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 The Big Race

MAY 28, 2008

The Big Race

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

The issue of race is the longest-lasting cleavage in American politics. It is also perhaps the least understood. The open exploitation of racist sentiment by vote-hungry politicians was for centuries a durable American tradition. More recently, race has assumed a subtle, often unspoken form during campaign season, as Republicans have sought white votes by slyly associating their Democratic opponents with controversial black figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or with topics--welfare, crime, federal funding for "midnight basketball"--that many voters identify with African Americans.


Now, with Barack Obama inching closer to the Democratic nomination, race looms yet again as a central factor in American politics. Already, race has played a key part in the Democratic primary, almost certainly hurting Obama among swaths of voters in states like New Jersey, Ohio, and, most recently, Pennsylvania. If he manages to win the nomination anyway--and it appears he will--race seems likely to play an even larger role in the general election.


What role, exactly, will that be? No one knows for sure, but the field of political psychology offers some clues. In recent years, scholars have been combining experimental findings with survey data to explain how race has remained a factor in American elections--even when politicians earnestly deny that it plays any part at all. In 2001, Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg summarized this research in a pathbreaking book, The Race Card. Her provocative analysis is hotly debated and far from conclusive; political psychology, after all, is not a hard science. Still, her ideas and those of other academics help to shed light on what has happened so far in the primaries and what might unfold once Obama wraps up the nomination. Their findings suggest that racism remains deeply embedded within the psyche of the American electorate--so deep that many voters may not even be aware of their own feelings on the subject. Yet, while political psychology offers a sobering sense of the difficulties that lie ahead for Obama, it also offers something else: lessons for how the country's first viable black presidential candidate might overcome the obstacles he faces.


If you were born before 1970 or if you read public-opinion polls, then you cannot doubt the profound transformation wrought by the civil rights era. In 1944, the National Opinion Research Center asked whether "Negroes should have as good a chance as white people to get any kind of job, or [whether] white people should have the first chance at any kind of job"--and 55 percent still thought white people should have the "first chance." By 1972, only 3 percent thought so. But some academics--noting the bitterness of battles over busing, affirmative action, and aid to cities, as well as the evolution of the GOP into a virtually all-white party--reasoned that racial prejudice remained, even if it was no longer overtly expressed. They believed it had simply changed form. Their challenge was to define and to demonstrate the existence of this new racism.


Many social scientists had long rejected the possibility that humans might harbor unconscious attitudes different from their conscious behavior. But, in trying to explain the persistence of racial prejudice, political psychologists were forced to hypothesize different levels of awareness and motivation. On the highest level was public moral reflection guided by social norms--which led to Trent Lott being pilloried when he famously said in 2002 that, if Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond had been elected president, the country could have avoided "all these problems." Beneath this, however, was a realm of knee-jerk opinion that might contradict a person's moral reflections; and still beneath that were unconscious attitudes, which, like a person's knee-jerk opinions, were often at odds with his or her public moral reflections. If racial prejudice persisted, it was on these deeper levels.


Political psychologists devised new tests to uncover these sentiments. First, they crafted survey questions aimed at unearthing what they called "symbolic racism," "modern racism," and, most recently, "racial resentments," which ascribe to blacks as a group certain negative attributes or undeserved advantages. For example, researchers asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with statements such as "It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites" or "Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve."


Experimenters then inserted questions like these into the American National Election Studies (ANES), extensive biennial surveys funded by the National Science Foundation. The answers revealed a degree of racial resentment that wasn't apparent from more explicit questions about racial bias. In 1986, for instance, 59 percent of respondents agreed that blacks were not trying hard enough (only 27 percent disagreed), while 67 percent thought blacks should work "their way up ... without any special favors." Psychologists David Sears and Donald Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the single most important factor--more important than even conservative ideology or political partisanship--in explaining strong opposition to a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly benefited minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't be principled conservative opposition to government-guaranteed equal employment or urban aid. But, according to the political psychologists, racial resentment played the largest role in fueling public skepticism.


The answers also revealed which groups within society continued to harbor racial resentment. With the help of Harvard doctoral student Scott Winship, I looked at the levels of racial resentment in ANES data from 1988, 1992, and 2000 (the questions were omitted in 1996). What Winship and I found was that resentment was highest among males rather than females, the middle class rather than the wealthy or poor, those lacking a college degree, those who worked in skilled or semi-skilled blue collar jobs or as laborers, and residents of small towns in the Midwest and South. Does that profile sound familiar? It's more or less a description of the white working-class voters who have spurned Obama and with whom John Kerry and Al Gore had trouble. The only groups that didn't evince racial animosity toward blacks were voters with post-graduate degrees and, of course, African Americans. Hispanics were nearly as prejudiced as whites, and a group labeled "other" that includes Asian Americans was even more so--a partial explanation, perhaps, for why Obama fared so poorly among these groups in California. Clearly, racial resentment persisted--just in a more nuanced form.


In fact, the structure of this modern racism was even more complicated than the ANES data suggested. In a study published in 1995, four psychologists from Indiana University recounted taking a group of subjects who had earlier taken the racism test (the questions had been interspersed among scores of other questions) and giving it to them again. This time, however, a black experimenter conducted some of the tests and a white experimenter the others. The psychologists discovered that, when the interviewer was black, white respondents scored substantially lower on the racism scale than before. This meant that gut-level reactions could be easily influenced by moral reflection and social norms. What psychologists needed was a method of measuring prejudice that elicited immediate emotional reactions rather than the products of deliberation.


Toward that end, they devised tests that measured racial attitudes without subjects knowing what was happening or being able to adjust their responses to social norms. In a study that appeared in 1989, University of Wisconsin psychologist Patricia Devine flashed words on a screen faster than her subjects could recognize them. Some of the words, like "blacks," were associated with African Americans; others were neutral. She then asked subjects whether a person's actions in a deliberately ambiguous story about a customer wanting his money back signified hostility or not. After words associated primarily with African Americans were flashed, the subjects rated the person's actions decidedly more "hostile" than after predominately neutral words were flashed. This suggested to Devine that terms associated with blacks were priming unconscious stereotypes about aggressiveness or hostility.


Another kind of test--known as an implicit association test--used the time it took to complete word association exercises to unmask stereotypes. Psychologists would ask subjects to associate positive and negative adjectives with African American and European American faces by pressing different keys on a computer. At each interval in the experiment, subjects would be told which kind of adjectives to pair with which subject. If a subject regularly took longer to pair positive words with a black face than he did negative words, that indicated unconscious racial bias.


Using data from more than 15,000 self-selected subjects who took the test on a website, psychologists Anthony Greenwald, Mahzarin Banaji, and Brian Nosek found that the same sorts of respondents who had registered higher on the racial resentment scale were more inclined to associate negative adjectives with an African American face. For instance, subjects who had not graduated from college displayed more prejudice than those who had. Men also were more prejudiced than women.


In addition, according to questions they answered before taking the test, there was a sharp disparity between what subjects said they believed and what the test showed. For instance, only 32 percent of high school graduates said they favored whites over African Americans, but in the test 64 percent did. This disparity suggests that, in answering questions about what they believed, subjects opted for prevailing norms over private sentiments. They did not want to appear racist, even though, at some level, they were.


But the problem with implicit association tests--or tests that use subliminal cues--is deciding what they mean in the real world. Do the unconscious racial feelings they uncover affect the way whites view policy, parties, and politicians? And, if so, how decisively?


In elections over the last three decades, Republican politicians have repeatedly used ads, push polls, and surrogates to appeal to white voters' racial fears and resentments. These ranged from George H.W. Bush's Willie Horton ad in 1988 to the Republican National Committee's infamous "Harold, call me" ad in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race between Republican Bob Corker and African American Harold Ford, which appealed to long-standing fears about black sexuality.*


In The Race Card, Mendelberg argues that political ads can indeed awaken underlying racial stereotypes and attitudes, just like a black face flashing subliminally on a screen. She recounts the story of the Horton ads, which first appeared in June but became widespread in October. While the press initially presented them as being about crime, Horton's picture also appeared--stirring unconscious racial associations. Using the ANES survey, Mendelberg drew connections between the ad's prominence and support for Bush against Michael Dukakis. From June to October, she shows, there was a mild correlation between how high a voter ranked on the racial resentment scale and his or her support for Bush. After October 1, when the ads were more widely aired and discussed, the correlation became much stronger.


In a similar vein, Nicholas Valentino, Vincent Hutchings, and Ismail White from the University of Michigan ran a series of experiments in 2000 using a hypothetical George W. Bush campaign ad that promised to cut taxes, reduce wasteful spending, and reform the health care system. There were three versions of the ad, all with the same text: One showed neutral images of laboratory workers and medical x-rays; another showed a black person counting money and a black mother and child in an office just as the narrator announced Bush's opposition to spending "tax dollars on wasteful government programs"; a third showed white people in the same roles. After watching the ads, subjects were asked to fill out questionnaires that included measures of racial resentment and their preference between Bush and Gore. The findings were similar to Mendelberg's. After seeing the neutral ad or the ad picturing undeserving whites, subjects who scored higher on the racial resentment test were no more likely to support Bush than subjects who scored lower. But, when subjects saw the ad picturing undeserving blacks, there was a strong correlation between how high they scored on the racism scale and their support for Bush. "Overall," the political psychologists wrote, "these results suggest that racial cues make racial concerns more accessible in memory, subsequently boosting the impact of these concerns on candidate evaluations."


Mendelberg's most controversial claim is that these ads work best when the appeal is implicit. If the appeal is explicit, she argues--that is, if politicians actually say that blacks are undeserving--then they lose support because they have violated the norm against racism. Although voters will respond unconsciously to an implicit appeal that they don't perceive as racist, they will recoil for reasons of conscience or social disapproval to an appeal that either is, or is seen as, racist. Mendelberg asserts that Bush actually lost support to Dukakis in the closing weeks of the 1988 campaign because, on October 21, Jesse Jackson denounced the Horton ad as racist and Dukakis's running mate Lloyd Bentsen followed suit two days later. That made explicit what had previously been implicit.


But other psychologists have questioned Mendelberg's theory of implicit and explicit racial communications. Two political scientists, Gregory Huber and John Lapinski, tried to test Mendelberg's theory by comparing the effects of two anti-welfare ads: one using a visual image of a black recipient and the other adding explicit language about "too many welfare recipients, especially blacks," taking "advantage of our tax dollars." They found that the explicit message did not produce a "significantly more liberal policy opinion than the implicit message." Karen Kaufmann, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, is also skeptical about Mendelberg's theory. "My own work in the context of local politics suggests that fairly explicit racial appeals succeed quite often," she says.


Some distinctions might help preserve what is valid in Mendelberg's argument. First, one has to distinguish between kinds of explicit messages. If a message obviously violates norms against old-fashioned, pre-civil rights racism--as Lott's did--then it is likely to backfire; but if it leaves any room for disagreement about whether it is racist, then it may not. Second, a lot depends on which voters candidates are appealing to. For example, researchers have shown that white women are more likely than white men to react negatively to racist appeals. George Allen learned this lesson in his 2006 Senate race when he lost support among female voters in northern Virginia after uttering a racial slur against an Indian-American.


But there are clearly limits to how much charging racism can help Democrats. During the 1988 election, Dukakis did surge in the last weeks, but it was at best only partly attributable to denunciations of the Horton ad as racist--at the time, most political analysts attributed it to Dukakis's belated adoption of a populist economic appeal. And Dukakis's recovery in those last weeks by no means made up for the ground he lost in the first weeks of October when the Horton ad dominated the airwaves. Even Mendelberg acknowledges that the Horton ad "helped George Bush win the election." Similarly, in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race, Ford was able to make up some ground after the RNC's* "Harold, call me" ad was denounced as racist, but he was not able to undo the damage the ad initially caused.


So making an implicit racial appeal explicit can help an embattled Democrat among some groups, some of the time--but it is hardly a surefire defense against the race card. That leaves one other option: changing the subject. In a campaign where a large proportion of voters would score high on a racial resentment test, a politician's best hope of countering the race card may be to simply emphasize a more important issue. Mendelberg herself acknowledges that "an effective defense against implicitly racial appeals requires an issue that trumps race in the considerations of white voters. In the nineteenth century, this issue was primarily sectionalism--northern whites' resentment of southern whites' secession. In the twentieth century, this issue was primarily economic prosperity and cherished social welfare programs." Bill Clinton used this approach successfully in 1992--a year when the Los Angeles riots had inflamed racial sentiments--to win back white working-class voters who had left the party in prior decades.


What, then, can the political psychology of race tell us about the current primaries and the coming general election? Clearly, Obama gained some votes in the early primaries from college-educated Democrats who liked the idea of an African American candidate transcending the historic conflict over race. And, if he had not been running against a popular female candidate, he might have won more support among white women. But Obama also lost voters to racial prejudice.


One indication is the exit polls. The percentage of voters who backed Hillary Clinton (or, earlier, John Edwards) while saying that the "race of the candidates" was "important" in deciding their vote is a fair proxy for the percentage of primary voters who were disinclined to support Obama because he is black. That number topped 9 percent in New Jersey; in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two crucial swing states, it was more than 11 percent. And that's among Democratic primary voters, who are, on average, more liberal than the Democrats who vote in general elections.


Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which exploded into the news after the Ohio primary, may do lasting damage to his candidacy by undermining his attempt to transcend race. Wright's words tie Obama to the stereotype of the angry, hostile--and also unpatriotic--black who is seen as hating both whites and white America. Wright turns Obama into a "black candidate" like Jackson or Sharpton. And, as a black candidate, Obama falls prey to a set of stereotypes about black politicians.


Some of these have to do with abilities. A 1995 study found that voters believe black politicians "lack competence on major issues." Other stereotypes relate to ideology. Several studies have shown that if subjects compare a black and white candidate with roughly equal political positions, they will nevertheless see the black candidate as more liberal. Obama is already vulnerable to charges of inexperience, and, after Wright surfaced, he fell prey to an ideological stereotype as well. Whereas he benefited in the initial primaries and caucuses from being seen as middleof-the-road or even conservative, his strongest support has recently come from more liberal voters. In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among voters who classified themselves as "very liberal" by 55 to 45 percent, but he lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In a national Pew poll, Obama's support among "very liberal" voters jumped seven points between January and May, while his support among "moderates" dropped by two points. Since Obama's actual policies are, on the whole, no more liberal than Clinton's (his health care plan, for instance, is inarguably more conservative), these trends strongly suggest that some voters are stereotyping him because of his race.


If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should be able to inherit the white women who backed Hillary Clinton. As political psychologists have shown, these voters should be largely amenable to his candidacy. He should also continue to enjoy an advantage among white professionals. But Obama is likely to continue having trouble with white working-class voters in the Midwest--voters who tend to score high on racial resentment and implicit association tests and who, arguably, decided the 2004 election with their votes in Ohio. Obama will also have trouble with Latinos and Asians, groups that score high on both indexes, and that can be important in states like California. It's not hard to quantify Obama's problem: If 9 to 12 percent of Democratic primary voters in swing states have been reluctant to support him because he is black, one can assume that, in the general election, 15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents may not support him for the same reason.


Can Obama surmount these obstacles? If the strong version of Mendelberg's thesis is correct, then the very fact that Obama is African American will undercut any appeals to racial fears or resentments. And, if elections were held in the manner of the Iowa caucus, where voters publicly debate their positions and where Obama won substantial white workingclass support, then Mendelberg's stronger thesis might well prove true. But elections are held in the privacy of a voting booth, where a voter can give voice to fears and resentments without danger of being heard. Obama may be able to sway some white voters to his side by drawing attention to race, but probably not enough to fully compensate for the disadvantage he faces.


If addressing racial resentments directly is not the answer, what is? As Mendelberg also suggests, it's changing the subject--doing what the Republicans of the 1870s and the Democrats of the 1990s did. This year, that means diverting voters' attention from the politics of race to the plight of the economy and the continuing quagmire in Iraq.


In the end, the lesson of political psychology for Democrats is not to avoid nominating black candidates. It is simply to understand that America's racial history continues to influence the calculations of voters--sometimes near the forefronts of their minds, sometimes in the deep recesses of their unconscious. For liberals, acknowledging these obstacles is the first step to blunting them. If Obama can focus the election on the economy and Iraq, he could very well win in spite of the angry words of Reverend Wright and 200 years of both old- fashioned racism and newfangled racial resentment. If he can't, he is likely to suffer the same fate as Michael Dukakis--and this time it won't take a Willie Horton commercial.


John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic.


