is absolutely mind boggling. Both Hillary and Bill in the past 2 days have shown why Hillary should have been the nominee and "The Obama" is a disaster. Hillary 2012!!!

- valwayne

August 28, 2008 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's ridiculous blacks vote dem ALL the time. They also voted for kerry over sharpton.

- k6

August 28, 2008 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah keep listening to the msm, they only have your best interest at heart, right?

- k6

August 28, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like an odd statement. Everybody has a cross to bear, whether they're black, female, old, Northeastern, redneck, etc. Is Obama's appearance really going to put more people off than Dukakkis' did? I don't buy it. The problems with the Clintons in the primary wasn't that they were directly attacking Barack because he was black. They were saying that, because he was Black, he must be the candidate only for Black people. Separatist, if you will. Still offensive. If Barack loses, it'll be for the usual reason: the people who supported Hillary will have protested her losing the primary by voting for McCain or staying home. If he wins, it'll be because the fans of his primary opponent supported him. This whole thing about race is wrong: yes, he'll lose (and gain) votes for being in one slot, while McCain will lose and gain votes for being in another. And the inexperience thing is crap: anybody who seriously believes that they'd vote for Obama if he'd only collected a federal paycheck for another 4 years is deluding themselves. It's just another election.

- Matthew H

August 28, 2008 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem is that Obama, and his wife, really are at least tolerant (if not fans) of hateful Black Liberation Theology. They sat in Reverend Wright's pews for 20 years and exposed his children to his hate. Beyond that, Sister Helen Prejean, chosen by Obama to "reach out to the Christian community," is an exponent of Black Liberation Theology. Her favorite prophet is James Cone. Go ask her if you don't believe me. The problem with Obama is NOT that he's black. Black folks like Colin Powell, Allen West, Condoleeza Rice, wouldn't be having Obama's problems. Obama's problem is that he is a black man who has constantly flirted with far-left-wing radicalism and still does when he thinks no one is watching. That's a lethal combination for anyone like me who is old enough to remember Watts, the Black Panthers, Joanne Chesimard, Mumia or the riots of Crown Heights.

- SteveL

August 28, 2008 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like an odd statement. Everybody has a cross to bear, whether they're black, female, old, Northeastern, redneck, etc. Is Obama's appearance really going to put more people off than Dukakkis' did? I don't buy it. The problems with the Clintons in the primary wasn't that they were directly attacking Barack because he was black. They were saying that, because he was Black, he must be the candidate only for Black people. Separatist, if you will. Still offensive. If Barack loses, it'll be for the usual reason: the people who supported Hillary will have protested her losing the primary by voting for McCain or staying home. If he wins, it'll be because the fans of his primary opponent supported him. This whole thing about race is wrong: yes, he'll lose (and gain) votes for being in one slot, while McCain will lose and gain votes for being in another. And the inexperience thing is crap: anybody who seriously believes that they'd vote for Obama if he'd only collected a federal paycheck for another 4 years is deluding themselves. It's just another election.

- Matthew H

August 28, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I can say that it should be an extension of Obama's underlying appeal to the unity of American races, religions, states, regions, and even parties." Bad advice. The "coming together" theme reinforces the creepy messianic and crypto-fascist vibes that Obama hasn't done enough to shake since getting the nomination. The last thing that Obama needs at this point for voters to see him as a cult leader with a following of ecstatic robots. He's starting in the hole tonight, speaking from a Greek temple before a crowd of 75,000. He can't afford to make it worse by inviting voters to join together like sticks in a fasces.

- AK

August 28, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As several psychological experiments have shown, white voters asked to compare white and black candidates of equal accomplishment will tend to view the black candidate as being less competent." Yes, and other experiments have shown that white voters tend to view the more experienced candidate as being more competent as well... query which of these factors is at play in this campaign.

- mike

August 28, 2008 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Susan, You seem to believe that socialism and democracy are mutually exclusive - as if people in Canada, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere do not vote. I suggest you enlighten yourself a bit more on styles of government, which are compatible with capitalism and which are not, and then reflect some more on the content of your own post.

- Ryan

August 28, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's one simple way to put most of this "racism" talk to bed: McCain should select a black VP. If the Bob Herberts of the world are correct, this will make McCain less appealing to swing voters, at least at the margins. Someone for whom race plays a small factor in his voting decision will be more indifferent between Obama and McCain. It won't move the polls much, but there should be a discernible shift of borderline voters from McCain to Obama. Alas, McCain won't do it. But does anyone seriously think that picking a black VP will do anything but help McCain?

- Alphose

August 28, 2008 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very impressive race card you just tossed out. You should find it frightening that you are already looking for excuses for Obama's defeat in the fall.

- Shannon

August 28, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You clearly aren't a religious man. Maybe you were raised with some semblance of religion, or you have some token religious affiliation, but regarding Wright you have demonstrated a deeply ignorant mindset. Obama could no more convince the voters of Ohio that he doesn't agree with Wright than Bill could convince them that nothing innappropriate happened with Monica Lewinsky. It's just not going to happen. Obama has already been tried, convicted, and damned in the public court. Surely, there are people still unaware, but when they hear about it, their opinion is not going to change. Come October, Karl Rove is going to unlock his secret vault in Texas filled with every Trinity Church newsletter and magazine that ever juxtaposed pictures of Obama with James Cone's hate speach and send Obama to hell faster than you can count to 10. Cone's theology, which was taught a trinity, is so sick and twisted that it makes Jim Jones' Christianity look reverent and palatable by comparison. For example, can you envision a tidbit that packs more racism and blasphemy into so tight a space: "If God doesn't hate whites, then we should kill God." It is not something one can excuse by saying they were overly bombastic, or misused hyperbole. To anyone sensible, they realize this person is Hitler without the power. This will be even more damning when Obama's writings for Church newsletters seem to endorse or confirm this position. You don't attend Nazi party meetings for 20 years, give them gobs of money in donations, write articles affirming their beliefs, and give Hitler an honorary place in your family, dedicating your autobiography to him and naming it after one of his speeches, and then just say "Nope. didn't mean it." Seriously? Do you actually think its reasonable under any circumstances for any reason to ever think Obama doesn't agree with Wright? OK. I'll conceed that there's one possibility: Obama is stone cold con-artist and charlatan. Like Ananais and Saphira, Michelle and Barack, exploited their church for its political networking connections and never believed a word, they grew their own personal wealth and careers, buying off the pastor with lavish gifts to help them solidify their community connections, and launch Barack into Chicago politics. I don't think that second narrative helps either.

- Timo

August 28, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

how do you explain blacks NOT voting in equally high percentages for the "king" of racial grievance, Al Sharpton when HE ran for the nomination 2 times? Especially given that Obama's "blackness" was questioned at the outset of his campaign? How do you explain the Clinton loyalties of so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as Charlie Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Secondly, do you think either George Bush or John Edwards had "experience" or "qualifications" superior to Obama's when they initially ran for President? George Bush held public office (state, with no foreign policy experience) for 6 years before running for president, and BEATING a 2 term Senator and 2 term sitting Vice President. Did experience count then? Compare Bush's 6 years of elected office experience to Obama's 7 (at state level) and 3 (at federal level) years of elected office experience. Not to mention his record of acheivement in college and law school (Bush was notoriously average). Obama far and away is more experienced. Additionally, the two major traits that form the basis of the anti-Obama narrative apply with even more force to George Bush: elite and inexperienced.

- robert

August 28, 2008 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, Mr. Judis. Your article is excellent and thought-provoking, qualities I have not seen lately coming out of TNR. I am not an Obama supporter, so it may be my bias talking here, but I think he might very well lose because of two things: he started out campaigning with a record as a far-left liberal (a stance that many, his repositionings notwithstanding, still suspect he holds), which certainly appealed at the time to the liberal wing of the Democrats, but does not play well now with the rest of the country (because of the unpopularity of the Bush administration, the US may seem to be rejecting conservatism and ready for more socialist ideas, but just visit or reside in the UK, or a European or Middle Eastern/Asian country and you'll see how conservative we still are). The second reason is that he plainly has little experience compared historically with most candidates for the presidency. And I suspect his winning rhetorical style will not be able to act fully as a substitute and might even at times be a hindrance because the weight of experience does not back it up. Add to those 2 reasons any intransigent Hillary supporter and those pro-lifers (a group extending beyond white evangelicals) who are repulsed by his refusal to support medical aid for the survivor of an abortion, and you probably have a failed candidacy.

- RL, expat in the Middle East

August 28, 2008 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not doing well for the simple reason that he is not saying anything. People have little sense of what he stands for except change, and the only apparent change is is blackness. To the extent there is any perception that he stands for anything, it is the welfare/warfare state, tax and spend and there's nothing new or compelling in that. The Russia/Georgia conflict encapsulates Obama's dilemma. He is as pro-Georgian in the matter as McCain. But Georgia was the aggressor and the whole imbroglio stems from Washington's on-going efforts to encircle and eventually dismember Russia. Obama has a brilliant issue here with which to paint McCain and Bush into the same warmongering, militarist corner but he refuses to do so, because he is beholden to the Democratic War Party (witness the choice of Biden), just as McCain to its GOP equivalent. If Obama had the wit and the courage to break with Democratic orthodoxy and support tax-free personal health accounts or tax-free personal retirement accounts, he would win in November in a tidal wave. If he could just break is some significant way from Socialism and Imperialism, he would win in a walk.

- Anthony

August 28, 2008 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why attribute Obama's decline to race? Surely there are more people voting for him because he is black, rather than voting against him for that reason. The real reason for the crater is patently obvious: he isn't ready. Obama is a novelty with superficial appeal, but he doesn't have the weight. He's never spent a day in the service, never been in charge of anything, never run a business, never even sponsored a bill of any consequence. He's never had to make any decision that carried with it life-changing consequences for himself or anyone else. That just doesn't cut it for a president in these consequential times.

- robmac

August 28, 2008 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FINALLY! A TNR article that doesn't just whistle past the graveyard and pretend all is going well for team Obama but admits there are big problems that need to be fixed or he's going to lose. Congrats for getting away from the typical "no worries, he's already won, who'd vote for McCain anyway" propaganda that served "president" Kerry so well 4 years ago. Playing the part of the ostrich may feel good but it doesn't do Barack any favors.

- John

August 28, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You lost me in your first paragraph. In one sentence you say that Obama is indeed inexperienced compared with McCain and then you go on to cite psychological experiments designed to prove, what? That we're all racists? The experience and preparedness issue here is real because we're not talking about two junior senators. We're talking about John McCain who has over four decades of public service and Barack Obama, who has four years of Senate service. That's the difference. Don't confuse the issue by injecting race into it.

-

August 28, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay we have a white presidential candidate named Jaraslav Mikhailovich. Some people suggest he call himself Jerry, his childhood nickname, but he invariably goes by Jaraslav. He frequents a church for twenty years; the minister is known to say "God damn America," but Mikhailovich had praised the minister enthusiastically in his books. Mikhailovich was in his state legislature four years ago and has been running for president almost every since he entered the Senate. He has many attracive personal qualities and is extraordinarily intelligent but does anyone in the world think he could be elected president? Oh, he doesn't pick the VP running mate who everyone knows could help him the most but a really admirable and able senator nobody seems to have heard of. It's not about race.

- Phyl

August 28, 2008 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Never mind the popular vote - - Obama has a good lead in the Electoral College tally. He sure doesn't need advice from the party that lost the House and Senate in 06!

- Ed Myob

August 28, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see - what happened in the primaries? Obama had a plan to leave Iraq, and so did Clinton. Obama had a plan for government-run health care, so did Clinton. And so on. Yet, over 90% of black voters in virtually all primary contests chose Obama. Interesting, isn't it? Yet white folks are the racists. I have it now - thanks for clarifying this!

- Steve from Wisconsin

August 28, 2008 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is what we call a "built-in" injury in the sports world. Usually, if you are starting to have doubts about winning a match, BEFORE you even walk on the court you start telling people how your back has been acting up or you have a mild ankle sprain, that way you can deflect the true reason for a loss onto the injury. By saying that if Obama loses it is because of unconscious racism, the author is creating a built-in excuse to mask Obama's incredibly insufficient qualities that make him a viable president. Over 100+ "present" votes in the IL state legislature. That's change you can believe in.