 


* Clarification (5/14/08). This article was changed to make clear that the "Harold, Call Me Ad" in the 2006 Tennessee Senatorial race did not come directly from the campaign of his opponent, Bob Corker, but was produced by the Republican National Committee on its behalf.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 241 comments

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

241 comments

Clinton's recent 'hard-working white Americans' comments are insulting to all of us. I wish I could go to the polls and vote for Obama on Tuesday -- I'd enjoy saying No Thanks to Hillary this week. West Virginians, you have the golden opportunity. Lucky folks. I hope lots of you have a great time voting for Barack. With a smile.

- Dems to Win

May 10, 2008 at 10:43pm

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

Much of this is well-reasoned, but I have to take issue with Judis's fairly arbitrary projection that Obama's race will cost him 15-20% in the general election. Judis claims to base this on the 9-12% of voters in primary exit polls who said that race was "important" to their vote and voted for Obama's rivals. That is a striking result, but interpreting what it means for the fall is far from straightforward. First, people are very poor judges of why they vote as they do, so you can't take at face value any poll question that voters to estimate this. Race may be more or less important to the primary vote than this result would indicate; we don't know. Second, even if you could take this result at face value, it would only tell you why voters chose Clinton or Edwards over Obama. In the fall they will have a much different choice, between a Republican and a Democrat. Even if race really is "important" to some voters, it's not the only factor, and we know that party affiliation and issues stands also matter a great deal to voters. So I think the 15-20% estimate is silly and arbitrary, and undermines what is otherwise an article well worth reading.

- Dr.T

May 11, 2008 at 4:26pm

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

Trent Lott was right. Think of all of the white people who have been viciously attacked since the end of segregation. The media largely ignores it because it wouldn't be PC to report on it. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com

- Brad

May 12, 2008 at 2:06pm

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

There were some statements in this article that made me say, "Wait, why should I find that racisy or controversial?" For example, Mr. Judis said when people are shown a white politician and a black politician, most people automatically assume the black politician is more liberal. What Mr. Judis doesn't say is whether or not black politicians - on the whole - are more liberal than white politicians. Based on the opening paragraphs of this piece, which describe the Democratic base, then I think the answer is Yes, blacks tend to be more liberal. Whooptie-doo. Sorry folks. But sometimes stereotypes are true. And just because a stereotype is true doesn't make it malicious or racist or evil. It just makes it true. I consider myself a liberal, but sometimes it drives me crazy when other liberals are afraid to make generalizations. It's ok, guys. You don't have to parse every truth.

- ZACummings

May 12, 2008 at 10:17pm

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

I am white as the wind driven snow. I would vote for a black in a heartbeat... just not a black Democrat, but I wouldn't vote for a white Democrat either.

- No Not Dems

May 13, 2008 at 12:37am

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

Very good article. More political psychology, please.

- Mizzou

May 13, 2008 at 12:41am

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

Of course race is an issue. The Democrats keep talking about it..that's all they CAN talk about, because that's the only thing in their heads..... They have NO plans...NO vision of an strong and viable nation...only 'Race' and how they need to make everyone even.... That's what's so stupid about them. Even their goofy primarys, where they split up all the delegates. In november, it's a winner take all election. Not some idiot's vision of equality. They're getting exactly what they envision for us....race powered equality, dictated by them....but, not FOR them.... Democrat=Insanity

- dadling

May 13, 2008 at 12:42am

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

Wow, you mean the 16.9 Million people who have voted for Obama so far aren't white? And to think... all this time I thought I was white.

- Salty1

May 13, 2008 at 12:42am

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

When can we expect the "Will Blacks Vote For McCain?" piece? Since Obama is consistently getting over 90% of the African-American vote will there be an "analysis" as to the effect racial identity politics will have on the white candidate's campaign? I won't hold my breath.

- Ric O.

May 13, 2008 at 12:46am

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

Clinton's winning complex and swing states proved she has the absolutely necessary coalition for Democratic Party to win in November. It includes majority of the whites both men and women, almost all Asians, all Hispanics, all Jews, whole LGBT community, majority of Catholics, high percentage of Protestants, majority of the blue-collar and working class, most moderates and conservatives, whole small-town America, regular church goers, gun owners and good percentage of energetic young folks including college students. We are totally inspired by Hillary's intelligence, competence, strength, experiences and her excellent track record. She will be the strongest against McCain in November and she will be a wonderful president, a president for all common Americans, not only African-Americans, the elitists, the effluent and the young. Without this coalition, Democrats CAN NOT WIN! It is a matter of reality. Some Washington folks in Democratic Party are pressuring Hillary to quit and preventing people from being in process is undemocratic. And media's spinning is just silly.

- truedemocrat

May 13, 2008 at 12:48am

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

I don't disagree with the article for the most part, but one omission seems a tad disingenous: Obama is the putative nominee *because* of an explicitly racist voting pattern far more extreme than any of the percentages in the article. So if he loses the presidency because of "racist" voting, then oh, well. What his skin color giveth, it just taketh away. But more generally, I dispute the general equation of racism. One can think that "blacks could try harder" without being racist. Granted, the qualification could be more explicit ("many poor blacks would be better off if they tried harder" or better yet "many poor people would be better off if they tried harder"), but not everyone qualifies to the nth degree. Similarly, I just don't buy that negative associations about skin color map to racism. Finally, it is simply untrue that any Democrats who vote for McCain are racist. They might just find Obama unqualified and incompetent, and think those qualities, coupled with his hallelujah chorus, are reason enough to vote for McCain. I would not assume that this cohort is smaller than the putatively "racist" voters.

- Cal

May 13, 2008 at 12:56am

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

The social "science" experiments conducted don't demonstrate anything conclusive beyond the blindlingly obvious fact that working-class and latinos and asians resent non-working recipients of government largesse. Whether or not this resentment is justified, it is not in itself evidence of racism. It's little more than an epiphenomenon of the deep concern that non college-educated and nonwhite Americans have with the notion that the non-wealthy taxpayer in this country receives very little benefit for his tax contribution. Were the party of the working man to focus on this undeniable disparity-- again, not a racial disparity but a FISCAL one-- and either cut those taxes significantly or, far more preferable, seek to dramatically increase the value received for taxes paid by moderate-income Americans, we'd routinely win national elections. This isn't class warfare, and it's not conventionally liberal or conservative. It's simply treating ordinary people with enough respect to tell it to them straight, to admit that both parties have failed, miserably, at providing the basic triad of economic security, affordable health insurance unconnected to one's employment situation, and excellent schools for everyone, and then to finally put forth a radical program that turns this unacceptable situation around. ps If you want to transcend race, then quit talking about race. Class matters today, and hugely. Race, not so much. Not much at all, in fact. Wrong century, Dems.

- teplukhin2you

May 13, 2008 at 1:01am

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

I couldn't agree more with Dr. T This is a fine piece, however, the author's bias is transparent. I'd agree that race clearly influences politics. The Nixon crowd mastered the "code language," and subsequent Republican candidates have exploited it to similar success, though, at times, I'm certain it has also been to their detriment. Twenty per cent is no more than "ballparking" it. If you conducted comparable surveys of "class resentment," I think you'd find comparable results. I doubt this will be decided because Barack Obama is black. That's sort of thoughtless, shallow. I'm sure many of you have also heard "Obama might get shot" from various voters. It reflects a confounded political ideology, or lack thereof, much more so than racial prejudices. Most people who vote are awfully partisan. The act alone equals partisanship, citizenship. But it also reflects arrogance, and pride. Lawrence Goodwyn, author-historian of "The Populist Moment," argued that then populist voters voted the way they shot their guns, in reference to their family's allegiances during the Civil War. Elections --as important as they are-- are decided by an electorate of Red Sox and Yankees fans, Celtics or Lakers fans,insert-your-team-here. The country is too vast to ever enjoy efficacious governance. Aristotle once opined that a citizen ought to be able to traverse his or her polis(community) in a single day. I live in New York City, I'm all about secession. A Singapore, or Hong Kong status.

- Jackie Oakland

May 13, 2008 at 1:14am

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

Judis used to be an interesting writer for TNR. These days all he does is obsess over Obama's race. He wants it to be the one thing we think and talk about after a primary election. Now it looks like he wants it to be our focus heading in to the general. Lovely.

- ralphnelle

May 13, 2008 at 1:28am

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

Barack Hussain Osama Obama or whatever this far left communists name is....He is not going to win. Another loser that will join the club of his fellow losers - Dukakis, Gore, Kennedy and Kerry. And this one has ties to terrorists...His campaign official was secretly meeting with Hamas and just resigned.....More of his terrorists commie connections are going to come out.. Maybe after he loses, we can send him to Guantanamo...He can then join his fellow terrorists and continue to hate America. Republicans will win again. Thank you you Donkey brained Democrats for giving us another loser nominee.

- bruno1211

May 13, 2008 at 1:30am

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

I think way too much has been made of the "white vote" issue for Obama, to the point where people now seem to have the impression that he can't win white people altogether. Everybody, calm down. Remember, he leads in the popular vote, and its not just because of educated whites and african americans. He won Wisconsin overwhelmingly with 8% of the electorate being black. Indeed, most WI voters were lower income voters that people claim he never wins. Again, he came within 1.5 points in Indiana, and won Missouri and Virginia where his coalitions indeed expanded into lower income white working class voters. In fact, in Virginia Obama swept every income level (with a 30% black electorate). And these were all primaries, so Judis' theory of muddled results because of caucuses doesn't hold. Granted, as Judis says, he struggled in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but I expect many voters, especially men, will not vote for Mccain in the amount that the current polls suggest (about 25%). I think Michael Lind once went into the difference between the different kinds of white working class in Ohio and Penn, and further west in WI and Missouri, but if someone could shed some more light on the differences between these two regions it would be appreciated. The two main questions are, one, how much has the Wright affair affected him? If Wisconsin or Missouri or Virginia voted today would the results be very different? I'd venture to say they would be somewhat different, but I'd also bet that has less to do with Wright per se, as much as it does with HOW FRESH Wright was in people's minds in the most recent contests. I would argue that once Obama gains the nomination and momentum is on his side, as long as he remains gaffe proof he can put up the very impressive numbers in these states, similar to those he put up in the primary. Not many people have talked about this, because Obama still won in a blow out, but I think had the North Carolina primary been earlier on when Obama wasn't suffering bad press, he could've won closer to his margin in S. Carolina, about double the former, with a 28% margin. So yes, I do think Wright has had an affect, but I also think the affect could recede. The second question is, can he win white women back? I think this is in fact a very serious concern, simply because they'll all be so disillusioned with Obama taking the nomination from the first woman president. I don't know how much there is to do about this accept make Sebelius his VP to mitigate the damage. Finally, I think its hard to tell racism in regards to the animus towards Obama. It seems like there are varying strata when it comes to anti-Obama voters; some are through and through racists. Others think he's a radical Muslim. Other's think he's a black panther radical because of his pastor (Obama did this to himself). Others, just hate democrats, and feel the best way to attack him is to call him a muslim radical, which is different because they don't really believe it. The first step towards solving this is making either Sebelius, or more convincingly I think, Jim Webb, a proud Reagan Democrat and Joe-Six Pack, who understands that winning these voters will make the Democratic coalition as powerful as it was during the New Deal era.

- jyunis

May 13, 2008 at 1:36am

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

She was quoting when she said, "An AP article recently published..." ..."how Obama is losing support among white", hard-working middle class Americans. It is a fact. And no...Obama has not earned my vote. For many reasons, and not one of them because he is of black descent.

- Phoenix Comment

May 13, 2008 at 1:37am

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

Whites did vote for Obama. He won the "whitest" states in the nation ME, WY, UT, WI soon to add OR, MT and SD. Does racism still exist in the US. Certainly Hillary Clinton demonstrates that it does. Will it cost Obama some states where racisms is high? Sure but they are already "Red States", WV, KY. Obama is still on target to allow America to show that it has evolved can look past race to elect the best person for the job.

- Brion Lutz

May 13, 2008 at 1:44am

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

I believe everyone has thw right to think and be what they wish. But what is disappointing about America is the hypocrisy. Someone people will argue that Obama is getting 90% of the black vote so what gives. But lets look at these black voters; their choices are two democrats, and some believe Obama will represent them best. But some Clinton white supporters will not vote for a Obama even if he is the democratic nominee and best presents them, is nothing more than racism. If Clinton had won the nomination most if not all of these black voters would support her. America is a not an overt racist nation but it still is racist. And to hear conservatives ask why Rev. Wright is "bitter." Maybe now you understand.

- Joseph

May 13, 2008 at 1:47am

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

Hillary Clinton made a racially charged, divisive, apparently desperate comment to promote her bid for the presidency. She was lambasted by many for her tactlessness, mean-spiritedness, etc. The problem is, what she said was true. The Catholic vote in all those industrial states went for her overwhelmingly. I grew up in a mixed Jewish-Italian neighborhood, and let me assure you that the Catholics I knew would sooner cut off their arms than vote for a black man. Hillary, who wants to win, was simply pointing out the obvious. All the handwring and tortured analysis won't change this. He is a week candidate. So is McCain. But the latter will get those...race-driven votes. And if any sort of percentage of angry Hillary voters really abandon Obama in the general, he will lose to the not-quite-yet doddering McCain. So much for the Great Uniter. It's a nice idea, but it won't happen. And after all, isn't that what a Uniter who inexplicably belongs to a seperatist church for 20 years deserves?

- HNister

May 13, 2008 at 2:02am

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

Thank You! what a good piece

- truth seeker

May 13, 2008 at 2:06am

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

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should be able to inherit the white women who backed Hillary Clinton. As political psychologists have shown, these voters should be largely amenable to his candidacy. He should also continue to enjoy an advantage among white professionals. ------------------ Do not count on this. I have talked to countless "white women backing Clinton" and many of them want nothing to do with Obama. They perceive him as getting the job over a more experienced woman. They also find the Wright thing to be worrying. He is perceived as a liar. Few of these "white women" believe he heard nothing over the past 20 years at TUCC.

- Trobe

May 13, 2008 at 2:17am

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

How about an article on why people swoon over a guy who has done very little in his politcal career. He hasn't done any reaching across the Aisle or built any type of coalitions . Yet people believe he will, just because he says so. Better yet, Why does he surround himself with people who hate America?

- Padraig

May 13, 2008 at 2:22am

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

-

May 13, 2008 at 2:34am

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

The author matter-of-factly alleges "the evolution of the GOP into a virtually all-white party". I guess he never noticed Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales--or a host of other important non-whites who are leaders among conservatives and the GOP. That noxious comments taints everything else he's got to say.

- StandingO

May 13, 2008 at 2:53am

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

I am white. I live the South. I would vote for J.C. Watts, but never vote for Obama. Does that make me racist? I'll bet that to the left/liberals that it does.

- Texasdude

May 13, 2008 at 3:09am

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

Obama's race might influence people to vote against him. Or it might not. If it does, this might cost him the election. Or not. This article is a perfect example of the problem with so much social-science research (and the journalism that relies on it): It deploys a bunch of fancy studies and a whole scientific apparatus to reach conclusions that are highly equivocal, that may or not apply in real-life cases, and that common sense would have got you to a lot quicker.

- JSmith125

May 13, 2008 at 3:15am

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

I feel like I'm living in Chicago during the early 1980s with Harold Washington - a black man - who ran for mayor of the city and this same exact question was asked. Its now 20 years after that event as well as Mayor Dinkins and the governor of Virginia were all black and were elected. To ask such a silly question insults our intelligence at this point in USA history.

- Kay McCann

May 13, 2008 at 3:26am

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

This 64 year old, retired military NCO (read blue-collar), Irish-white male certainly will vote for him, and I've been actively campaigning for him since before he announced. I've also been insulted by the Clinton's rhetoric and inspired by Obama's concerning race and the gap we still have in understanding one another in this nation. I partially agree with Dr.T, but don't believe the 15-20% estimate is silly - I believe there'll be a more like a 10-15% racial gap from the hard-core bigots. Many like the Clinton's themselves will find it too difficult to vote for McCain and will cast ballots for Obama (perhaps turning their faces away as they do). We've far too much bigotry like theirs in our country today - including that driving the anti-illegal issue.

- WaltB

May 13, 2008 at 3:45am

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

I don't believe any assessment of which white voters will or will not vote for Obama. It is simply unknowable. My gut feeling though, is that Obama will win the election in a landslide. The recent special election results indicate a 15-20 point swing against the republicans, and that combined with Obama's ability to double the turnout of blacks and draft-fearing students, probably makes him unbeatable. The numbers who won't vote for Obama are probably outweighed by the huge numbers that are enthusiastic about him. Obama's huge black support is probably enough to flip states like NC, SC, VA, MS, AL, etc.. blue. I don't think my candidate, John McCain, can win in this environment.

- Andrew P

May 13, 2008 at 3:53am

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

Why do people get accused 'racists' when they are speaking the truth? why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists? If it is ok for the blacks, then it should also be ok for 91% of non-black to vote for the non-black candidate. Let’s play by the same rule and Obama and his supporters should stop the double talk. Obama’s win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another ‘Tsongas’ election! Clinton’s win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win! Clinton also started out about 23 points behind in North Carolina, and 8 or 10 points behind in Indiana. She narrowed the gap in NC, and won in Indiana. Can you imagine what would be the headlines if the situation was reversed? probably "Obama trounced Clinton with a huge 2% margin". And she did it with Obama continuing to outspend her by 3 or 4:1. The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates’ electability! The media has robbed the people of this country to see a strong campaign to continue in a fair and balanced manner. It is the worst kind of unprofessional and unethical journalism! Sexism continues to be strong in this country. Just look at the history of people in Congress; they seem to be in this order, white men, then black men, before any women. The fact that Clinton is smart and qualified and yet is so unfairly treated, only confirms that sexism still exists. I am going to write in Clinton as my choice in November if she does not win the nomination.

- vote4thebest

May 13, 2008 at 3:57am

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

Why do people get accused 'racists' when they are speaking the truth? why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists? If it is ok for the blacks, then it should also be ok for 91% of non-black to vote for the non-black candidate. Let’s play by the same rule and Obama and his supporters should stop the double talk. Obama’s win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another ‘Tsongas’ election! Clinton’s win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win! Clinton also started out about 23 points behind in North Carolina, and 8 or 10 points behind in Indiana. She narrowed the gap in NC, and won in Indiana. Can you imagine what would be the headlines if the situation was reversed? probably "Obama trounced Clinton with a huge 2% margin". And she did it with Obama continuing to outspend her by 3 or 4:1. The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates’ electability! The media has robbed the people of this country to see a strong campaign to continue in a fair and balanced manner. It is the worst kind of unprofessional and unethical journalism! Sexism continues to be strong in this country. Just look at the history of people in Congress; they seem to be in this order, white men, then black men, before any women. The fact that Clinton is smart and qualified and yet is so unfairly treated, only confirms that sexism still exists. I am going to write in Clinton as my choice in November if she does not win the nomination.

- vote4thebest

May 13, 2008 at 4:03am

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

It is not racism to have doubts about blacks. It is an aceptance of reality. There is just too much crime among blacks. This is why Obama must be elected. The election of a non-racist black president renders all justification for black racism historical. The unanswered question is how much of white racism is hatred, and how much fear? If, as I suspect, most is fear then Obama can position himself as the solution and gain positive suport from this white "racism". All he has to do is show himself as pro King and against Wright. He is the non-scary black man. He is there to show blacks that the solution is not to join a gang but to gain qualifications.

- Blame

May 13, 2008 at 4:24am

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

Dr. T., I wonder, if you believe race won't cost Senator Obama in November, why do so many of Senator Clinton's supporters say they would never vote for Senator Obama. They say they would rather vote for Senator McCain, with whom they share very few, if any, similarities. Political analysts have said that Senators Obama and Clinton are nearly the same on their stances and voting records. Why then would so many of her supporters be willing to support a Republican if it wasn't for racial issues? It confuses me.

- tc1stl

May 13, 2008 at 4:39am

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

You have to calculate in the white votes he'll get for the opposite reason too. It's true he'll have racists voting against him simply for his skin color, but it's also true that he'll get plenty of automatic votes from the White Liberal Guilt crowd. I live near a university, and as soon as he's the Democratic nominee, the "Obama for Prez" signs and stickers will be popping up like dandelions.

- the.steve

May 13, 2008 at 5:23am

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

No, we won't; not after learning of Obama's close association with racists. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the ideologies of those that he chose to associate with.

- local white man

May 13, 2008 at 5:24am

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

So Sen. Obama existentially disses lower middle class whites with the "bitter comment". So why do you go to church Sen. Obama? No matter which one. Leave it to the left wing media to blame the victim in re. invidious comments, as long as the victim is the long hapless and and long targeted white lower middle class.

- Joe

May 13, 2008 at 5:34am

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

The answer is, yes, many whites will vote for him as they have in the primaries. They will do so not because he's the best candidate but just because it's the "enlightened" thing to do and because in their minds it's the best way they can overcome the stigma of being racist. If this weren't the case Obama would have won two or three primaries at best.

- T.Michaels

May 13, 2008 at 5:54am

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

come on West Virginians. show america it's about really changing washington for the better. forget the manufactured distractions like race and gender and vote for the real issues that will take this country up or down. Everyone including the media thinks WV is about uneducated white voters and racism-- lets show them. Obama 08.

- RJII

May 13, 2008 at 6:03am

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

Wow. What a long article to boil down to this: Many Reagan Democrats, who are mostly "hard working, white, middle class Americans", will probably not vote for an elitist, Harvard-educated liberal who will not wear an American flag. Or, the one whose wife has never been proud of America, or whose preacher said, "God ____ America or whose best friends are real estate cheats or former old violent hippies. Or, the one whose dreams and visions are of a socialist utopia of incalculable costs. The fact that he is black will mostly come into play for those voters who have to regularly endure big city post offices. But, there are so many reasons to vote against Obama, his color gets crowded way down the list.

- RT

May 13, 2008 at 6:10am

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

Please. I found this article pretty racist in itself. It presumes most whites are racist, and if they don't think so, all that means is that they're unconscious racists. It also implies that those whites who somehow become enlightened as to their unconscious bigotry and override it by voting for Obama deserve some kind of gold star. Therefore, whites who oppose Obama for what they thought were good conscious reasons like ideology or experience ought to realize that they're just excuses for primal bigotry and vote their way to absolution. Obama's considered more liberal than he was a few months ago? Might that have something to do with increased awareness of his voting record, or leftist roots, or leftist comments? No, of course not, it's racial stereotyping! Let me ask, if Wright were white, would Americans have been less repulsed by "God damn America?" The proper approach to determining the power of race is to see how many votes it creates or changes. If a person would never vote for a member of the opposite party no matter what the race of that candidate is, it does not matter what the person's racial attitudes are for purposes of this election. Race will matter in this election only matters only when it causes people to change party allegiance (or make nonvoters vote). All current signs are that race will be a fairly small net negative for Mr. Obama by election day. It could be decisive in a close election, but it's unlikely to decide this election.

- kbc

May 13, 2008 at 6:19am

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

Race has nothing to do with it for me. Liars come in all colors, religions, etc. I'm sure many "whites" (come on, how many of us are really "white" - I myself have some American Indian)will vote for him; I think the vast majority of voters don't research the candidates. Surprisingly, it doesn't take much time to uncover the "real" BO. He campaigns as the anti-politician, when in fact he is the consummate politician. His voting record will be ripped apart by the republicans, as it rightly should. NEVER will I vote for BO; NEVER.

- Debbie

May 13, 2008 at 6:27am

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

Obama’s chief political adviser David Alexrod on National Public Radio claimed white working class Democrats barely exist and hardly matter, white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, This is not new WE don’t need or rely solely on those votes.Reason Obama said he wanted to be President of ALL 57 states. Only problem U.S. doesn’t have 57, but…Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization grouping fifty seven states which have decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts, and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world. http://www.dontvoteobama.net. VOTERS DEMAND Obamas tell America about their relationship with Ayers, Gadaffi Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Nadhami Auchi, Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer who was best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer for Saddam's Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and stood trial with Saddam Hussein for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim. VOTERS are concerned why CNN & MSNBC refuse to question those relationships, coupled with Obama’s 20 plus yrs with Rev. Wright shows a serious pattern, which Obama seems quite comfortable with people who really, really, really HATE U.S of America. If you question him or his values or policies, you’re part of the “divisive, distracting” practices voters associate with Washington. Them’s the Obama Rules.

- No obama

May 13, 2008 at 6:41am

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

Why does everything boils down to race. Why can't we disagree with someone based on issues and not on his skin color. I am not very political but I do wonder about someone that listens to sermons for years that I find offensive. We go to church. We have never had a sermon condeming our country.

- julius

May 13, 2008 at 6:49am

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

Not that it would have any impact on this Presidential race, but curiousity begs the question ... Do the racial issues become more pronounced as the voters get older? In other words, are we a generation or two away from this problem going away? In light of Hillary's overwhelming support among elderly white voters, and assuming a link between her support and racial bias, is there hope that as that generation dies off we might see these issues start to disappear? Wouldn't the elderly and less-educated be the last to get the message?

- CJKatl

May 13, 2008 at 6:55am

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

All I needed to know about Barry and Michelle was explained to me by Wright, Cone and Farakahn. As a white person...I'd have to be an idiot to vote for someone that believes that I am "the enemy" and their primary focus should be placed on only the Black segment of the US population....oh, I mean, real Blacks, not folks like Sowell, Cosby or Powell....No thanks.

- Reggy57

May 13, 2008 at 6:56am

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

All I needed to know about Barry and Michelle was explained to me by Wright, Cone and Farakahn. As a white person...I'd have to be an idiot to vote for someone that believes that I am "the enemy" and their primary focus should be placed on only the Black segment of the US population....oh, I mean, real Blacks, not folks like Sowell, Cosby or Powell....No thanks.

- Reggy57

May 13, 2008 at 6:56am

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

Dr. T, I am not sure if you grasp all of what is said here. This article does not say that race is a factor to voters in the sense that it is weighed against other considerations. This part of of an unthinking natural response. I believe this analysis is spot on and the Democrats better focus and remind voters about the weak economy.

- TC

May 13, 2008 at 6:59am

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

There is no question that racial prejudice and discrimination are predispositons of our species---rooted in evolution, i.e. encountering the "other" is believed to bring a greater likelihood of danger than the "similar." (Though,if we take homicide rates, people tend to be killed by their own more than strangers). At the same time the survey data clearly shows variation by demographic group in the propensity to harbor racist sentiments. Moreover, over cohorts, racism has abated. The question is whether Obama can win despite the race issue. The key to that is, unfortunately, whether he can make himself into an honorary white person in the eyes of those who might vote for someone just like him if his skin color was different. In the US it's been done by Tiger Woods, Oprah, Colin Powell, but very few others. What distinguishes these three? First, they have succeeded in domains typically monopolized by whites---golf, talk show host, Army General. Second, they have a style which is non-threatening and do not focus on their racial identity. Third, they tap into values and interests that non-blacks have as well as blacks, e.g., high level skills in performing a difficult task (golf); empathy and compassion (Oprah); making us feel safe (Powell). Obama has been successful so far as a politician because he has managed to project himself as someone who is highly competent (i.e. Harvard Law Review editor), cares about ALL people, and has a non-threatening manner. When Obama has run into trouble is when his political opponents have tried to link him with threatening figures, or those perceived as such. But, so far, he has weathered those attempts. I think Obama can win if he continues to do as he has done and also to deliver a message that makes people in otherwise skeptical demographics feel he is on their side and understands their problems. If anyone has seen the Barbara Kopple film, American Dream, there is a scene where Jesse jackson, campaigning for President in 1984 is addressing the all white meatcutters in Austin, Minnesota who are conducting a wikldcat strike against Hormel. Jesse Jackson was a far more polarizing presence than Obama, but these whites were standing and applauding wildly because he was firing them up on his empathy for their economic plight. He spoke with great passion and they believed him and his skin color made no difference. Obama has to get local in the same way...ads with these small gatherings where people communicate to him one on one. He needs to show a knowledge of the details of people's lives.

- Milton Mankoff

May 13, 2008 at 7:10am

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

"race has played a key part in the Democratic primary, almost certainly hurting Obama among swaths of voters in states like New Jersey, Ohio, and, most recently, Pennsylvania" Could not be further from the truth. Coming from quite a bit behind, Obaman has risen to a dead tie with Clinton in PA and the trend was in his favour, untlil his statement in San Fransisco, his loss in that state was due solely to his ill chosen words. He HAD those voters, and then threw them away

- Dan Kauffman

May 13, 2008 at 7:12am

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

I know many friends who are democrats, and won't vote for Obama, but would vote for Hillary. They won't say why they won't vote for Obama, but it is obvious! The Reverend Wright really tipped the scale as I believe they originally thought Obama was more like Will Smith, an actor who appeals to a white audience, but now they look at him more like Kayne West and a guy who is angry with the white man. I think this is all perception, but it is the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about, and I believe Obama will lose alot of white, middle class Reagan Democrats that will goto McCain, to offset the Conservatives that will sit home cause can't stand him. Interesting election this will be.

- co

May 13, 2008 at 7:13am

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

I disagree with the following conclusion: "Wright's words tie Obama to the stereotype of the angry, hostile--and also unpatriotic--black who is seen as hating both whites and white America. Wright turns Obama into a "black candidate" like Jackson or Sharpton. And, as a black candidate, Obama falls prey to a set of stereotypes about black politicians." It labels Obama, not as a black candidate, but as a canditate who was comfortable subjecting his family to regular doses of racism in the name of religion. I would also not vote for a white man who spent many years taking his family to klan meetings or a white supremacist church.

- GP

May 13, 2008 at 7:15am

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

This is an informative article on a subject that is real but difficult to evaluate. One critical comment came from an expert who said that fairly explicit race baiting still works in local races. Implicit racism is important, but still only on the margin of explicit racism. What is missing in this article is a discussion of whether the age of the subject is a significant factor. More specifically, older voters grew up in the Jim Crow age of explicit racism, and many carry those attitudes. It's not "implicit" just left unspoken. The "implicit" category may be more important for those, like me, who came of age in the 60s and 70s during the transition away from Jim Crow, but may have direct experience of such things as busing and sudden desegregation of schools. I am in my mid-50s and grew up in the South at the climax of the civil rights movements. I was about 12 when the big civil rights laws of 1964 and 1965 passed. I assume the views of kids my age more or less followed those of their parents on the Jim Crow questions. My own parents were liberals and supported Jim Crow repeal, but I can remember other kids expressing racist views. When I was 10 or so, a friend showed me a card his father passed around saying that he had given $10 to the NAACP in the recipient's name making that person and "honorary n****r." He thought that was funny. Stuff like this dropped off substantially after the laws were passed and consensus reached that Jim Crow was wrong. It certainly isn't dead though. The District Attorney of Houston had to resign this year because his email had lots of "joke" emails involving black males passed out on the street surrounded by watermelon, welfare checks, crack cocaine, etc. The success of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" shows that racial backlash against civil rights remained a real factor. The question for the present though is whether the code based race baiting of the Reagan, Jesse Helms era was as effective a transmitter of racism as the explicit segregationism of Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the younger Strom Thurmond. I doubt these code based messages focused mainly on "welfare" "entitlement" and affirmative action had the power to inculcate as much primary racism into the children of conservatives. These are the 80s children in the Obama generation. I doubt race baiting codes could hard wire racism the way full-throated white supremacy. White kids of this era were far more likely to have known some black kids growing up or at work or in college, and the media and movies started to have attractive black stars. Racism is not dead, but narrower and attenuated. My hypothesis then is that the importance of racism, racist codes etc. is a declining factor associated with age. It retains some importance because of greater longevity and the higher voting rates of older voters, but mortality and the end of explicitly racist ideologies is chipping away at its power. Obama's "turn the page" argument reaches for a tipping point where the old racism and all of its children and cousins are sent to history's sanitary landfills. Hillary's short term interests have led her to pretend that "swing voters" affected by racist codes and Rev Wright are important to the Democratic Party. She is doing well in Appalachian states with high average ages and low incomes. Obama can't say it (although he did to some degree in the infamous fundraiser in limousine-liberal Pacific Heights in San Francisco) but the Appalachian areas -- Southern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky -- where she is pitching her tent are economic dead zones in America. As Democratic "superdelegate" politicians are concluding one by one, this is not a foundation for the present or future of the Democratic Party. Just because it's Hillary and Bill, we will have a few more weeks of Hillary challenging her inner George Wallace standing not at the schoolhouse door, but at the door of the electoral college saying "no blacks here!" A sad spectacle indeed.

- TK in Texas

May 13, 2008 at 7:24am

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

Sure there are crazy racist people but I am not voting for Obama because he had 1 year of national experience before he decided to run. Then, without thinking, he brings the whole Chicago experience into the race. When his ambition was limited to Illinois, he joined the Rev Wright's church, attended political fundraisers sponsored by Ayers, and purchased a home with the assistance of the corrupt Rezko. With a little time, he could have gained credibilty in regard to national and international experience and distanced himself from what was necessary for his local political rising. He is handsome,smooth and articulate, and young but he IS a politician - not a Messiah. As a result of his selfish rush to gain power, we may very well loose the presidential race. Besides his inexperience, I am also loathe to vote for him because of how his surrogates, supporters and the media treated my preferred candidate - making Hillary, Bill, Geraldine, Ed Rendell et all "racists" . This is BS, and nothing more. Keep telling me that I and those I admire are motivated by racism....talk about getting someone's back up against the wall. And of course, if Obama looses the general - we will hear how Americans are still mired in racism, consciously or unconsciously, and how Hillary contributed to his downfall. I think most Americans would have voted for Col Powell...he IS experienced. If we look at Obama's campaign exclusively through the lens of race, we will learn nothing - whether he wins or looses. I have been a democrat for almost 40 years and cast my first vote for Shirley Chisolm. I was idealistic too. I no longer identify with the democratic party - they threw Hillary over. It ain't because of Obama's race, it is because of the rejection and mistreatment of Hillary -the first female candidate with a bonafide chance at the presidency. Nough Said.