- Freddy Riz

August 28, 2008 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Cohen - your argument has big holes. Judging from many of the responses to this post, let's face it, as a nation, we're not really ready to have a proper conversation about race. During the primaries, and on record, the Clinton's were clearly trying to other Obama. Who as a viable candidate was the obvious threat. Othering or racism or race card it's all semantics to me, but the comparison with Jesse Jackson was clearly to position Obama in the 'not like us' wink wink, camp. Secondly, Clinton had the black vote and lost it. Black voters can sense a viable candidate and winning Iowa (majority white) was the fist sign of viability for Obama. Plus you greatly underestimate the savvy of the African-American electorate. Check Nikki Tinker - an African-American who played the anti-semitic card to cozy up to black voters and lost heavily to African-Americans who were'nt buying it. Anyhow - all this race talk does no good what so ever. The issue is how can Obama connect with the blue collars? And I don't think that it's about race.

- Remone

August 28, 2008 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, thank you, Mr. Judis for your very strong endorsement of socialism in the paragraph below. You confirmed what we already thought about Sen. Obama's followers - they long for redistribution of wealth!

- Steve from Wisconsin

August 28, 2008 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it preposterous that people can't see the race-baiting that occurred in the Democratic primary and in McCain's first Jessica/Brittany ad. However, I think the issue will fade over the next several weeks. I am most struck by conversations with people who describe themselves as life-long Republicans but are very intrigued by Obama. They are commonly convinced that America is headed in the wrong direction and that we will not correct our domestic and international slide by employing the approaches that have gotten us here. There are many of us ready to take the big risk that maybe, just maybe, Obama can be different. That is the choice - stick with the old, failed policies or take a huge risk. There is no middle ground. There are a lot of us ready to take that risk.

- antimarket

August 28, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you're missing the point(s) of why he is falling in the polls. I believe it is because the voters are actually becoming aware of his ideas, his prior connections and how he would likely govern: tax and spend, the Jeremiah Wright connection, his wife's views on America, his association with the radical left, his inexperience in governing etc etc. You remind me a bit of the young lady who is getting set to marry a fellow who has many thoughts and ideas that aren't all that compatible to hers. Her plan is marry him and then change him. Why not just find and marry a fellow whose thoughts and ideas are compatible! I would really be surprised if one speech, that articulates thoughts and ideas that are inconsistent with your own actions in the past, can really make that much of a difference.

- gdgca

August 28, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please.....gimme a break. As a Dem I felt that when the primary boiled down to a woman and a black (is a person with a black father and a white mother black or white?) man I knew the election was lost. I can't remember the state, Virginia I think, where they polled the people leaving the polls and 17% said they would not vote for a black, period. And those were Dems! So the notion that race doesn't play ANY role in this election is false. PERIOD. In an especially close election, it will have a tipping factor. I remember the conventional (non talkshow) media stating that Hillary was jealous of Obama. Have you EVER heard commentators using "jealous" with respect to male candidates? Or that Hillary was "bitchy." Imagine if in the Rep debates McCain and Romney were women. Would McCain's comments be termed "catty?" Sorry to say but race and gender biases are still issues with many in this country and, at this point in time, still can decide close elections. Those biases show up in some of the above comments. The stereotyping of black voters who will vote for Obama simply because he's black. Some will, but some won't. Afterall aren't there any black Reps who are voting McCain? I think so.

- Frankly Spoke

August 28, 2008 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The inability of so many Americans to accept change is what's behind the close race. I wouldn't say it is because Obama is black, but simply because he is unlike any presidential candidates to come before him. He is younger, looks different, and hasn't been in Washington as long. Some people simply want a safe choice. I think what people are missing about Obama supporters is that they are utterly rejecting the past eight years, and anything that reminds them of it. They are disgusted enough to take a leap of faith on the less-safe choice. Sure, Obama doesn't have as much Washington experience as McCain. And Washington experience is the last thing i'm looking for in a candidate. So while some people would never vote for Obama because of his lack of experience, there certainly are others who would never vote for him because he doesn't physically look like any other president. It's risky. Yet it is beyond me how American's aren't ready to take a risk after the ineptness of the last eight years of the "safe" choice.

- workmonkey

August 28, 2008 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too many pundits, too much air time, too much analysis. The election is in November. Obama will win, and he will carry two of those states you say he can't win. You guys just need a story to get a paycheck. No offense intended. Heck I read them. It will be a close election (it always was going to be), but McCain is a one issue candidate. The surge will start to sound pretty old in a few weeks if it hasn't already. You know he's in trouble when he starts falling back on idiotic so called policy objectives like "we need an economic surge." American voters can be stupid, but they've been fooled twice by Republicans with Bush. I just don't believe they are going to fall for it again. To Obama supporters don't stress. And remember they don't poll people who only have cell phones. And they rarely poll people under 45. This voting block will vote this time around. Chill out and have a great day!!

- Steve

August 28, 2008 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Editor of the Harvard Law Review isn't accomplishment enough for you?

- Martin

August 28, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with all of this talk about the subtle influence of racism on this campaign can be summed up in two words: Colin Powell. If Colin Powell were now running against a white democrat, most liberals (even African American liberals) would be backing the white guy, while most conservatives (even southern evangelical conservatives) would be backing Powell. Of course, anyone who suggested that the liberal backing of the white guy was a side effect of racism would be laughed out of the building. Everyone knows that liberals vote their principals and conservatives vote their prejudices. Uh... except for Colin Powell and Condi Rice and Lynne Swan and Michael Steal and... well you get the picture.

- jeremyemilio

August 28, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it a mystery that he doesn't do better? he lost the popular vote in the primaries, he "clinched" the nomination with the help of the DNC& the media - lost in all major blue states and has non-existent credentials. Plus he went out of his way to insult and antagonize Hillary's voters (3 AM announcement?). The only mystery is why isn't he lagging further behind?

- Notyoursweetie

August 28, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The big O will fail because he has no record, no accomplishments, no service to country,and a phoniness about him. I'll be whomever you want me to be. Why the big hurry to run? Who is really behind his meteoric rise? Half of this guy's family is in Africa and he has done nothing to take care of them. Do people really believe he'll take care of poor, et al here in the good USA? He wants change? Why not change the plight of his family in Kenya first? Do some right for this country instead of hanging out with racists and anarchists to further his political career. Is this really not about BO?