- Denise Cordes

May 13, 2008 at 7:29am

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

But Dr. T, your analysis is capricious and arbitrary also. On any given day, it wouldn't surprise me that the race factor is a 12% handicap against Obama (who is really Arabic not black). But considering how Obama has identified with the Rev. Wright's brand of religion (and I won't call it "Christianity", for it certainly isn't), he's now probably facing a 15=20% deficit. That's not good news. That's another huge failure. My theory is that Obama got a lot of white votes because Hillary is such a repugnant candidate--they exercised their ABH vote (Anybody But Hillary!) Now that they've eliminated Hill, they can vote for someone other than Obama. Sorry, Dr. T, but you sound like you're on OB's payroll. Care to fess up?

- Rockyspoon

May 13, 2008 at 8:02am

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

I learnt to my surprise during these Democratic primaries that I find mean sexist jokes more amusing than mean racist jokes, so I shall miss Hillary. Femi-nazis are more ridiculous than the black power phonies.

- Dogbreath

May 13, 2008 at 8:07am

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

Obama is man running for president that hates America who happens to be black. He will be rejected because he does not reflect core, middle-America values. You can blame that on stupid/bitter white men but, as I tell my children, when you call names you are saying more about yourself than the other person. People that generalize about "resentments" and blame the failure of a politician on some racial group is, in fact, racist in itself. Now, when will we get to see an article about the racism behind 95% of blacks not voting for Republicans?

- michael

May 13, 2008 at 8:08am

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

I am a Democrat who will not vote for Obama. He is too impractical for me.

- Kate Sheahan

May 13, 2008 at 8:09am

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

Americans will vote for the man they feel has the best ideas for moving the country forward. Just watch and see.

- Jimmie Hicks

May 13, 2008 at 8:23am

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

What a crock! Believing that people's success is down to their own hard work is now "racial resentment"! And what a coincidence that recent immigrants (Latinos, Asians), many who have pulled themselves up or supported families abroad through hard work are so "resentful"- how racist and ridiculous Asians and Latinos must be to believe that success in America is available for those with the focus and determination to work. Seriously, defining racism down to this degree will do more than lead to more resentment. If you take away people's upbringing or brainwashing by their parents, I believe the racial impulse has some key foundations. Humans were a tribal/clan society. Fear of the "other" is ingrained as a matter of physical safety and competition for resources. With a glance humans subconsciously categorize people (via their appearance and behavior) as potential threats. It is much harder to gain a comfort level if you come across a group of people who don't look and act like you. You must use your reasoning powers to overwhelm your subconscious discomfort. I've met people who make racist comments about groups but then have individual friends from those groups. Essentially, once they get to know a person as an individual, most of any positive or negative subconscious bias is overwhelmed by conscious experience. Humans are also competitve and believe that fairness is important (especially when they've lost). If you are part of an immigrant group and believe another group has been given advantages you may rightly be resentful at the unfair treatment you received. White women and Asians are routinely discriminated against in college admissions in favor of men, African-Americans and Latinos. It is not rascist or sexist for an Asian to feel that someone in a favored group should have worked harder and earned admission on their own merits. Now, if they believe that ALL white men are lazy, beer drinking frat boys that don't belong in college and will never get a job in their Asian-run business, then that is racism. Fortunately, most people push their group biases to the side once they get to know someone as an individual. This is why I believe Obama has a chance. Voters will get to know him as an individual, allowing even those that have a subconsc ious discomfort with African-American appearing individuals to make a conscious/reasoned decision. In the end I believe that Obama will lose not because of race but because the narrative he has chosen for himself has little connection to his political record. For some reason the party keeps putting forward candidates who either have a tectonic shifting in their view of themselves (H Clinton, Gore) or try to wear a mantle of someone they are not (Kerry's decision at the convention to run as a "war hero" opened himself up to attacks from fellow swift boaters). Unfortunately, the candidates who ran as they actually are (B Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter) had only mixed success. The US may be more ready for an African-american or a woman than they are for a liberal pretending to be someone he is not. Unfortunately, Barack is the "post-racial" candidate who listened to a racist preacher for 20 yrs, chose him as a spiritual advisor and could never disown him.....only to disown him a few weeks later. Barack is the "new kind of politics" guy from the Chicago machine, whose idea of ideological diversity is to hang with both criminal 60s terrorists and criminal real estate developers. Barack will be the guy who brings "change" but can only vote either down the party line or "present", and who did absolutely nothing of note in the US Senate prior to deciding to run. Barack is intelligent and charming, but I fear he has outsmarted himself by picking a narrative he thinks people want to hear (and I believe is close to the person he wants to be), but sadly is nothing like the person he actually has been. He is like an ADHD child. Grow on your own time, buddy (it took Bill Clinton a decade in Arkansas to become a real centrist) Become that person, show us by your accomplishments and actions and associations that you are post-partisan and post-racial and we'll love you as a president as I love you as a man. But you're not there yet and as much as you'll whine it won't be "off limits" For McCain to show that your narrative is tissue paper.

- guydreaux

May 13, 2008 at 8:24am

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

Will blacks vote for McCain?

- JonDo369

May 13, 2008 at 8:25am

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

If you think McCain is electable, then think again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E McCain is no War Hero... Our special forces are trained in killing themselves before becoming a POW. Why? sniper fingers are worn as jewelry, etc... While McCain was a POW he helped to make over thirty propaganda video's that were used to help the North Vietnamese kill even more Americans (Over thirty videos?). The republicans can keep whining about Jane Fonda, McCain is the real traitor.

- John Doe

May 13, 2008 at 8:34am

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

This is ridiculous. The MSM suddenly has amnesia because Obama won NINE OUT OF TEN OF THE WHITEST STATES! Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Maine are suddenly black strongholds? The media is race baiting again and skewing the facts. The FACT is that Obama does exceedingly well outside the "race chasm", that is states less than 6% or greater than 17% black. See this article, which I'm surprised hasn't gotten much press, because the Chasm is very predictive of which states HIllary and Obama win, regardless of their gaffes or performance. It's demography, stupid: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/the_clinton_firewall/

- Pamela

May 13, 2008 at 8:53am

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

Does race still matter in America? Regrettably, yes. But this primary contest has demonstrated that "White America" is much more prepared to accept a Black leader that "Black America" is prepared to be accepted. The culture of resistance and racial identity in the black community builds a 90% monolithic voting block based on race, not based on issue analysis and merit. Racism cuts both ways and is equally damnable. One may also argue that the real script in the party is NOT race. While the Republicans have been very open about doctinal differences and potential fractures, this primary season represents a struggle for the "heart and soul" Democratic Party that has not been discussed. The Kennedy family embrace of Obama is a repudiation of the Clinton centrist movement and an attempt to return the party to Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." This is not an issue of race but of raw power politics.

- B Quad

May 13, 2008 at 8:58am

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

The campaign, fortunately, is about defining policy and changing attitudes, not measuring them. The Clintons have done a significant disservice to the cause of improved race relations by setting Mrs. Clinton apart as the candidate of "white" voters, giving a veneer of respectability to the bad attitudes that Judis analyzes. I look forward to seeing Hillary and Bill campaign vigorously for Sen. Obama in the general election campaign, helping to undo some of the damage they have done in the primary campaign.

- Paul Arnest

May 13, 2008 at 8:59am

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

BARAK IS A FAKE, HE IS SURVIVING BECAUSE OF BLACK VOTE. HAD HIS ASSOCIATION WITH RACIST PASTOR WRIGHT, INDICTED CORRUPT SLUMLORD, REZKO AND TERRORIST AYERS HAD BEEN KNOWN EARLIER, HE WOULD NEVER BE THE NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

- utwo

May 13, 2008 at 9:01am

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

Judis cites the GOP for ads with racist tinge (Willie Horton), while utterly ignoring the left's blatant condescension and manipulation. The Democrat party, especially Bill Clinton, are habitual offenders in attempting to stampede the black vote with scare tactics. It would be more accurate to say the GOP doesn't care about race as an issue, while the Democrats blatantly pander to it. It's true that the "benign neglect" of the GOP, as Kissinger put it, has done the black community no favors. However the politics of pity have been an outright emasculation of black power.

- Martin Dekom

May 13, 2008 at 9:02am

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

Sorry I couldn't read the whole article, it seemed to go on and on and kept stating the obvious from different angles. In todays environment non blacks must be very careful when discussing race, in fact, it is best not to touch it or you will find yourself in a Diversity Training class. That's OK, though it's a free country we have adjusted to that reality. On November 4th we will find out how much resentment there is to the fact that 90% of Blacks can vote for Obama and be praised for it while if 60% of Whites vote for Hillary it is called racist.

- Woody

May 13, 2008 at 9:02am

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

I greatly admire these thoughtful contributions by John Judis. As someone who grew up in the deeply racist South in the 30s and 40s, I can add a dimension to his term "resentment." That's one emotion that works against Obama by his connection with "latte-drinking" liberal intellectuals, an emotion that gets salience in in tough economic times. Resentment -- that Nietzschean emotion -- might be moderated somewhat in the way that Hillary did it, with symbolism -- flag pins, and so one. But it's tough. Much deeper is the racism that combines tribalism with one's own self-image and status. Blacks visually belong to a different tribe, something that evolution has probably taught us instinctively to shun. (Do we want somebody from another tribe to head our own?) Add to this instinctive tribal antipathy one's self-definition: "No matter how poor, unsuccessful, feckless, stupid, I may be, I am still better than ANY black, no matter how dressed up, educated, well-spoken, and uppity (like Harold Ford), because I am white and he is black! My worth in the social scheme and in my own eyes is protected by my disdain of blacks." How can anyone whose self-protective sense of his own worth is tied up with this line of caste thinking ever possibly go for Obama? This was all openly expressed back then when I was growing up. Now it is still strongly there, but unspoken. Probably it's best to skip these people, and hope that the young will save the Union. Many of the young (by no means all) have truly transcended this self-protective racism. Registration of the young, and an explicit dealing with their true superiority to the case form of racism is surely our only real hope.

- donald hirsch

May 13, 2008 at 9:07am

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

"In the end, the lesson of political psychology for Democrats is not to avoid nominating black candidates." Betrays immense bias. Shouldn't that read "In the end, the lesson of political psychology for the national parties is not to avoid nominating black candidates." It seems almost obvious that the first black president will be a Republican. This article is written as a campaign strategy for Democrats, not as an honest assessment of race in politics.

- ecdski

May 13, 2008 at 9:12am

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

Why is it that all the current commentary seems to focus on racism or 'impure' motives amongst white voters? While a worthy question, isn't it ultimately a question at the statistical margins? It seems to me that the more interesting (and statistically powerful) question is the converse-- what compels over 90% of black voters to side with one candidate? As we struggle to understand what percentage of white voters won't vote for a black candidate, shouldn't we also examine the lack of variance in the black vote? Even more, with two candidates with similar political ideologies (Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama), what percentage of black voters accept the color of his skin as the deciding factor when making their choice?

- JC

May 13, 2008 at 9:14am

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

I do not know one individual who will vote for Obama. Race IS the key issue. He will not carry ONE southern state. He WILL get the black vote. Race is the issue there, too.

- Radicalconservative

May 13, 2008 at 9:18am

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

Even among those that indicated that 'race was important' to conclude that it is a negative or an indication of racism is a leap. Quite frankly, it is pretty feasible for anyone to answer yes, 'race is important' without meaning anything about it other than the obvious. Race is a characteristic just like gender, where someone grew up, height, weight, ethnicity etc. and in that regard can be viewed as important without having a necessarily negative connotation. We're assuming a negative when in fact the answer could indicate a positive, neutral (as in of course race is important) or negative meaning. As to the social science of the article -- implicit associations, subconscious bias, even many explicit tests designed to capture reactions and biases regarding race are far more art than science and are notorious for reflecting the expectations of the tester. That is to say, if a social scientist theorizes that the upper class has the most racial bias the tests he designs often reflect that. If a tester believes it is a middle class phenomena the same situation occurs. Given the American myth that race is a problem 1st of the South and second of the rural blue collars I'm skeptical. There's an old saying that derives from Mircea Eliade, that goes, "the scale makes the phenomenon." Finally, the test the author cites indicates bias in the middle class and the author extrapolates that to mean blue-collar and working class whites and alludes to Clinton voters. However, sociologically speaking those that are in the blue-collar/working class are NOT middle class. The author would do well to research this because the middle class in the US as spoken of by sociologists and social scientists, and quite contrary to popular belief, is much more likely to include well paid professionals (degreed or not) like the author and the slice of the electorate that have been described by various pundits as "latte sippers." Politicians and regular people promote the idea that it is a much broader and lower in income category than it really is. There are millions of Americans that would be shocked at where they fall class wise by most sociological standards rather than popular opinion.

-

May 13, 2008 at 9:20am

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

Bend a r a c k Over b a m America The new messiah is going to give it to you.

- Obama will stick it to you!

May 13, 2008 at 9:25am

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

BARAK IS A FAKE, HE IS SURVIVING BECAUSE OF BLACK VOTE. HAD HIS ASSOCIATION WITH RACIST PASTOR WRIGHT, INDICTED CORRUPT SLUMLORD, REZKO AND TERRORIST AYERS HAD BEEN KNOWN EARLIER, HE WOULD NEVER BE THE NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

- utwo

May 13, 2008 at 9:27am

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

So now it's Republicans who are "slyly associating their Democratic opponents with controversial black figures like Jesse Jackson"? And here I was thinking that Bill Clinton raised that issue.

- jeepl

May 13, 2008 at 9:29am

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

If my rural Ohio in-laws are any indication, there is no chance a woman will ever get elected president of this country. And, there is only a slight chance that a black man will ascend to the highest office in the land. Despite the astonishing mess our current administration has made and the absolute FACT that life has NOT improved for most Americans in the past eight years of Republican rule (quite the opposite), unless these fine god-fearing people learn to see past the facade of conservatism, I fear they will continue to vote against their own self-interests. Instead of trusting that a president whose skin color or gender is out of their narrow view of paternal governance can help better their lives. Is this racist or misogynistic? You bet. And, that is the reality of our society.

- Paul

May 13, 2008 at 9:31am

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

Obama's problem is that his pal and pastor, Rev. Wright, has scared the hell out of "white Democrat" voters. This isn't the "white" voters issue............it's Obama's issue. Will white Americans vote for a guy, Obama, who hung out for twenty years in a place that was racist, his church?

- Perceptions

May 13, 2008 at 9:32am

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

Far more whites have voted for Obama than blacks have voted for Clinton or McCain. Why is only the behavior of whites open to question?

- michael

May 13, 2008 at 9:34am

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

obama has used the race card to stay float in this primary. if not for the black vote he would had no support based on his achievements and credibility. speeches do not solve the nation's problems. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE BLACKS ARE VOTING ON RACIAL BASIS.

- UTWO

May 13, 2008 at 9:35am

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

The Change we can believe in slogan of the Obama campaign is referring to Islam, the change that Islam will force upon Americans. The Change is Islam and that is who stupid Americans would contemplate voting into office. Americans have been stupified by 8 years of Bushism.

- Ian Zwerling

May 13, 2008 at 9:37am

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

My understanding garnered from sociological research is that about 7% of self-declared Democrats are racist; about 13% of self-declared Republicans are racist. This is derived from factor analysis of questionairres much like those described in this article. However, Dr.T makes the salient point: Even a racist Democrat is unlikely to vote for a third Bush term. The next president is likely to appoint three Supreme Court judges, and McCain promises more of Roberts and Alito. Will racism trump overturning Roe v. Wade? Will racism trump ending the war in Iraq? Will racism trump real environmentalism (as opposed to McCain's "market solution" which has failed repeatedly already), will racism trump further economic erosion, defunding of schools, more of the abysmal "No Child Left Uneducated" programs, more corporate corruption and McCain's phony "market based" version of "universal" health care? Can racism REALLY trump all that, for a self-declared Democrat, or even a self-declared Independent? Anybody voting for Mr. Magoo will have to be Republican to the bone, or so virulently racist they secretly relish the history of the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow south. Just as the article says, the issues will trump the race card, and Obama will turn out new voters. Young voters, and after he is the nominee, I do not doubt that he will grow the African American vote even more (as he has been doing); I will not be surprised if the number of registered African American voters doubles or more. McCain loses. Racists lose. Republicans lose up and down the ticket. Obama is going to lead a solidly Democratic House and Senate, and restore America as a world leader politically and economically and environmentally. I have no doubt. Let Hillary have her West Virginia and Kentucky baubles to comfort her; Obama is the nominee, and he will win the general.

- Tony C, SA TX

May 13, 2008 at 9:40am

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

Most of social science can be reduced to "people like people whom they percieve to be like themselves" hence women voted for Clinton in the primary-however it is a leap to assume that women Democrats, faced with Obama vs McCain will let race trump values. Those Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain in November if she is not running are not Democrats!

- Amy J.

May 13, 2008 at 9:41am

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

Would someone please exam both sides of this issue? I would also like to see an article titled "Will Blacks Vote for McCain?". Considering that Obama received over 90% of the black votes in recent elections, this is a valid question. Hillary received a much smaller margin of her own race, 60%. I would argue that these numbers speak volumes to the reality of Americans electing candidates based on the color of their skin, and it's not the white people who are more biased this time!

- Becky

May 13, 2008 at 9:42am

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

Problem is that Obama is not "post racial", as first promised. The good Rev. Wright put that notion to rest.

- gc

May 13, 2008 at 9:42am

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

seems you are doing to "working class" whites what you claim are being done to African Americans

- Chuck

May 13, 2008 at 9:46am

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

geez, last time i looked, i'm white, female, over 60 and an obama supporter; and i have seen many many others just like me supporting sen. obama. i see this election, not about sisterhood or race but about the future of this country for our children and grandchildren.

- sbv

May 13, 2008 at 9:48am

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

Why not title the article "will blacks vote for anyone but the black guy"? Talk about exposing your own biases, in an election cycle where roughly 85% of blacks voted for the black candidate you worry about whether whites will vote for the black candidate when they have!

- Role Reversal

May 13, 2008 at 9:50am

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

Did Willie Horton twice rape a woman after pistol-whipping her fiance while he was furloughed from a Massachusetts prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder? Was this furlough program supported by Dukakis? The answer, of course, is yes to both. That is a fact. A fact is not racism. Isn't it at all possible that a white person would disapprove of a furlough program, be against extensive welfare programs, be for lower taxes, and vote for McCain without being a racist? The author makes brief mention that there might be other conservative philosophical explanations for such positions, but roundly and promptly dismisses them as mere cover for racism. As a white man, the takeaway for me from this article is that I am racist, no matter what I say, do, think or feel. The message that delivers to blacks is that you can't win, no matter what; so why even try. That's a terrible, defeatist narrative to be preaching to black youth. And it is a terrible and divisive thing to permanently label whites as inveterate and irredeemable racists. What you're really saying is, "No matter what white do, no matter what whites think, blacks will always be subject to prejudice."

- michael

May 13, 2008 at 9:51am

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

Why is racism one way? African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Obama, like 90% in NC, isn't this racism? Where is the article about Clinton or McCain being hurt with the black vote? It seems as though it is ok to vote your color if you are black, but morally wrong if you are white. How is that fair? By making blacks unjustified victims in the media, you hurt them by creating a justified backlash against them. Think about it ...

- Dr. J

May 13, 2008 at 9:55am

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

Dr. T, I've seen at least two polls recently (one by MSNBC after the PA primary), where 12 and 13 percent of whites indicated that race was a factor in deciding their vote for president. Of those whites who indicated that race was a factor, more than 75% voted for Hillary. The figures provided in the article, by my informal research look low. Further, in the general election, when there will be [many more] Republicans voting, I think that it stands to reason, that this figure will increase. So, I belive that the 15-20% projection is very conservative and probably low. I suspect that the racial element will show through in higher levels in the general election. I don't believe that Obama can win because of this. Not against a moderate like McCain, with the credibility he has in managing the ongoing conflict in Iraq (based on his Viet Nam experience). Further, I agree with the first post. Ms. Clinton's comments about "hard working white voters" was a very low and insulting statement, intended to pander to the very lowest ideals of the American electorate, illustrating quite well the principles enumerated in this article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226004/

- Riffmeister

May 13, 2008 at 9:57am

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

Dr. T, I've seen at least two polls recently (one by MSNBC after the PA primary), where 12 and 13 percent of whites indicated that race was a factor in deciding their vote for president. Of those whites who indicated that race was a factor, more than 75% voted for Hillary. The figures provided in the article, by my informal research look low. Further, in the general election, when there will be [many more] Republicans voting, I think that it stands to reason, that this figure will increase. So, I belive that the 15-20% projection is very conservative and probably low. I suspect that the racial element will show through in higher levels in the general election. I don't believe that Obama can win because of this. Not against a moderate like McCain, with the credibility he has in managing the ongoing conflict in Iraq (based on his Viet Nam experience). Further, I agree with the first post. Ms. Clinton's comments about "hard working white voters" was a very low and insulting statement, intended to pander to the very lowest ideals of the American electorate, illustrating quite well the principles enumerated in this article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226004/

- Riffmeister

May 13, 2008 at 9:58am

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

I agree that the 15-20% number is really pulled out of thin air, and that we just won't know. The rest of the article is very worth reading. To Dems to Win: Hillary's comments were a simple mis-statement - she should have said white working class voters. That has been said over and over by pundits, etc. It was a mistake, much like Obama's "bitter" comments, or McCains "100 year" comments. Obama continues to say that he wants a "new kind" of politics, where we don't pounce on every gaffe. Then he (and his supporters) pounce on every gaffe from their opponents. I admit to being a Hillary supporter, and to being disappointed with where this is going, but I will support Obama 100% in the general. I love the idea of a "new kind" of politics, but I have never believed that it is going to happen. I have held out hope that Obama might lead us there, but that hope is fading.

- Bigbearman

May 13, 2008 at 10:01am

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

It’s intriguing to me how the race issue is framed as it focuses on whites voting (or not voting) for a black candidate, but not African-Americans not voting (or voting) for a white candidate. When Pennsylvania polls revealed that single-digit percentages of black admitted that “race mattered”, yet voted 90%+ for a black candidate. Many more white admitted “race mattered”, yet many more also voted for a black candidate. There is an innate dishonesty to the dialogue when one group can admit its prejudice more readily than another.

- Michael Patrick

May 13, 2008 at 10:03am

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

This is a mishmash of badly analyzed empirical work and outright racism. The term racism is only used to apply to white voters--never to black voters. While black voters may have historic reasons to do racial solidarity, nonetheless voting for someone on the basis of race can be called racism. Next, I can't tell for sure if Judis may have accidentally made a good point--after saying Obama is perceived as more liberal (but is not), he says that's evidence of stereotyping--Does he mean stereotyping by the latte liberals who are voting for him because he is black and hence, in their addled minds, some sort of vision of racial innocence and hence liberalism on speed? Hard to tell if he may have made a subtle point. Next he says, "If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should be able to inherit the white women who backed Hillary Clinton." That is a blatantly racist (if paradoxically so) statement,since it assumes if you are not prejudiced against blacks, you must vote for Obama and cannot consider or deliberate on any other factor, such as his misogynist campaign, the merits of John McCain, his disrespect for both Clintons, his use and then betrayal of Wright, his inexperience (yes, he does not have much experience), and so on. The mechanical assumption about the probable voting of white women Clinton supporters is racist in that it treats the decision whether to vote for Obama as nothing more than a test of racial attitudes. This is why I consider the whole Obama phenomenon, emanating from him and his media flaks, racist to the core. This country has a tragic racial legacy, and the tripe coming from Obama and Judis and others like him only deepens the morass from which recovery appears out of the question.

- MereMortal

May 13, 2008 at 10:03am

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

Bend a r a c k Over b a m America! The New Messiah is going to stick it to you!

- Bend Over America!

May 13, 2008 at 10:04am

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

Not to read too much into this analysis of who is more racist than whom, but if one is a modestly-educated white male with a blue collar income, what are the odds you're going to meet or associate with glib, college-educated men of any ethnic background? It's far more likely the non-whites you encounter in your grim, bitter, uncultured existence are doing no better economically than yourself(and probably worse). Indeed, isn't it entirely possible the Blacks these sad,unenlightened beings rub up against generally represent a perceived threat to them or their family's personal safety, right or wrong? Such an environment of suspicion and fear would necessarily "colour" their appreciation of the "other," and if crime statistics are accurate, for good reason. Researchers may find in these reactions clear evidence of racism, yet they seem deliberately oblivious to the root causes of such animus. Put more crudely, I pull into the local 7-11 in my F-150 (with accessorized gun rack, natch) and get the ominous stare from loiterers, guess what my polled opinion is liable to be?

- Robert Quinn

May 13, 2008 at 10:07am

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

I think the 15-20% figure is too low. I believe it is more like 25-33%, since most voters haboring racial animus are clever enough to determine what the pollster is really asking and will give untrustworthy responses.

- Munk

May 13, 2008 at 10:11am

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

It's not clear that Judis is offering any advice that Barack doesn't already know. He is certainly going to "change the subject" since that is the basis of his campaign. Rehashing all the data about private racial prejudices (from data largely collected in the 90's) does not seem to move us in a progressive or helpful direction. So, what is the purpose of this piece other than to cast doubt on Barack's candidacy? And why not spend some time rehashing all the data on very the explicit prejudices that people have about gender? Or about age? Are not these also factors that will play a role in the election? The fact is that there are a host of prejudices and stereotypes that all the candidates will have to confront and that Barack is not alone in having to deal with them. So, again, why focus on his problems?

- dr

May 13, 2008 at 10:12am

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

Judis focuses on the psychology that might motivate white working class whites to vote against Obama...but the hard fact is that psychology is grounded firmly in economics. Working class whites, particularly working class white males, have been hammered hardest by affirmative action programs over the last thirty years. As hard as the left tries to put lipstick on a pig, the bald fact remains that affirmative action is a zero sum game--to give preferences to blacks, whites have to lose. And the whites who are losing are largely working class. They find it more difficult to get into traditional working class, well paid public professions like firefighter and police officer. Their career paths are often blocked by the need to show "diversity" in the ranks. Their kids find it more difficult to get into university--and more difficult to pay for it--because they come from a white background. And all this occurs under an overwhelming elite media message that their lived experience is somehow illegitimate. And now Obama comes along, the nominee because he is supported by 80-90 percent of his fellow blacks. A rational, working class white is going to assume, reasonably, that those supporters are going to want spoils...and that those spoils are going to come out of the hide of, you guessed it, the white working class. So it isn't just some bizarre psychology that is at work. It is an economic, rational calculation that their lives will be made worse off by an Obama presidency.

- Blue

May 13, 2008 at 10:12am

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

The author writes: "But some academics--noting the bitterness of battles over busing, affirmative action, and aid to cities, as well as the evolution of the GOP into a virtually all-white party--reasoned that racial prejudice remained, even if it was no longer overtly expressed. They believed it had simply changed form. Their challenge was to define and to demonstrate the existence of this new racism." Here is the gist of the matter. There really is no such thing as "new racism." Racism is the belief that one race is inherent inferior to another. By that legitimate definition, people who believe "blacks should work harder" are less racist that modern "civil rights" proponents, for they believe blacks are fully capable of achievement equal to white in our walks of life. Resentment arises as whites see many blacks cling to their victim status, demanding greater allowances and indulgences rather than taking responsibility for their own circumstances. Unfortunately there tends to be a devolvement of these resentments (with some basis in reality) to broader generalizations and prejudice, which can lead to white reactions that mimic true racism. Such occurrences are then seized upon by the Civil Rights industry to reassert victim status and make more demands that further fuel white resentment.

- Improper Thoughts

May 13, 2008 at 10:13am

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

Hillary Democrats will vote for McCain......enough said.

- Lynn

May 13, 2008 at 10:16am

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

Dr T wrote: "Even if race really is "important" to some voters..." Wow, this suggests you are convinced yet. I mean we are in deep trouble. the amount of denial that is going on in America is amazing. One thing I take from the article is sometimes, if not most of the time, racist people don't even know they are racist. God have mercy!!!

- Jay

May 13, 2008 at 10:27am

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

Some would agree that there's also a question as to why Hillary can't seem to get the Black vote. Considering her racially tainted comments, and Bill's, it's no surprise. She's had every opportunity to seal the deal, and hasn't been able to do it. So, Obama deserves the nomination. And I, a white, Catholic, Republican, single mother.. look forward to voting for him in the Fall.

- Missy

May 13, 2008 at 10:29am

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

I will not vote for Obama in November, and it will be because of race. Up until this May, while I supported Hillary, I had every intention of voting for Obama if he won the nomination. But I have been every bit as disgusted with the race card in this primary, but not because of the CLintons, because of Obama's supporters. Ferraro was absolutely correct that anyone who brought up the topic of race, instead of opening up a legitimate discussion on the topic, was instantly called a racist and shut down. The fact that Hillary had to apologize for her LBJ comment was patently absurd. The fact the after Obama won 40% of white voters in PA (after racist remarks from his pastor were released and after he called them bitter) while Hillary won less than 10% of black votes led to a media frenzy on white PA voters was appalling. And the very notion that Hillary herself, who is, quite simply, NOT a racist, was being racist when she talked about white American voters was the final straw. She may or may not be right that Democrats need rural working class blue collar white voters in November, but the fact that we can't even discuss for fear of insulting Obama's brainwashed constituency is disgusting. I suppose Obama's supporters are the deciders of what can and cannot be discussed. The November, I will be casting my swing state PA vote for McCain or not at all.

- Lauren

May 13, 2008 at 10:31am

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

This is a white america....and they will respond in high numbers in the General Election. Obama is toast.

- Puntarenus

May 13, 2008 at 10:31am

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

"If the appeal is explicit, [Mendelberg] argues--that is, if politicians actually say that blacks are undeserving--then they lose support because they have violated the norm against racism. Although voters will respond unconsciously to an implicit appeal that they don't perceive as racist, they will recoil for reasons of conscience or social disapproval to an appeal that either is, or is seen as, racist." While this is true in the public sphere (pols can't get away with saying "don't vote for the nigger"), it is still unfortunately now so much the case in the privacy of peoples' minds and of the voting booth. We are allowed to take whatever prejudice and bigotry we want into the voting booth. If I don't like a candidate's expressed religous committment (like Romney's), that can be sufficient, in and of itself, for me to vote against him. There is no litmus test for bigotry for admission to the polls, we test for citizenship, age, some states test for felony criminal record, and some very basic competency (persons who are absolutely looney-tunes might not be able to vote). That's it. And in only the last two categories do I see any correlation with a voter's tendancy toward racism. If Barack Obama is elected this November, it will be because: 1. more people have wise to the great Bush/Rove deception, want to vote their interests, and will blame McCain for any real or perceived embrace of Bush. 2. the utter spinning of wheels of the McCain campaign (do they even know what they are uniquely offering the electorate?). 3. a marked maturing of this pluralistic, multi-ethnic society in a similar manner as in 1960 when enough of the electorate deliberately set aside their reservations regarding this young, extremely gifted, inspired, and rapidly ascending leader who was also a papist. The could be another "giant leap for mankind". Hopefully they won't bump him off this time.

- r b-j

May 13, 2008 at 10:40am

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

Testing, testing..... You ever going to post these comments, editors??

- JSmith125

May 13, 2008 at 10:41am

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

Will whites vote for Obama? No - for the same reasons he is receiving 90%+ of the black vote. Obama is now merely a black candidate, a racially polarizing figure. He is going to get hammered today in WV. Since Reverend Wright, his support among whites is evaporated and it is not going to return.

- Obama: the Wright Stuff!

May 13, 2008 at 10:44am

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

Obama has proved conclusively how deep anti-white racism runs in the Democratic party. Any white who votes for a Dim is stupid.

- RA

May 13, 2008 at 10:46am

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

Voters out West are predominantly white, not rich and aren't all well educated, but are pushing Obama to big wins over Hillary (Washington, Utah, Oregon, to name a few). So, contrary to what Clintonites want everyone to think, the "Obama can't win amongst whites" line isn't always true depending on what part of the country your from. And votes here count just as much as anywhere else...

- Bob from NW

May 13, 2008 at 10:50am

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

Dems To Win's comment that "Clinton's recent 'hard-working white Americans' comments are insulting to all of us" are untrue. There was nothing wrong or incorrect about what Clinton said; and she was only stating what had been shown in the AP polls -- that she is capturing white, blue-collar worker votes; while Obama is not. Will there ever come a time when we no longer have to fear criticism or being labeled a racist for telling the truth?