- Mmarquez

August 28, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama will win. Why? Because without the white vote, he could not have become the nominee of his party. John McCain will loose, Why? Because at the centre of his personality, he fundammentally disagrees with two core constituencies in his party - Mr Rove's soical neocons and the judgmental, right-wing fundametalist evangelical coaliton - and as a man of honour, his trus personality will prevail over conventional political wisdom. To conclude, the emotions of white/black political ideocyncracies, whilst true, will be overcome by the new order of a better enlightened post 60s political mind-set. This is a new era in American politics and all of you rigid partisan fossil thinkers will only grasp that reality...after the event!

- George

August 28, 2008 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The big O will fail because he has no record, no accomplishments, no service to country,and a phoniness about him. I'll be whomever you want me to be. Why the big hurry to run? Who is really behind his meteoric rise? Half of this guy's family is in Africa and he has done nothing to take care of them. Do people really believe he'll take care of poor, et al here in the good USA? He wants change? Why not change the plight of his family in Kenya first? Do some right for this country instead of hanging out with racists and anarchists to further his political career. Is this really not about BO?

- Mmarquez

August 28, 2008 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey TNR. Need 19 reasons why the comments section should be for subscribers only? See above.

- singlespeed

August 28, 2008 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is one of the first realistic takes on how race is most likely to affect this campaign that I have seen. Race presents a problem for Obama not so much because of that real but limited group of people who will reject him out of hand, and straight-forwardly, because he is black -- but because of the unconcious attitudes of people who in many cases would be appalled to think of themselves as racists. The bigger problem (bigger than straight-forward and admitted to bigotry) is that the first African American to compete at this level, like other minorities or previously excluded groups who attempt to break barriers, to earn "equal" respect and rewards, etc., must do so equipped with much MORE experience, more accomplishment, more credentials than the average white guy. It's not fair, as any woman can tell you, but it is reality. To break barriers you have to be better prepared, present much greater proof of competence and "merit," work harder (with more personal grace, tolerance and charm) to forge good relationships, and have more real world accomplishment to point to than more traditional candidates (for the job, for the office, for the loan, etc.) And this problem isn't, as the class prejudices of so many of our "creative class" elites lead them to smugly believe, simply or mostly confined to working class whites -- the effect is in fact mostly likely greater, although more denied, among more middle class and affluent whites (who see themselves as part of a "meritocracy," tend to diminish the reality of their own privilege, and are convinced their own accomplishments are always totally "earned"). I have an African American employee who recently took over a position previously held by a younger, much less conventional in dress and appearance, white man. The job involves more public interaction -- with suppliers, sub-contractors, financial institutions, etc. -- than most of our other positions. It has been interesting and disheartening to see the different level of TRUST afforded to him, mostly in small and subtle ways, but sometimes rather blatant ones (for instance, an institution that we have been working with for years refusing to accept a company check from him, although they have never questioned checks written by other, white employees in the past -- even when the checks were being written by a blue haired guy with ear studs the size of saucers). Our employee has met these indignities with grace and humor and is over-coming the distrust and forging good relationships. For him this is an unavoidable reality he has been dealing with for his entire life and has had to learn to work with and around. But here's the thing; this is Seattle. And the people who are suddenly developing new "policies" that have only ever been applied to the first African American employee in this position are NOT working class -- they are highly educated, hip, liberal urbanites. A majority of whom probably even plan to vote for Obama. This subtle and pervasive racism isn't a pleasant reality, but, it is something that African American pioneers, like Obama, with persistence and smarts and hard work (yes, unfairly hard compared to the what his white, male competitors can slide by with) can, do and must be over-come to achieve what they hope to achieve and claim the prize they deserve. It would be a mistake, if Obama does fail in November, to blame racism and move on. What needs to be done is to acknowledge the handicaps racism presents and determine how to be better prepared to conquer them. Of course it is "unfair," but, as a Democrat who wants to win, I would have preferred that Obama -- who is brilliant, idealistic and has great potential as a leader, but is also still light on resume -- had waited to get more national experience (perhaps as Vice President) under his belt before trying this run. Because this is an election Democrat can not afford to lose -- and the reality is that lack of experience will present a much greater obstacle for him as a candidate than it might for a more traditional candidate.

- esmense

August 28, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am reminded of Stephen Colbert, who insists that he has no subconscious, that every decision he makes is made consciously, one at a time, at the forefront of his mind. Very funny, because so obviously untrue. We all make snap decisions unconsciously all the time, and then justify them later, verbally. And, yes, black folks do it too, but they are fewer than white folks. Humans are tribal, and while folk like to think they are "fair", it is counterintuitive to be perfectly fair - it takes a conscious struggle. We give the benefit of the doubt to people like us. It's a survivalistic trait, and nothing to be ashamed of - just something to be conscious of, and gotten over, if necessary for the good of ourselves, our families, and our communities.

- pbasch

August 28, 2008 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article. You've provided some salient points concerning this election. Your advice to Obama; "What he has to say from now on should be framed as an attempt to prevent the wide disparities in wealth, income, and power that are undermining the promise of American democracy." is good advice. However, it isn't much of a stretch to then ask yourself, If Obama couldn't even accomplish this task in his little Chicago hometown, how can we expect him to be able to accomplish this for all of America? Then we are right back to the same place that any serious discussion about Obama ends up, what accomplishment(s) or experience(s) does Obama have that would assure us that he can do what his campaign slogan says that he will do? The answer remains the same, there are none.

- Brian

August 28, 2008 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just one glaring error. I know many media types would like us to believe that President Bush is presiding over a recession, but much to their disappointment the numbers just haven't cooperated. In fact, you might remember that it was President Clinton who left the recession for President Bush to fix. But, I know hope springs eternal for that recession before he leaves office in a few months.

- Sylvia Simpson

August 28, 2008 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great Article....for more insight like this, check out currentdissents.blogspot.com

- Mark

August 28, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

quote: "As several psychological experiments have shown, white voters asked to compare white and black candidates of equal accomplishment will tend to view the black candidate as being less competent."unquote Where is the study where BLACK voters were asked the same thing? Current Gallup Poll figures show black support for Obama is 93% White support is lower, true, at 37%, but only 2% of blacks support McCain. Who are the true racists?

-

August 28, 2008 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The core of the concern about Obama is that he is inexperienced and far too liberal in the mode of George McGovern. Race is at most a tertiary factor except that a similarly inexperienced white first term senator would been highly unlikely to win the nomination. Having said that, experience is over-rated when it comes to the Presidency. There is no experience that qualifies one for the Presidency. Contrast Abraham Lincoln (our greatest and least experienced President) with George H.W. Bush and Herbert Hoover (two highly experienced but uninspired Presidents).

- D. Furth

August 28, 2008 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with everything you said. At the same time, if it were someone like Colin Powell running, none of that would be relevant. Colin Powell is a concrete example of a leader, Obama is just an abstraction.

- Jim W.

August 28, 2008 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Kelly's analysis of this article is the single best non-pundit piece on the election I have yet seen. Boiled down to a phrase, it might be "Hope is not a method." Well done John. As for the main reason Obama has decided not to participate in the 10 Town Hall meetings proposed by McCain, all one has to do is watch Saddleback. At Saddleback Obama lost badly and will lose in all such formats. Obama is not a "think on your feet" quick study who has deep convicitions that he can quickly articulate. McCain is and has such convictions. That is one thing that experience and having to make difficult choices gets you. Obama lost the majority of the debates to Clinton if substance counts. Said another way, Obama needs to stay on message, however lofty and unfocused. As for me, and I think many Americans, I want to know how a candidate formed their convictions and the choices they made, both when the whole world was looking and when nobody was looking...and the price of being wrong was painful. Senator Obama has few if any of those moments to draw on - he needs you to trust him going forward. John McCain has faced horrific and difficult choices few of us can imagine...both in private and in public. He is unafraid to do the right thing, in both environments. That dear readers is what makes a good leader...or should.

- Doug Cooper

August 28, 2008 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Then we are right back to the same place that any serious discussion about Obama ends up, what accomplishment(s) or experience(s) does Obama have that would assure us that he can do what his campaign slogan says that he will do? The answer remains the same, there are none." Couldn't this same argument be used with even more force against McCain? For all the problems facing America, you've had John McCain in the Senate for 20 something years. What lasting impact has he had on American life? For all of McCain's "experience" he has NO plan to turn the economy around (by his own admission that he does not understand "economics"-- and why would he? He has not run a business, or studied economics, or even performed well as an academic). While McCain served in the military-- as Gen. Clark correctly pointed out until he was muzzled by the pro-military-PC police-- McCain never commanded large numbers of troops on a mass, strategic scale. The skill set McCain demonstrated during his service is non-applicable to the skill set he would be using as "Commander-in-Chief". So while its nice and patriotic to say platitudes like, "McCain will be the American president Americans have been waiting for"...when held up to light, none of it makes any sense. Not to mention McCain is ALL OVER THE MAP on policy issues. Tax Cuts-- against it before he was for it. Immigration-- for it before he was against it. Iraq--Thought we would win with ease. Supported the invasion based on false pretenses. He was wrong, but has never apologized. Afghanistan-- Stated that the war was won 3 years ago. Pakistan-- criticized Obama's suggestion of targeted strikes on Al Quaeda operatives as being "naive". The Bush administration successfully adopts the Obama approach and takes out Al Quaeda target. McCain wrong again. Russia/Georgia-- McCain erroneously accuses Russia of starting the attacks, and sent a strong signal to Georgia that the US would intervene on their behalf, when we have no leverage-- militarily or diplomatically-- to force Russia to do anything. McCain wrong AGAIN. So, in summary, you ask what accomplishments and experience Obama has that support the idea that he will be "effective" at being president. Firstly, NO ONE asked that question of the lesser experienced George Bush when he ran for president. Secondly, McCain has NO accomplishments which demonstrate that he will manage the economy with any competence. McCain's "war hero status", while deserving of respect and honor (even if Kerry's was not for some reason), does little to predict how he will perform as President, due to the completely different skill sets invovled. Indeed, McCain's statements on foreign policy seem to suggest he will get most of the issues WRONG: Wrong on Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Russia/Georgia.

- Robert

August 28, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it that when whites vote for a white candidate it's called "racism" and when blacks vote for a black candidate its called "support?" The facts are clear, a larger percentage of whites will vote for BO that the percentage of blacks will vote for JM, therefore, we must conclude that blacks are far more racist than whites. Within the white community, this is an established truth and therefore there is lingering mistrust among whites as to the motives of many blacks. These worries are increased when the black candidate and his wife show signs of hating America or associating with radicals who hate America. As a white male, I plan to vote for McCain. I don't care who is white or black, but I know that I trust McCain and I do not trust BO.

- Chasmodee

August 28, 2008 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I usually like the comments at TNR because they are thoughtful and intelligent, and based primarily in reality. But here we have the usual junk from people who can't read the article and digest the points the author is making, people who just want to parrot something they heard on the radio or read in some other blog's comment section. I think comments on all TNR pages should be limited to TNR subscribers.

- Yoshiyahu

August 28, 2008 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whoa--Is the premise of this piece--that Obama has slipped--really true? I just checked the Pollster.com polling averages, and they show Obama pretty much at the same place he's been since May--fluctuating between 45 anf 48 per cent of the vote [At the moment he's right in the middle]. The major change over the past month has been in McCain's support, which has gone up about 2 1/2 points. I think this is simply Republican voters coming home. And the major problem Obama has right now isn't the voters [He's still ahead], but the punditocracy who's eager to shower him with free advice.

- David in Nashville

August 28, 2008 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In your desire to cleverly anatomize Obama's feet of clay you've drawn some really questionable conclusions. The convention has been PROFOUNDLY helpful for Obama who badly needed to end the "party is divided" narrative and to get Hillary's voters on board. And his field operations were absolutely crucial to his primary win and are quite likely to be crucial in November. Sure you can cite examples where they did not tip the scales but overall it was the difference between defeat and victory.

- zoobadger

August 28, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NO AMERICAN LEFT BEHIND That should be the new slogan, it speaks to every issue raised in the article.