- RedTT

May 13, 2008 at 10:52am

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

Almost all white collectivists will vote for Obama because he is a collectivist. Almost all black collectivists will vote for Obama because he is a collectivist. This has almost nothing to do with our relative skin colors. That only matters to media morons like this one and to the Obama campaign, which benefits from media focus on anything except his collectivist world view. I believe his species to be a Socialist. That is why I will not vote for him.

- Jim B

May 13, 2008 at 10:53am

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

If you read today's Washington Post article regarding the reaction Obama'a campaign is getting out in the field it is obvious that race is still a divisive and emotional issue in this country. Although we may have come a long way---there is a very long way to go. Obama's candidacy is revolutionary but I fear that if the country is on the verge of electing him or does elect him---I fear other more sinister factors may intervene. I hope the America and its people prove me wrong. As a child of the 60's, we had the leadership and the opportunity to do great things as a country. However, when the Kennedys and Martin Luther King were assasinated, scepticism of any positive long term change in this country took over and has been haunting the political economy of this country ever since. I hope I am 1000% wrong in Barack Obama's case.

- MGK

May 13, 2008 at 10:57am

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

Its not Obama's race that turns off working class white voters but his relationship to the vile, racist liars who are calling them racists, who say that evil white people are conspiring to keep the meek, innocent black people down. This line, coddled and pushed by all leftist of every color, accuses white America of purposely inventing and spreading AIDS to kill black people and in the ignorant, dishonest and ugly voices of people like Rev Wright, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Louis Farrakhan, Sheila Jackson Lee bellow lies and grievances at the top of their lungs and are never fact-checked or criticized by any voices in the media or any prominent public figure. But people hate being called racists as their children lose places in universities to minorities with lower grades and test scores, as the whole panoply of the Civil Rights Industry carves out special priviledges for blacks in the name of fairness. Rev Wright has firmly linked Obama to this much-despised radical subculture and if he cant extricate himself from its tangled web he will lose, even to the snarky,unpopular,idealess, overaged liberal who has seized the Republican nomination. www.skep41.blogspot.com

- Skep 41

May 13, 2008 at 10:58am

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

Very interesting article yet it is typical that John does not mention the issue that African Americans are voting in a solid 80% - 90% block for an African American candidate. He writes "lessons for how the country's first viable black presidential candidate might overcome the obstacles he faces." How about the African-American obstacle any white candidate faces when competing against a black candidate. He writes " (scholars) suggest that racism remains deeply embedded within the psyche of the American electorate--so deep that many voters may not even be aware of their own feelings on the subject." Yet, I would suggest that black resentment (prejudice)towards whites is never discussed by scholars or journalists. Why is it that blacks are the only ethnicity that can vote for someone solely because of his or her race and not be called bigots? White guilt? African-Americans did not vote for Obama against Hillary over policy issues. They voted for him because he is black. Also John wrote,"exit polls showed the percentage of voters who backed Hillary Clinton ... while saying that the "race of the candidates" was "important" in deciding their vote is a fair proxy for the percentage of primary voters who were disinclined to support Obama because he is black. That number topped 9 percent in New Jersey; in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two crucial swing states, it was more than 11 percent." Yet, again this demonstrates how African Americans are not held to the same standard as whites. Why are almost all African-Americans voting for Obama when both candidates have very similar policy stances? Only 9% and 11% of whites did not vote for Obama because of his race. While 80% to 90% voted for him because of his race. Which race is more prejudice?

- Pat

May 13, 2008 at 10:59am

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

Perhaps in this campaign there will be a serious conversation about a serious issue. Affirmative action proponents like Barack Obama constantly enforce the claim that "race matters". The media tells us "race matters". So, let's assume that is true, "race matters". Can someone, on any side of the campaign debate, explore this question: "what is the experience, anywhere in the history of the world, of a racial, ethnic, religious, etc., minority being elected to the top executive position of the nation? Offhand, I can think of few examples, even fewer successful ones: John F. Kennedy (Catholic in predominately protestant US. Though, Catholics were and are the single largest Christian demonination in the nation.) Alberto Fujimori in Peru. Manmohan Singh in India (Sikh in predominately Hindu India) Disraeli in Great Britain (though of Jewish ancestry, Disraeli was baptised in the Anglican Church)

- Bill45

May 13, 2008 at 10:59am

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

Racism will cause Obama the election - but its the Racism of the people that he associates with that is the problem. There is no way, after Jermiah Wright's "WHITE! RICH!" jeremiads, that Obama will be able to take Ohio. If he can't take Ohio, then he cannot win the election. Oh, and someone needs to ask why 90% of black voters are voting for Obama.

- Another Voter

May 13, 2008 at 11:00am

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

What goes unsaid, but is far more important, is that this racial identity candidate, and that's what Obama is, will receive 95%+ of a black turnout that is 3x what one would normally expect. The liberal media wants to look at a glass that is full (for Obama) and call iot half empty.

- Wild Bill Hiltner of the Jungle

May 13, 2008 at 11:01am

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

Your comment "Clinton's recent 'hard-working white Americans' comments are insulting to all of us" is incorrect. You do not speak for "all of us". Clinton was making a factual statement which she based on the recent AP polls showing that she is capturing the white, blue-collar vote, while Obama is not. Will there ever be a time in this country where we can speak the truth without fear of being accused of playing the "race card"? The truth is that unless Obama can find a way to connect with white, blue-collar voters, he will not win in November. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS TO UNDERSTAND.

- RedTT

May 13, 2008 at 11:04am

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

Dem to Win's comment

- Linda

May 13, 2008 at 11:07am

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

amen. when some of these other heavily white states have their primaries, like iowa, or wisconsin, or montana, then everyone will see that no white people will ever vote for obama. or maybe you could stop the race-baiting.

- reality

May 13, 2008 at 11:09am

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

I suppose the guilty White people in West Virginia and Kentucky are standing in the way of change. The voters there have a "...golden opportunity...great time voting for Barack. With a smile." Take the cue and vote Obama OR else YOU are a racist! Either way, you vote for Hillary, you are a racist, and if you vote for Obama, you are a sexist. LOL. What a bunch of idiots!!!!

- atoddy

May 13, 2008 at 11:14am

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

Not liking Obama's association with Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, that people believe in owning firearms or going to church because they are frustrated by poor economic conditions or Obama's seeming dismissal of American Patriotism does not necessarily have anything to do with race. A white liberal with these kind of associations might suffer even more politically than Obama does. Look at how Dukakis folded in 1988.

- KW64

May 13, 2008 at 11:15am

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

Given their structural advantages going into this presidential election (8 years of Republican rule by a now-unpopular president, opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq, and most importantly, a weak economy and high gas prices), the 2008 election is the Democrats to lose. However, with Republican primary voters having decided two months ago to nominate their most broadly appealing and electable candidate, McCain, the Democrats' apparent decision to nominate the untested Obama over the more experienced Clinton is a risky move. Race has been something of a double-edged sword so far in this election. It benefitted Obama in the early primaries, when the media fawned over him thoughout January and February as the first viable black candidate. The Rev. Wright and lesser controversies, including some verbal gaffes, then brought Obama down to earth, revealing him to be a more conventional Chicago-area black politician who might have problems connecting with a majority-white national electorate. (Remember, like Carol Mosely Braum before him, Obama faced very weak Republican opposition when he won his U.S. Senate seat in Illinois). This has given Clinton her opening in the later primaries by allowing her to argue the "electiblity" issue. Overall though, the Race factor has been a plus in Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that any white U.S. Senator in his first term would have done as well running against Clinton this year. John Edwards, a well-known candidate who served only one term in the U.S. Senate, certainly did not get very far. The question is will the Race factor hurt Obama in the fall election?

- Joe In Ohio

May 13, 2008 at 11:18am

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

I want to know why is it not racist for 90% of persons of dark skin to vote for a dark skinned person (that is, why it is not racist for a dark skinned person to NOT vote non-dark), while it is racist for a light skinned person to make the same hue-homogeneity decision. Contrary to the author's drivel, in many (early) states of extremely light hue demographics, melanin challenged, the light skinned folks cross skin tones to vote for dark skin tones. It is Senator Obama's association with black racism, not melanin, that has caused light skin hues to think that Obama is trapped in in the past, in archaic racism, along with the other black race baiters and shakedown artists and thugs in our society. Racialism is not racism; racialism is the frank discussion of race that has been called for, and we ARE getting it,thank you, big O. Racism is adverse construal of race, is group generalization from individuals, like Wright's condemnation of a government of Obama's grandmother as 'typical white person.' Obama is a typical black person, I submit. As for whether voters cannot articulate their preferences, well, this is the elitism of the intellectual who probably deep down doesn't trust democracy, usually found in academe. For the record, I have a PhD in social research,and write these surveys.

- martin in nyc,

May 13, 2008 at 11:18am

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

INTERESTING POINT IF, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE CHOICE OF A WHITE CANDIDATE AND A BLACK CANDIDATE, 15%-29% OF WHITES SAY THEY WOULDN’T VOTE FOR THE BLACK CANDIDATE, THEY’RE CALLED RACIST, BUT IF BLACK VOTORS, WHEN GIVEN THE SAME CHOICE VOTE 90% FOR THE BLACK CANDIDATE, THAT’S NOT RACIST. IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG HERE???

- ROY IN CRESTLINE

May 13, 2008 at 11:19am

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

I do not have a dog in this fight. neither clinton or obama have any appeal to me. predictably I will be called a sexist or a racist: the neutron bomb to legitimate discourse. the article carefully skirts the issue that many people, perhaps a majority of the electorate, will not vote for obama not on the basis of his race but, rather, because of his policies. the rev. wright is a bigot and bill ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. it is not 'racist' to call into question obama's judgment w/ his knowing association with these repellent characters. going to a larger issue the various studies referenced by mr judis leave open to skepticism the conclusions expressed therein. I found the conclusions arrived at by the various sociologists and psychologists as more anecdotally based rather than empirically based. to draw an analogy I would equate the studies mr judis relies upon as no different than the methodologies utilized in determining the presence of child abuse in the repressed memories cases that ultimately were debunked. people should not be cowed into voting for obama because of his race and should not be accused of being a racist in the absence of a clearly defined declaratory sentence of confession or contriteness that racism existed in their vote. at the present time and I dare say increasingly into the future should obama capture the democratic nomination for president any criticism of obama will be met with the predictable cries of 'racism' and I believe that the intimidation of those who do not like obama for reasons that have nothing to do with his race will pose a far greater threat to the republic than the anecdotal evidence of racism adduced by some mental health professionals. my prediction is that there will be an increasingly disparate number between those who actually vote for obama and those who tell pollsters what their real inclinations are. the discrepancy will be attributed to one thing: people will not be honest for fear that should they say they will not vote for obama they will be branded as a racist. all in all the judis article was 8 pages of drivel.

- bogeygolf

May 13, 2008 at 11:21am

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

Will Obama's race lose him votes? Yes! Not because he is an African American but because everyone was so afraid to be labeled a racist that they forgot what sexism is. I am appalled by the blatent sexism used in the media, but the fear to even use words like arrogant about Obama for fear it might be considered racist. I have now joined the movement of mad women that will vote for Democrats for the House and Senate, even local races, but will vote for John McCain for President. Maybe some feel that Democrats took the black vote for granted, but what they did to women was far worse.

- Karen Hayes

May 13, 2008 at 11:23am

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

The party of race and gender politics proves itself to be both sexist and racist. Interesting article, but pardon my scepticism when a bunch of acdemic elites 'study' something they seem to insulate themselves from the resutls. At the hands of the Democrats whos cures are usually worse than the problem, we now have generations of blacks brought up in 'institutional poverty', and every election they remind all blacks they are victims. Even Mrs. Obama sounds like one, even though she is making $300k/yr went to Ivy League schools, and only got in on Affirmative Action (she admits her SAT's were low). Please make me a victim too! This is being set up as the biggest PC race ever, with anyone who dares object to his ideas or positions as a racist. Is 92% of the vote by blacks for Obama racist? Many will vote for him because he is black, and some will also vote against him for the same reason because all we hear from the media is about race and gender. When he loses it will not be racism that defeats him, it will be his barely submerged 'angry black victim' and marxist neo-socialist ideas that will undo him. If you want to study racism try finding an equally smart and glib conservative black man or woman, and then see how the gender and/or race politics works when they run as a Republican? Then we will see if whites will vote for a black man or women. Until then the conservatives will treat Obama as an equal and choose to vote for someone who loves our country, will protect us, does not intend to sit and talk with terrorists, and believes in a 'color blind' society.

- Jim Thompson

May 13, 2008 at 11:28am

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

This article gives the briefest of nods to the idea that Obama might have an advantage in the race because he is black. It seems to me that his *main appeal* to iberal Democrat voters is that he is black! It is not just his views and his personality, is it? If he were white, would he be the leading candidate in the Democratic primary? It seems to me that he has gained much more than he has lost in this election because of his race. Also, some of the questions listed that were meant to suss out this "modern racism" that the author refers to are laughable. Saying that you agree that black people should work to lift themselves up without any help hardly indicates racial resentment. That idea is undercut a bit by the fact that it was a view held by Frederick Douglass.

- Unpainted

May 13, 2008 at 11:30am

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

Is it racist for Blacks to vote 90% for Obama?

- WP Bob

May 13, 2008 at 11:33am

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

I've seen enough racism from the Democrats, from both candidates, that I'm just going to vote for McCain. I think he is probably the least racist of the bunch, and probably the least likely to try and enact an extremist agenda from the White House.

- mark

May 13, 2008 at 11:36am

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

Ric O. - Excellent point.

- mark

May 13, 2008 at 11:42am

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

Of course race is the issue. Didn't you see the result of NC primary. 91% of total black in the State voted for Obama because he is black. Tell me if that isn't racism? The white people have been tolerant lately and the blacks have been more and more racist.

- politicsisdirty

May 13, 2008 at 11:43am

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

The polls are all skewed positively for Obama at the moment. They reflect his electability off of a string of caucus victories in non-democratic caucuses (Alaska, Wyoming, Utah and Idaho) in states that a democratic candidate has less of a chance of winning than does Mickey Mouse. That combined with a string of states touted as "huge" victories where he won because there was notably a large African American population in that state registered as Democratic and where he carried their vote by 92% or more because they were voting for him because he was Black. He will undoubtedly become the candidate of of the Democratic party but he will do so having failed capture any majority of the white vote post-Wright controversy; most of these white voters backed Bush over Kerry and will likely back McCain plus the republican supporters to equal a loss for Obama in each of these states in 08.

- stinson2020

May 13, 2008 at 11:47am

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

A lengthy analysis about "racial fears" and "resentments" [by white voters]. Only liberals, however, who believe that our society is stuck in 1968 could nod their heads in agreement with this article. The "disadvantage" that Obama faces isn't race but his policy positions. The U.S. will not elect a socialist as president regardless of color. If Mr. Obama wishes to win Middle America's votes, he will have to eschew European style socialism. I doubt, however, that he will, and predictably, those who agree with this article will blame his loss in November on racism.

- Independent

May 13, 2008 at 11:50am

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

You have a lot of words and studies (some of them fairly outdated) but you have neglected to explain one fact: Obama has won by large margins states that are mainly white -- such as Washington State and Maine. Washington is not just composed of rich liberals, a majority of people work in resource and service jobs. (Despite Microsoft and Boeing, crops and timber are a mainstay of the economy here.) Senator Obama won every county, including "conservative" Eastern Washington. The Clinton team has tried to come up with explanations for this such as some organized attempt by the activists to take over the caucus, all that the "activists" did was get word out to potential Obama supporters. The support here in Washington is amazing, if you walk down the street with an Obama pin on, at least two people will ask where you got it and how they can get one. (There is a shortage of gear, which is one failing of the Obama campaign.)

- George

May 13, 2008 at 11:51am

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

Interesting article. However, there is an obverse side of the coin; would a 2 year freshman senator even be in this position if he was not 'black'. Obama's race will both help and hurt him in this election. Not unlike McCain's age.

- S. Young

May 13, 2008 at 11:59am

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

If the picture studies were anything like the "questions" they used to determine racial resentment, they probably foiled pictures of thugs with guns with a pretty teenage white girl. Apparently people like Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby harbor racial resentment againsts blacks. It does not take a Ph.D in Sociology to realize that African American culture is in a state of crisis. Nanny state politics and handouts destroyed so many African American families that it will take generations for the culture to heal if it ever does. It does not help when bigots like Wright try to torture blacks who get a job for assimilating, and if a kid gets "A"s in school everyone taunts them for being oreos.