- David Sasser

August 28, 2008 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading through these comments, I am convinced that there are an overwhelming number of people out there like me who are not black (blacks are only 12% or so of our population), but for whom race is irrelevant as an issue in chosing a candidate. I think many would feel differently, like I do, about a candidate in the "old mold" like Jesse Jackson or, worse, Al Sharpton, who made race the center of their platform, but I don't worry about Obama having some secret race agenda. On class, yes, I think many people do, and rightly so. Both his comments and his voting record have been very clear indicating him as favoring wealth redistribution and heavy government social intervention. At least one comment above termed him a Marxist. That may be a little strong--but maybe not. Certainly he has among the VERY weakest cases for bipartisanship, having a voting record which is one of the, if not the, most partisan in the Senate. For one who claims to be "post partisan politics" that is nothing short of, well, actually a lie. One of the things I don't like about him is that I feel he is dishonest, and that example I mentioned above is among the examples. He is slick, will say what people want to hear. The Rezco thing, Bill Ayers being "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", the flip-flops, they just don't sit well. And he is so arrogant. And for what? What has he accomplished to date? I mean yes, being elected to the US Senate is a great accomplishment, but it is kind of just the entry fee for where he is. The man comes off as if he is Jesus on the Mount, multiplying the fishes and loaves, and I want someone who can make Social Security whole. That is going to require getting GDP growth up. That is going to require not reducing carbon emissions per person to Revolutionary War levels. I need someone for President who gets that. Obama can be my minister on Sunday. Not my President.

- lisa

August 28, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack supporters and much of the MSMedia have been preparing for Obama's defeat for months with this "racist" garbage. I'd say that many people who ostensibly support the man are at some relishing the idea of his losing so that they'll have a whole new narrative about putative "white racisms". It is breathtaking how on these pages the obvious has been ignored: if Colin Powell had been the nominee this year, in 2004, or in 2000, he would be the very likely winner. There would be no question of Colin Powell's qualifications and experience. No questions about his loyalty, his true belefs, his true origins. there would be nothing akin to a Rev Wright connection or a a Bill Ayers/Bernadette Dohrn connection. If Colin Powell were the nominee of either party, racism would hardly ever be brought up. It is Obama's many and sundry inadequacies that put both his candidacy and his ultimate victory in serious question. Not "racism".

- ChanRobt

August 28, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What you liberals can not bring yourselves to accept is that Obama is the worst candidate to ever have a real shot at the presidency. He is an extreme liberal and Americans do not make presidents out of people like that. One wonders what will happen to the Democratic party once age takes away many of those die hard Democrats that vote for anyone calling themselves a Democrat? The answer is that it will become a permanent minority party, unless, that is, it collectively has the sense to re-invent itself in a realistic way and from what has transpired in the last few decades that does not appear to be in the cards.

- davelnaf

August 28, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So you want Americans to take a big risk with Obama, rather than continue on with the failed policies of the last 8 years? There are ways to reassure them that the risks can be bounded. Risks can be managed successfully. For example, Obama could name his shadow Cabinet, right now. If we knew in advance that his Secretary of Defense wasn't going to be a pacifist, and his Secretary of State wasn't going to be an appeaser, it might reassure the "Reagan Democrats" that Obama isn't going to govern from the far left. What's worrying working-class white voters is the prospect that as soon as Obama gets into office, he'll name a doctrinaire left-wing Cabinet, govern from the far left, and who knows, maybe even invite Reverend Wright up to the White House. Obama has to reassure voters that such things just won't happen.

- SteveL

August 28, 2008 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My first post was thoughtful and reasonable...and for some reason left off this OUTSTANDING discourse. Anyway, perhaps this will be pass through. I believe the salient items Americans are looking at here go back to what the candidates themselves call their credo's. McCain - Faith, Honor, Service Obama - Change we can believe in. Both appealing, but clearly different. Excellent article and excellent discourse!

- Douglas G Cooper

August 28, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The first part of this column is - and I mean no disrespect to Mr. Judis - pure garbage. The second and third parts are analytically very strong. While I appreciate that Mr. Judis is trying to get his mind around the complex ways in which racial prejudicies interplay with legitimate concerns about Obama's experience, voting record, etc., he opts for the easy way out by caricaturing those reluctant to support Obama as latent racists. I simply don't buy the argument that white voters are denigrating Obama's "experience" because they undervalue that of black candidates. Obama has no experience, quite simply, and that's giving some voters pause. It is entirely possible, however, that some voters' racial prejudices are impacting how they evaluate him as a candidate, but determining this is far more difficult than Mr. Judis' oversimplified analysis would suggest. With regard to the Obama campaign's overconfidence, he makes some good points. I agree with the analysis, and quite honestly, their hubris has baffled me. They're trying to make states they have no prayer of winning competitive (not just Georgia, but also Montana, Indiana, North Carolina, the Dakotas, etc.). Their approach seems to be based on two things: 1) Polling showing Obama competitive and 2) that they have a strong organization in place in these states from the primaries. Polling might show Obama competitive now, but I distinctly remember polls showing Kerry within striking distance in Montana 4 years ago ... and he lost that state by 21 points. Further, while Obama may have an organization in place in the Dakotas, Montana, etc, he has no institutional advantages in those states. There aren't many young people, almost no African Americans, and many socially conservative voters. Obama's making a major mistake in going after these states. He needs to funnel his resources into winning Ohio, etc, and just give up on this 350 EV pipe dream. It just ain't gonna happen.

- Adam

August 28, 2008 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This writer looks forward to the acceptance speech. Contrary to the media, BHO's seem to be cornpone politics rather than clear analysis of the issue. Change can mean anything and for many threatening. Megalomaniac rhetoric is by definition counterproductive. Many will see through the theatrical glitz and discover that there is less than meets the eye or ear in what is being presented as substance.

- Caius Marius

August 28, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So if I feel he's inexperienced, a regular tax-and-spend liberal, soft on foreign policy, and short on specifics and long on fluffy rhetoric -- the same reasons I don't vote for any other Democrat, white or not -- it's REALLY because I'm a racist and just don't understand my psychotic prejudices against other races? When will you people realize that only the left cares about race, gender, age, class. I'm a woman who would not have voted for Hillary -- does that make me sexist, too? I'm too busy trying to pay for gas to worry about psycho-babble mumbo-jumbo. Call me what you want, I've been rejecting white tax-and-spend Democrats for years; until they learn economics and stop caring more about the whales than my husband's job, I'll continue to reject Democrats of every color, gender, age and stripe -- those who came of age during the Carter years, like me, understand why empty rhetoric and good intentions do NOT a president make.