-

May 13, 2008 at 12:04pm

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

Much as generals are said to always be fighting the last war, Judis' analysis, well-reasoned as it is, is based on past experience which may be of limited relevance to an Obama candidacy. The kind of institutionalized racism that once existed is now an artifact of history, and the pool of voters whose allegiances were formed under that system is dwindling as those voters age and die. At the same time, the Obama candidacy has mobilized young voters to register in numbers unprecedented in recent history. In this era, celebrities with broad appeal such as Oprah, Cosby, Jordan and Woods have transcended race and gained huge followings which cut across racial and class lines. Obama seems to have that star quality. Fact is, no one really knows how an Obama candidacy will play out. But Judis, despite his usually on-the-money insights, strikes this reader as way too pessimistic.

- Django

May 13, 2008 at 12:05pm

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

With the sadness of the clinton supporters apparent, I would like to remind all that it has been tried and failed to paint Obama with the inexpirence/incompetent brush and the race card is being used to bring up the muslim card and by sssociation the fear card. We have with us the residue of centuries of racisim and sexism. Ihat will not go away with the election of an African American but will serve us to move forward in those dark places of our country and prove to the world that Americans are moving forward to reconciliation and healing....The horrid fringes will always haunt us but they may no longer rule us.

- Docb

May 13, 2008 at 12:10pm

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

I've seen enough racism from the Democrats, from both candidates, to get me to vote for McCain. He seems the least racist candidate and the least likely to enact an extremist agenda from the White House.

- markallshouse

May 13, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

I'm voting for McCain (or possibly not at all instead of Obama for 3 reasons. 1) I think HIllary and McCain are more similar on international policy, and frankly, much mroe experienced. While I think sitting down at the table and talking to our enemies is important, I'm frankly scared of sending someone as inexperienced as Obama to do that. I'd rather send Jimmy Carter. 2) Healthcare. Hillary and Obama's plan were very similar except for the mandate. At this point I'll take any plan I can get, whether it be employeer-based like Hillary's or more individual based like McCain's. But I think that the mandate is extremely important and our best hope for covering th4 uninsured. 3) It AMAZES me about oblivious Obama supporters are to the extent to which HIllary supporters feel aggrieved. You're supposed to be the party of unity and you lack any grasp of how raw a deal Hillary was handed by the media. I felt extremely wounded that CLinton didn't get a fair shake but I was set on voting for Obama in the general in November, up until Obama supporters started calling Hillary and her supporters racist and putting a stop to all talk that touched upon race. If Obama's supporters plan on spending 8 years in office calling anyone that talks about race a racist, this will be a horrible country to live in.

- Lauren

May 13, 2008 at 12:21pm

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

I admit voting FOR a candidate based on race is far different than voting AGAINST a candidate based on race. But voting based on race at all is still not a good thing.

- Lauren

May 13, 2008 at 12:22pm

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

An article by philosopher kings in support of philosopher kings. Stripped of it's veneer, this is a rambling epistle with the sole purpose of validating the elite left's love affair with Barack Obama. (Oh my, our data seems to exactly explain and validate the primary results!!) It states as fact that those rascally republicans have been tricking the nation to vote for them by providing a one-dimensional drive-by 'explanation' of a select group of republican ads. Where's the profound study on this? Nine pages on why America is racist but not one word on explaining why we should believe these statements are fact? And then long-winded explanations on how resentment of entitlement is in-fact racism, with reams of data from studies that provided no non-racial controls. For instance, would white resentment be just as high towards, say, wealthy whites who had advantages in education? Or towards any group that had an advantage towards anything? No, it's always simply what whites think about african americans, and if the answer doesnt fit in the template of elitist-defined acceptability it is defacto-racist. To say that someone's opinion that another group needs to "work up" toward a goal is racist, is equally comical and alarming. No folks, I ain't buying any of this drivel. Racism is alive in the forms it has always held, and will always have. People are in the comfort zone with what they know, and are uncomfortable with the unknown. That manifests in race relations, and is bi-directional. But it need not define us, nor should we stand by and stand accused by those who wish it would. How about a lengthy article on how elite white supporters for a pure liberal candidate are willing to exploit racism in America as a tactic to grow support for that candidate? Hmm? Think Obama's blackness would be as welcome as his idealogy at the club? I suspect far less than it would be at the construction site in Pennsylvania, where folks of all colors work easily together. You know, those places where you can find Clinton supporters...

- Light of Truth

May 13, 2008 at 12:23pm

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

An article by philosopher kings in support of philosopher kings. Stripped of it's veneer, this is a rambling epistle with the sole purpose of validating the elite left's love affair with Barack Obama. (Oh my, our data seems to exactly explain and validate the primary results!!) It states as fact that those rascally republicans have been tricking the nation to vote for them by providing a one-dimensional drive-by 'explanation' of a select group of republican ads. Where's the profound study on this? Nine pages on why America is racist but not one word on explaining why we should believe these statements are fact? And then long-winded explanations on how resentment of entitlement is in-fact racism, with reams of data from studies that provided no non-racial controls. For instance, would white resentment be just as high towards, say, wealthy whites who had advantages in education? Or towards any group that had an advantage towards anything? No, it's always simply what whites think about african americans, and if the answer doesnt fit in the template of elitist-defined acceptability it is defacto-racist. To say that someone's opinion that another group needs to "work up" toward a goal is racist, is equally comical and alarming. No folks, I ain't buying any of this drivel. Racism is alive in the forms it has always held, and will always have. People are in the comfort zone with what they know, and are uncomfortable with the unknown. That manifests in race relations, and is bi-directional. But it need not define us, nor should we stand by and stand accused by those who wish it would. How about a lengthy article on how elite white supporters for a pure liberal candidate are willing to exploit racism in America as a tactic to grow support for that candidate? Hmm? Think Obama's blackness would be as welcome as his idealogy at the club? I suspect far less than it would be at the construction site in Pennsylvania, where folks of all colors work easily together. You know, those places where you can find Clinton supporters...

- Light of Truth

May 13, 2008 at 12:25pm

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

It has already begun. Obama is being insulated in case he loses, but the message here--which will be drummed over and over throughout the campaign--is that if you're white and don't vote for Obama, you're racist. We will have a lot of closeted Klan members in this country come November. If it's over 50% of the electorate, we will be told to hang our head in shame, because our country has not healed. The political psychology literature that Judis points to in this article highlights that voters use shortcuts like candidates' appearance (I'm assuming people assume that older white guys are conservatives) IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER INFORMATION.

- Jessica

May 13, 2008 at 12:25pm

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

Democrats founded the KKK. Democrat Governor Faubus of Arkansas was forced to integrate public schools by Republican President Eisenhower. Sheriff Bull Connor of Birmingham, who used police dogs and fire hoses against blacks, was a Democrat. The policies of the welfare state that have destroyed black families and their credibility came from the Democrats. Democrats care only for power and not at all about the results of their policies. Democrats are not your friends.

- michael

May 13, 2008 at 12:34pm

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

Will whites vote for Obama? I'm thinking about it, and I'm a Republican who voted twice for Geo. W. Bush.

- Greg A

May 13, 2008 at 12:34pm

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

So much bull pucky here. If you would take Bush over Obama, you're a racist, it's really that simple. Bush is the worst president in my 51 years and that includes a criminal Nixon. If you'd vote for him again, over an intelligent, well-spoken message of unity and compassion, then you're a racist. Why not let that go? Be brave. Do something grand, and healing, and right, besides. Nothing is measurably better in the current field. And nothing could do as much harm as what has recently gone before.

- I. Gotta Haddock

May 13, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

90% of Blacks voted or are aligned with Obama. Does this show a component of racism?

- Phx

May 13, 2008 at 12:45pm

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

I'll vote for him...but not willingly.

- Zane

May 13, 2008 at 12:56pm

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

I am disgusted with the constant double standard concerning race. It appears that any time anyone even questions Obama on an issue s/he is called a racist. Yet, Obama is allowed to make comments such as "typical white person", "bitter. . . cling to guns and religion, and antipathy towards others different from them. . ." and it is okay and excuse after excuse is given for him. I am fed about with our society and the democratic party. The democratic party, with a great big media assist, slice and dice every voter into religion, race, gender, education, salary, age. Then, Obama's supporters and campaign shout white people are not voting for the black man. No, some people are not voting for Obama simply because he is inexperienced, very liberal, arrogant, hypocritical, and self-serving. So, stop - just stop this double standard.

- mike

May 13, 2008 at 1:01pm

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

My opposition to Barack Obama has nothing to do with race. It has to do with his arrogence, his inability to think on his feet without a teleprompter atmosphere, and the fact that he was unwilling to be a senator before declaring for the presidential race. He hasn't worked, let alone worked across the aisle. What has this man done to deserve to be the leader of our country? When I heard him lead a chant at one of his rallies...."08, "08 with the crowd answering, I decided this high school and college pep rally mentality would not get my vote.

- Mary Smith

May 13, 2008 at 1:02pm

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

Considering OHB's exposure to far left messengers (Wright,Ayres, hamas advisor,others to be revealed soon), doesn't he support some of the far left positions yet unmentioned like universal affirmative action, reparations? My kids don't need to be held back in their lives.

- AZ indie

May 13, 2008 at 1:04pm

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

America has for some time now been ready to elect a black president. In 1996 I believe Had Gen. Powell run he would have been the GOP candidate and probably would have beaten President Clinton. Sec of State Rice is a plausible President too many Americans and I think the tremendous attacks made on black Republicans(see Edward Brooke, Michael Steele, Lyn Swan, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, etc.) is to prevent them from achieving success and draining the most reliable segment of the Democrat party away.America is not ready to elect Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton President. They are perceived by most Americans as too radical. Sen. Obama can only win if he can convince most Americans that he is More like Gen. Powell than Al Sharpton. With his left of center voting record that is a tall order. What America wants is "Bush Lite" a moderate president who will continue some, change others and pursue some now policies. I think at this point Sen Mc Cain is closer to "Bush Lite" than Se. Obama that many fear is a radical.

- Bob

May 13, 2008 at 1:14pm

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

This race baiting from the left is simply stupid. Today it is not whites that are racists, it is Blacks and left wingers. They want race law. They want to perpetuate the racial divide. Many more people will vote FOR SNOBama because he is black than against him because he is black. SNOBama is a typical American professor of any color. A leftest dumb bunny that thinks he knows everything and can do nothing. He would lectured us as long as he is allowed, and pass laws that deprive us of individual liberty. That is why he will be rejected. America of all colors would be happy to vote for any gender or any race as long as we agreed with their positions. SNOBama is an empty suit wanna be socialist and needs to be exposed accurately as to his beliefs. He will lose, not because he is black. He will lose because he would be a horrible joke of a president, just as any other pseudo socialist would.

- George C

May 13, 2008 at 1:19pm

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

Agree with Jessica. Design a socialist, I mean social, science test where you vote only on superficial characteristics (appearance) and what you get is the result of stereotyping. What do you expect? And which black politician do you think Americans have unfairly stereotyped? Marion Barry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson? Obama didn't fit that pattern, until Rev Wright opened his mouth. For writers like Judis, any black politician regardless of his experience, background or political views, who is rejected by Americans at the polls, lost because of white racism. QED!

- TLM

May 13, 2008 at 1:23pm

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

How about exploring this question: "Will blacks vote for McCain?" That is just as relevant - but unexplored by anyone at this point. Race is having a bigger impact (i.e., 92%) on the African-American community than it is having on the white community.

- roemka

May 13, 2008 at 1:25pm

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

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the words that come out of Obama's mouth when he speaks and the company he has chosen to keep for the past 20 years. Obama has a problem because he is to the left of everyone in American politics, not because he is half a shade closer to being black than McCain. All of Barack Obama's positions are carefully crafted to make him appear to be on both sides of every issue. Whenever he departs from this script he immediately starts to "gaffe" his way back to his far left roots. This is what people are responding to. Whenever Barack Obama accidentally slips into being honest and gives the listener something to grab hold of, it is usually something the average independent or republican finds deeply disturbing. I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just EXPLAIN his shitty positions instead of trying to trick me like I'm 4 years old. Yes, I know you want to ban my guns, raise my taxes and talk to Iran. Now explain why you think doing so would be a good thing. If you can't explain your positions, I'm going to assume they are motivated by the same naive stupidity as the other people I know who hold those positions and I'm going to vote for McCain.

- This is BS

May 13, 2008 at 1:39pm

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

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the words that come out of Obama's mouth when he speaks and the company he has chosen to keep for the past 20 years. Obama has a problem because he is to the left of everyone in American politics, not because he is half a shade closer to being black than McCain. All of Barack Obama's positions are carefully crafted to make him appear to be on both sides of every issue. Whenever he departs from this script he immediately starts to "gaffe" his way back to his far left roots. This is what people are responding to. Whenever Barack Obama accidentally slips into being honest and gives the listener something to grab hold of, it is usually something the average independent or republican finds deeply disturbing. I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just EXPLAIN his shitty positions instead of trying to trick me like I'm 4 years old. Yes, I know you want to ban my guns, raise my taxes and talk to Iran. Now explain why you think doing so would be a good thing. If you can't explain your positions, I'm going to assume they are motivated by the same naive stupidity as the other people I know who hold those positions and I'm going to vote for McCain.

- This is BS

May 13, 2008 at 1:41pm

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

Is this what and Obama presidency is going to be like? Endless self-flagellation over race relations in the United States while the country's enemies overseas are trying to destroy us. No thanks, this "typical bitter white working-class American" has had enough of this naive drama-queen silliness from the quiche-eating lib elitist twits, cluessless fainting "in-love" college girls, and the whining "its all whitey's fault" race-baiting blacks.

- A typical bitter white person

May 13, 2008 at 1:48pm

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

The groups that support Obama (college kids and educated, six-figure income liberals) are no less racist that blue-collar whites. The difference is they have never really had to cope with the consequences of integration. They live in the same almost all white neighborhoods, send their kids to the same almost all white schools, and work in almost all white up scale jobs. They can pat themselves on the back for their one or two wealthy, educated non-white friends. Working people deal with integration every day. They walk through minority neighborhoods that are full of anger toward whites, they share subways with minorities who are angry toward whites, the lose their jobs to a minority with less skills and less seniority. Their children go to schools with angry minority gangs running rampant through them. And if you don't think Black Americans are angry toward whites, just take a hard look at Jeremiah Wright and even Michelle Obama ("Americans are just plain mean--interpretation "white Americans are just plain mean). Working whites will not vote for Obama because Obama has been complicit toward Wright and his anger and race baiting toward the white community. While the well-to-do and college brats can write the Reverand off as just a lunatic, the blue collar American has to live with the consequences of Wright's kind of rhetoric. Obama should have understood that--he should have stood against it. He should have shown better JUDGEMENT about the consequences of such behavior. He should recognize that ending racism in this nation will take just as much effort from the Black community as it does from the white community.

- Vicki in Arkansas

May 13, 2008 at 1:51pm

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

apparently, 60% of white voters choosing clinton in the primaries is evidence of racism; 90% of blacks voting for obama, not so much...

- spike

May 13, 2008 at 1:57pm

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

if you're voting FOR a candidate because of race, you're automatically rejecting the other candidate because of race

- spike

May 13, 2008 at 2:00pm

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

if you're voting FOR a candidate because of race, you're automatically rejecting the other candidate because of race

- spike

May 13, 2008 at 2:01pm

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

Yes, 80-90 percent of blacks are voting for Obama, but that is only after they realized that he has a viable chance of winning. Also for a long time Hillary had more black support than he did, she lost it with comments that were not racist but just stupid. Feraro and Bill are not racist but their statements were ignorant. We need a debate in this country about racism. It is alive and well. It exists. Blacks can be racist, but because Whites hold more power, their racism has a larger affect. That does not mean however that racism should not be condemned universally. I love hillary and bill but i like obama a little more. whats interesting is i respect mccain a lot but i cant take another republican administration, they seem far to cocky self assured and selfish to really offer any solutions. Racism is alive and well, but hidden beneath the surface. Wright is wrong, but some of what he said is true. I love this country, I love this country, but some of our policies have been atrocious. We must accept this and move on. I'm for obama because i see him as a visionary who happens to be black. Also to me that fact that he is black and had to endure all of this means he is strong. Hillary is strong too, but i prefer obama. Racism matters folks, but not all whites are racist and the whites that vote for obama are not doing so because of guilt. We must show our kids that they can succeed and while racism can hold them down, we must fight it. I still believe that people are good. Its hard to hate what you know. We as a country need to learn more about each other personally and then maybe things will change for the better. I am a 19 year old black man with jamaican parents, i was raised here so im in a way african american and i approve this message

- Dre Drizzle

May 13, 2008 at 2:02pm

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

With your logic in mind, should we then charge Bush 43 for treason for destroying America by lying about the reasons for war in Iraq. We cannot fix bridges, the value of the dollar drops by 50%, all because America is spending the limited resources in Iraq. Or did you not take Econ 101 to understand the ramifications. Likewise, your guilt by association logic means we should charge McCain because McCain is running a Bush 43 third term. Your bravado of patriotism just does not ring true.