- hecowe

August 28, 2008 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think this gentleman, Dr. Jack Wheeler has summed up Obama: The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance. He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively. What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it. Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah. That my friend, is Obama's problem.

- Phoebe

August 28, 2008 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It makes perfect sense that people view Black liberal politicans as being more left wing than White liberal politicians. That's because no ethnic group of Americans have embraced the left wing rhetoric of the 1960s counterculture, with all its conspiracy theories, more enthusiastically than the Black community. This suspicion is well founded.

- The Fop

August 28, 2008 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JC Watts and Condi Rice are on my very short list of preferred candidates for President or VP. Oh I forgot, they don't count, they're conservatives... An average white guy in the Midwest

- switching2glide

August 28, 2008 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a libertarian Republican who will not be voting for McCain, I still find it particularly offensive that Obama supporters think that skin color is the reason for the close polls against McCain. This position represents a dehumanization of Obama. Barack Obama is a “man” first and foremost with unique attributes and abilities that no one else in the world possesses. His skin color is only a fraction of who he really is as a “man.” To suggest that his skin color accentuates his lack of national experience or any other unfavorable factor is unjust. I humbly suggest reading a good book by Thomas Sowell.

- Aaron

August 28, 2008 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is going to be the theme from the media if Obama loses. It has got got to be because a majority of whites can not suppor the black candidate. That is not true at all. It is because this man started running for president the day he arrived in the Senate. He has limited experience and is worries many people. Do you want to give the keys to your car to someone who has never been in the drivers seat of any vehicle? So to the media, stop using the race card.

- James

August 28, 2008 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Considering that Obama's already gotten a nice beginning for his convention bounce in the latest Gallup tracking poll, fears for his political demise seem a bit exaggerated. Until Obama came along this year, the idea that ANY black American could be nominated as the Democratic candidate for the presidency would have seemed ludicrous now or for any forseeable time in the near future. Now Obama's about to accept the nomination in front of 75,000 people, in a display of political enthusiasm that Reagan, wherever he is, can only eat his heart out over. The odds against Obama's being able to overcome American white racism enough, just enough, to get to where he is were overwhelming, and the Clinton campaign did all it could to use racism to stop him (Clinton shocked plenty of Democrats by how far she pushed this envelope; she dared not push it a centimeter farther). And yet Obama still won. McCain and the Republican smear machine have none of the constraints Clinton was hobbled by in terms of how racist the candidate can be to destroy Obama. And the smear machine is at least as well-funded as ever, this year by disgruntled neocons in both parties who wrongly think Obama, rather than the neocons themselves, is the de facto enemy of Israel, as well as by all the usual suspects on the right. But Obama is a uniquely intelligent, decent, insightful, and charming American politician. He's as likable as Reagan, and more likable than Bill Clinton, with at least as much political talent, and infinitely more character and judgement, than Clinton ever had. These are formidable advantages for a politician running against the worst presidency in American history, and the candidate who wants to continue its disastrous policies at home and abroad. The Clintons and their Democratic neocon funders arrogantly and foolishly counted Obama out for so long, thinking that their race card would surely do him in if all else failed, that they lost the primary fight. McCain, a much weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton with the Reagan Democratic union members, whatever his war record, given the disastrous Bush economy and the fat cats who've profited from it while the workers were squeezed, had better not underestimate Obama, too, or he will soon be history, like the Clintons.

- jeanrenoir

August 28, 2008 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert, did you have civics in Jr. High. So many of you needed to learn something while you were in school. Three branches of goverment. Obama has only been elected to one of those, legislative. He is now running for not just any executive office, but the high executive office in the world; executive branch. So, His resume, even if you include the state senate, is very thin. What bills has he written and introduced, and worked to pass, and where is the bi-partisan accomplishments of good bills that have been signed into law. How many of his bills have become law? He has 0 executive experience. President Bush had 6 years of executive experience. You are comparing apples and oranges, and to dumb to know which is which.

- Sherlock

August 28, 2008 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At least I know Obama isn't a criminal. Most Repugnicans are criminals. Nixon, Bush 2, Cheney, Gonzalez, McCain -- McCain should have been ousted and prosecuted after his "good" work as part of the Keating 5. He lucked out. Oh, you Repugs and so-called "independents" forgot about that, did you? Seems like the Repugs have been at the center of every major scandal and crime committed in Washington over the last 50 years -- so, anytime a Repug gets high-minded, I just stop reading..."high" minded (or elevated) and Repugnicanism are an oxymoron. I'll vote for someone who hasn't broken the law -- call it good ol' liberal values.

- Criminals

August 28, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a resident of Macomb County, the notion that race is a factor is almost a no-brainer. The Detroit metropolitan area is one of the most segregated parts of the country for a reason. The suburb vs city mentality that most functional metro areas have long since put behind them has been raging here since the 60s.

- Andrew

August 28, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just want to say how wonderful it is that TNR has this board open to every troll under the bridge (plus multiple listings under fake names). Anyway, I like Mr. Judis, but he's showing extreme Babyboomeritis. Let go, Mr. Judis. BTW, great anachronistic troll terminology: "socialism", "redistribute wealth", "Mussolini is fun", "Obama is a Sans-Culottes Jacobian; we need McCain the Girondist" etc. Why so much hand-wringing about everything? Relax, the Apocalypse is months away. From ask.metafilter: "We are all republicans — we are all federalists." — Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural address, 1801 (sent in by Language Hat) We are all socialists now (1888), which spawned cognates such as We are all imperialists now (1907), We are all dictators now (1926), We are all protectionists now (1928) and We are all liberals now (1959 book). I even found what is probably an early parody, We are all dieting now (LA Times, 1927). "We are all sons of bitches now." — Trinity A-bomb test director Kenneth Bainbridge to Richard Feynman, 1945, according to James Gleick's Genius (sent in by Blake Stacey)

- Pippy

August 28, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

David Plouffe said not to pay attention to the national polls. Since Plouffe got Obama this far, I think I put my bets on Plouffe than what some talking head worrywart who insists on keeping the narrative that Obama "can't win. He can't win." like some self-fulfilling theme song to sink the Democrats once again.

- Jay

August 28, 2008 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A Marxist is still a Marxist regardless of the color of his skin. Obama's struggles are a function of his misguided policy proposals not his race (white or black, whichever he chooses to embrace this week). Obama is a deeply flawed candidate. He is a closet radical with little preparation for the job he seeks.

- M Atnip

August 28, 2008 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So if I don't want to support an agenda of amnesty for illegal immigrants, forcing corporations and jobs off shore via higher taxation and can't tolerate having more of my income snatched away to fund programs for people who will not help themselves, that makes me racist? And what of the blue collar worker who feels the same? I am sick and tired of the only argument of politics looking like this. Liberal: Obama rocks, Obama rules, Obama, Obama, Obama Conservative: But what about his tax plan, his economic history, his questionable relationships to people who gave him favorable loans? Liberal: You're a racist and a neocon and I am taking my marbles and going home.... (Assuming any liberals still have all their marbles...)

- Ellen K

August 28, 2008 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a horrible rant. If the Democrats lose in November it will be because of arrogant, dimwitted and totally clueless far left narcissistic nuts like Judis. I am not even going to bother dissecting everything wrong in this foolsh rant. Pretty much everything is wrong, dead wrong. I would only observe that the first reader response to Judis was far smarter, more humane and more just plain decent that anything Judis could muster. He didn't serve such an intelligent response. The New Republic should be ashamed.

- Erick Blair

August 28, 2008 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when white voters see two candidates WHOSE RECORD AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE SIMILAR, they will judge the black candidate as less competent and more liberal. Why does that matter at all this year? I haven't heard anybody on either side say that Obama and McCain have similar records or similar achievements. In fact it is one of the areas in which they differ the most. McCain is experienced, Obama is a first-termer. How does that make them so equivalent that race matters? When we have a white and a black candidate that share similar tenures and records, then this might come into play but that is not the case here!!!

- Frank

August 28, 2008 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Similar to the mayoral race in Chicago a quarter century ago (Harold Washington vs. Bernard Epton), this race will be closer than it deserves to. The Republicans really fucked up the country and deserve to lose big. But because of race (as in the Washington vs. Epton race), they won't lose big, they'll just lose. Your obit of the Obama campaign is a bit premature.

- r b-j

August 29, 2008 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wish Barack Obama would praise the Clinton years. Everyone knows he clearly hates the both of them with an absolute passion, and no one will believe a single word of it. It will be added to his list of flip flops, backtracks, and outright lies. And backfire on him the way Michelle Obama talking about Hillary Clinton's 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling did miserably, when her and her husband and their campaign did everything they could to put an 100 mile thick steel ceiling right on top of that glass ceiling. What gall. What nerve. No, the Obamas can't say a single kind or nice work about the Clintons because it makes them out to be pathological liars, not that there aren't many nice things once could say about the first balanced budget in a century, the longest run of peacetime economic expansion in US history, the growth of the middle class and the lifting of millions out of poverty, and a months long war to stop genocide where not a single US serviceman or woman was killed. No, the Obamas would be pathological liars exactly because it is these very accomplishments that make them hate the Clintons so. The Obamas know that they will never be able to deliver anything approaching the Clintons accomplishments, and deep down, they also know they don't have a chance in this universe of ever living in the White House.

- xbjllb

August 29, 2008 at 3:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's amazing in to me how persistently blind our culture is to this day. It is shockingly appalling to think this 'journalist' actually has an outlet to publish, considering the poor quality of the work; far below any high school standard. Despite the sub-par level of writing the 'article/ op-ed' is unsubstantiated and littered with profound ignorance and racism. How blind can you be? Our culture is blind to the amount of racism that still exists, and instead of discussion there is apathy. How apathetic can people get? This article represents what is the greatest threat to our country and the American Dream. Go Back To Ranting and Raving where its appropriate: A SOAP BOX. Oh but watch out for the homeless guy, he might be what you fear the most

- Alex

August 29, 2008 at 6:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

would majority black south africans ever elect a white president....i think not!

- steve uk

August 29, 2008 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is very frustrating because this a point in time when the Republican miscues on so many fronts could be rolled back. But except for taxation of very high incomes, over 250,000, Obama offers little or nothing. Nothing for universal health care. Nothing for rolling back the bloated military budget. No demands on Israel to build a lasting middle eastern peace by ending occupation and Jewish settlement in occupied territories and planning a military attack on Iran. Nothing on ending illegal wire-taping. Nothing on misues of executive priviledge. Nothing on the need to void government contracts with companies that have ripped off the government, such a Halliburton. And nothing about convening a war crimes tribunal to punish Bush for lying America into the terrible Iraq war. Want me to go on?

- william-tigersoft-com

August 29, 2008 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It isvery likely academic about Barack and the white republican old man because it appears neither is elgible to be president as neither was born in usa.Sure Barack has a bogus birth certificate but what if we do not accept bogus as good enough?Appears likely the next best candidate would be Hilary Clinton so that is likely why Bill has been so happy recently-he knows too.He is not stupid -has IQ of 170 .Mccain born in Panama is not what I call USA.Bush might decide the whole shambles is not good enough for him and just stay put.Viva la dictqtorship.

- peter moore

August 30, 2008 at 2:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@ChanRobt: Just a quick note about what Obama is getting at with "post-partisan politics". It means being able to disagree with political opponents - to want different things; to want the same things achieved through different means - without questioning their honor or integrity. It means getting beyond a political system that encourages politicians to say things like 'my opponent would rather lose a war in order to win an election' - which McCain has repeatedly said about Obama. Obama, like the majority of Americans, wants to set a timetable to be out of Iraq. (Well, now even Bush has agreed to this so it may be a moot point.) But instead of saying "I disagree with my opponent," McCain characterizes it as wanting to lose - and then says a statement that basically accuses Obama of treason. This is what Obama speaks to, and why he's been so successful in getting previously apolitical people to register to vote and support his candidacy. Because people are tired of how politicians polarize the electorate to benefit themselves. You are free to disagree that that's what Obama has been achieving, or will be able to accomplish. But I do hope you'll at least consider that you may have a different notion of "post-partisan politics" than what most of Obama's supporters have.

- vernonlee

September 1, 2008 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close