- hektor

May 13, 2008 at 2:08pm

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

Geez....wake up....Wright, BLT, Racist, Hate, Ayers, Michelle, no experience, slimy politician, liar,he is an empty suit.....it's not his skin.....EMPTY...victim mentality,,,,entitlement mentality, sickening....yuk.....not the color of his skin........!

- John

May 13, 2008 at 2:13pm

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

Trent Lott is an idiot and a racist so what else is new?

- jc

May 13, 2008 at 2:18pm

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

People don't want Obama not because of race...but because he is very liberal and because he lacks judgment and experience. He is radically pro death. Give us a candidate who stands for the moral high ground and has the character and experience. This is the man or woman we will vote for, regardless of race.

- M E

May 13, 2008 at 2:20pm

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

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the words that come out of Obama's mouth when he speaks and the company he has chosen to keep for the past 20 years. Obama has a problem because he is to the left of everyone in American politics, not because he is half a shade closer to being black than McCain. All of Barack Obama's positions are carefully crafted to make him appear to be on both sides of every issue. Whenever he departs from this script he immediately starts to "gaffe" his way back to his far left roots. This is what people are responding to. Whenever Barack Obama accidentally slips into being honest and gives the listener something to grab hold of, it is usually something the average independent or republican finds deeply disturbing. I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just EXPLAIN his shitty positions instead of trying to trick me like I'm 4 years old. Yes, I know you want to ban my guns, raise my taxes and talk to Iran. Now explain why you think doing so would be a good thing. If you can't explain your positions, I'm going to assume they are motivated by the same naive stupidity as the other people I know who hold those positions and I'm going to vote for McCain.

- This is BS

May 13, 2008 at 2:20pm

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

I have done a tremendous amount of research on this man, and one of the most amazing things I found was his remarks in his books, "Dreams Of My Father", and "The Audacity of Hope" which I checked out from the library. His admiration for Islam and the disdain for the white race was disturbing. It is all there and it can't be taken out of context. Yet, nobody has/will call him on it. This stranger came out of nowhere with his flowery speeches that his handlers have given him, promising America great things- without specifying how -and droves hang on every word, believe every word and follow without question. If anyone dares to question, they are shouted down with 'Racist'! Bigot'! This is very very frightening. It's time to get the message out to a naive public who are jumping on the "black JFK", "camelot","change", "take back America" bandwagon, without questioning who this man is, questioning his past, his present associates and backers and his agenda. The remarks from his books are very, very disturbing. Again, the remarks are there- and they are NOT taken out of context. Example: Quote from Barack Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father: "The person who made me proudest of all, though, was [half brother] Roy .. He converted to Islam." From 'Dreams of my Father', "In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school" "I studied the Koran.." From 'Audacity of Hope: "Lolo (Obama's step father) followed a brand of Islam ...."I looked to Lolo for guidance". From 'The Audacity Of Hope, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." From The Audacity Of Hope, "We are no longer just a Christian nation," "We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE". From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." From 'Dreams of My Father', "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites" From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..". From Dreams Of My Father: "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives." From Dreams Of My Father; "There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names" From Dreams Of My Father, "I had grown accustomed, everywhere, to suspicions between the races." . . . Just how clear does Obama have to make his disdain for the white race and his admiration for Islam?? Imagine if Hillary or Romney had said: . . " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST THE BLACK RACE". "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the BLACK race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." "never emulate BLACK men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the WHITE MAN,- SON OF AMERICA,-that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself..". IF A WHITE CANDIDATE HAD THOSE REMARKS OUT IN PRINT, THEY WOULD BE CRUCIFIED. . . . . I went to YouTube to look up his speeches to La Raza (Mexican militant support group for illegal aliens) and heard for myself his pandering of the illegals. Go to YouTube and listen to his speeches. Type in Barack Obama, La Raza, illegal aliens and hear him yourself) Statistics on illegal aliens: The Heritage Foundation ^ | 10/25/06 | Robert Rector The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.[3] This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immi*grant will pay and does not include the cost of educating the immigrant’s children, which U.S. taxpayers would also heavily subsidize. In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes Crime Statisitcs 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens. 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens. 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually. 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens. 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border. 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "transport coyotes". 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens. 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens. 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66%, 98% are illegal. Birth Statistics 380,000 plus "anchor babies" were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers. 66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers. Last Updated ( Friday, 20 July 2007 ) Considering the horrific illegal alien problem in this country- that costs us BILLIONS and brings in more violent crime, for Obama to be pandering to the illegal aliens is SHAMEFUL! . . . Obama's speech to La Raza: (La Raza (The Race), Largest Hispanic organization in the U.S. Lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate crimes laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens ) Obama said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights." Obama told La Raza that the mass protests lately of for immigration rights of Mexicans is equal in greatness to the civil rights protest of the past! Omama supports La Raza's, the "DREAM Act," which would mandate states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens -- thus providing them with benefits not available to U.S. citizens from other states, as well as amnesty and other atrocities. Obama urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the Dream Act, a bill that would make illegal immigrant students who graduate from high school eligible for college aid. (Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar measure last year.) . . http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/NATION/107230063/1001 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1870205/posts http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/201957.html CHECK THIS OUT: http://immigrationcounters.com/ http://www.texasborderregulators.org/ . . . . . Then there is his stance on partial birth abortion. Any Christian in good conscience could not vote for Obama! This issue alone should cancel him out. Shameful! http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200801/COM20080109b.html He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions. In a cold blooded speech, he refused to concede that these babies were "persons'- even though they were fully outside their mother's wombs with their hearts beating and their lungs heaving. On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no." . .In the event anyone is not familiar with partial birth abortion; the baby is positioned into the breech position, he is pulled out by his legs half way and a hole in punched into his skull. His brains are sucked out by an instrument while his heart beats and his lungs heave. Obama has voted numerous times against a bill to ban this heinous practice. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24354. . . . Obama's ties to 'slumlord' Tony Rezko http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article . . . Obama's ties to Palestinians and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: http://www.onenewsnow.com/ 2007/03/obamas_pastor_admits_concerns.php . Here we have a man who was BORN INTO ISLAM, expresses his admiration for Islam and vows to stand with the Muslims in his books, a man whose biggest backers are American Muslim activists! Investigate just who this man is, who his backers are. Are you aware that one of his biggest backers, Tony Rekzo is being brought to trial Feb 25 on federal corruption charges- and that Obama is linked? http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article Are you aware Raila Odinga, a Muslim radical involved in the disputed Kenya election is Obama's cousin and that he has kept in close contact with him and supported him? Are you aware that in August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga's candidacy at rallies in Nairobi? Mr. Odinga has an electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum — a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts, not only in the northern and coastal regions where Kenyan Muslims are concentrated, but throughout the country. He also promised to impose Muslim dress codes on women, ban alcohol and pork, indoctrinate children, ban Christian preaching. Odinga is reported to be behind such atrocities as the burning of a Christian church with 50 people inside. Does this not raise some red flags? Islamic leaders have warned us point blank that they will infiltrate America, infiltrate the government- and destroy us using our own laws and our democracy to destroy us! Come on, people. Wake up, for God's sake!! . Obama's voting record. Sen. Barack Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting. The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September. Obama routinely avoids voting on any issue that is not helpful to Muslim goals. For example, Obama missed a vote on a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite part of the Iranian military, a terrorist organization. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/c...o000167/votes/ . Obama is currently displayed as banner boy on the Project Islamic Hope site. Some of the founders of this organization have been indicted for terrorist support. http://islamichope.org/ That's just a few of the things I've learned about this man! Very very frightening!! I have been attacked for "swift-boarding", racism, bigotry and lying. This is untrue. I am just an American teacher who loves American and our American way of life. I hold nothing against a man for the color of his skin. I have stood up for the black race and defended whenever I saw an injustice. I have worked for civil rights for blacks and all minorities. This has nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with a man born into Islam and who defends it still. A man whose biggest backers are American Muslim activists. When the facts are out there for investigation, there are no "lies" here. All I ask is for the public to investigate for themselves. Don't take my word for it. But I WILL NOT stand by while this mans seeks to ride himself all the way into the White House on the insane PC and White Guilt in this country!! _________________ Exposed; http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm, "The Veteran's Dispatch http://www.usvetdsp.com/

- Cindie

May 13, 2008 at 2:22pm

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

Obama is leading Clinton in Oregon (90% white, 1.9% black) by 12pts. The median household income for Oregon in 2004 was $42,568. see quickfacts.census.gov Recently SurveyUSA(5/07-5/08/08)polled Californian voters and although Clinton won the primary by a 10pt margin, the voters were asked who they would vote for today and Obama was chosen by 6pt margin. Hillary lost some of white vote and Obama gained in the white vote.

- Angela

May 13, 2008 at 2:32pm

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

Blacks folk s have been voting for white folks in overwhelming numbers, only now you complain.

- tj

May 13, 2008 at 2:37pm

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

What about the 40% of American voters who said they would never vote for Senator Clinton? Why hasn't she won already if what you say is true? She should have garnered the majority of the Democratic vote by now if she was going to win. Plus, do you really believe that she would gain the African-American vote if she won the nomination after all this? What about all the new voters Senator Obama brought into the system? How about all the Independents? The polls all show that against Clinton, they would vote for McCain. She would never be able to overcome those odds, let alone all the voters who believe she has been divisive, deceitful and manipulative to win at all costs.

- Grace Needed

May 13, 2008 at 2:39pm

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

Sorry to make this so simple but extrapolating any primary exit polling to the general election is not statistically sound. Second, why do so many people watch professional and collegiate sports where so many talented athletes are black? Why are there more inter-racial marriages? Why don't patients dismiss black physicians in an emergency situation? Why do car buyers trust black sales people more than white sales people? Why do white parents allow their children to adopt the style and dress of black children? Why has Rap music lasted over two decades?Think about it.

- Joe (a white person)

May 13, 2008 at 2:42pm

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

I'm loving this - watching the Democrats turn themselves inside out over their own racism. The obsession with identity politics that has been so successful for the Democrat party in dividing America in so many ways is now dividing Democrats. Forget the fact that Obama is a shallow, immature, radical marxist. Just keep talking about his skin color. You can't talk about his "race" without ignoring half of what he is. So when liberal fascists discuss Obama, they immediately reduce him by half, and then diminish him down to his skin pigment. I honestly think he deserves better than the Democrat party.

- doctorfixit

May 13, 2008 at 2:47pm

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

Bend a r a c k Over b a m America! The New Messiah is going to stick it to you!

- Bend Over America

May 13, 2008 at 2:48pm

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

WOW! If some of these comments are not racism, then what is?

- bluntone

May 13, 2008 at 2:49pm

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

I, a white man, will vote for Obama, and that's enough for me. No one will be able to take that vote away from me, nor from Obama. It may be the only white vote he gets, in which case it will not be enough to get him the office he seeks, but that one white vote will be enough to put the lie to any and all arguments that tribalism, which includes racism, sexism, classism, and their fellow spirochetes, trumps all in politics. Even a blind fool can learn if the light is so bright it burns his skin. The fools--Sharpton and Wright and Farrakhan as well as all their racist white counterparts hiding under robes or talking in hushed voices to their pale brethren--will run from the heat of the light of my single vote. How they or others vote is their business, not mine. But the truth of my vote--that a white man who keeps his own counsel may on occasion vote for a black man--will stand.

- williamyard

May 13, 2008 at 2:53pm

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

This "study" is a load of crap. Its definition of racism is what the authors of the study feel is racist. And I think it's safe to say these "scientists" are predoinantly liberal. This is biased crap. Race has nothing to do with it. I'm a conservative. You don't think conservatives would vote for Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, or Condi in a heartbeat? Conservatives don't give a damn about race. We vote based on our conservtive principles. Sometimes it works (Reagan), sometimes it doesn't (Bush I and II). I'm not voting for Obama because he's too liberal for me. Does that mean I'm racist? Does that mean I've been brainwashed by the Republican "codewords"? Articles like this is what makes conservatives think liberals are idiots. Liberalism is a perfectly fine ideology. I understand why people believe guv'ment should play a more active role in society. Let's debate that. But enough of this pseudo-science shit on the "conservative mind". I beg you.

- Load of Crap

May 13, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

95% of blacks are voting for Barack Hussein Obama. That pretty much says it all. Black people will take care of their own. White people care about everybody.

- The Truth Hurts

May 13, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

Obama is the Democrats' ultimate race card. The Democrat party has slandered Republicans and european-americans for decades, mainly to whitewash their own long and sordid racist history. What makes it impossible for me to take blacks seriously is that they listened to the Democrat party lies and swallowed it all hook, line and sinker. Now the Democrats are broadening their race-baiting smear campaign to include ALL european americans who aren't Obama swooners. I wouldn't vote for a Democrat for President unless I knew they would be in front of a firing squad the minute they took the oath of office. Democrats are the world's biggest racists, blacks are fools for getting suckered in to their race-baiting, and I support any measure that destroys the Democrat party, incarcerates their leaders, confiscates their campaign funds, burns their documents, obliterates their grave markings, and expunges any mention of them.

- Rick

May 13, 2008 at 3:05pm

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

In this election, it might be a bit easier to discern a racial factor if there is one at play. Essentially one looks to identify voters who would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate but can't bring themselves to vote for an African American. If there are many of these in the electorate, I'd expect to see a good bit of ticket-splitting with Obama running behind Democratic senate and congressional candidates in swing states, given the electorate's current anti-Republican mood. My guess is that when all is said and done, most Dems will come home and that most McCain votes will come from voters who never would have voted Democratic regardless of the nominee.

- Django

May 13, 2008 at 3:11pm

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

What this all boils down too is racism. I have read most of these comments and the majority of them have not mentioned Obama's qualifications. You would think that he is an idiot (not some one whom is intelligent enough to run this country) and running for presidency based on the black votes alone. Why would most afro Americans not be proud to vote for some one that they think that is qualified and not because of race. We would have voted for Hilary if we felt the same way about her that does not say that if Obama loses, I would not vote for Hilary. So I do not understand if you are a democrat for all these years; why you would vote for McCain if Obama wins. THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU DO NOT WANT THAT BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT IS THAT CALLED "RACISM"? It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just be truthful like the rest, say what you mean. I hate when people try to say it is not about race, IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT RACE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If it was not about race, then this debate would not even be in existence. KEEP IT REAL AMERICA.

- bluntone

May 13, 2008 at 3:33pm

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

I disagree with you. African Americans (AA’s) may hold "liberal” opinions on some issues, but they tend to hold conservative views on others. For example, African Americans tend to favor social equality or enhancement programs, such affirmative action. Simultaneously, AA's tend to frown on homosexuality, covertly. I tend to favor the concept of charter schools and I think there is a need for Federal government intervention in State affairs, particularly in the voting system. I am against eminent domain and I am against partial birth abortion. In fact I think us “liberals” ought to revisit some of our ideas on abortion. I enjoy many AA and “liberal commentators and blogs, but I also find value in some of Peggy Noonan’s ideas. There are instances when I think Thomas Sowell and George Will make a good point. So, what am I, liberal or conservative? It depends upon the issue. It is erroneous to say African American politicians or people tend to be more liberal than other groups of people.

- N.C

May 13, 2008 at 3:39pm

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

I am not so sure that I can go along with the large percentage that will not vote for Obama because he is black. There will be some. My reasons for not voiting for him have do do with his lack of good judgment. his lack of experience and his pro Palestinian stance. I do not like going to political rallies and hearing a sermon. I prefer hearing about the issues Hillary talked about at her rallies. That early on Obama gave wermon adn spolke like a black minister got a lot of people to swoon over him like he was Frank sinatra or the Beatles. Maybe there are a lot of people like me out there who will vote for McCain because of those reasons. Don't asume that every Democrat who votes for McCain is voting against Obama because he is black. Obama is divisve and had many flaws. His glib tongue turns people like me off. I realize that it wins many over to his side. And it's is true his health care plan is for the birds. John Edwards and Kucinich were on the right track but I don't think our congress is there yet.

- phyllis

May 13, 2008 at 3:51pm

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

-

May 13, 2008 at 4:24pm

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

I am white. I will not vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his politics. Oh but I forgot that doesn't matter anymore. We are all supposed to vote for him because he's black and anyone who doesn't vote for him because he is a far-left candidate is a racist.

- JJ

May 13, 2008 at 4:25pm

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

Versus John McCain, Obama will be a loser not because of racial bias against Obama but because most American voters have a bias against black bloc voting which will be 90+% FOR Obama. This is similar to the white resentment against the "O.J." verdict.

- W.Hutchinson

May 13, 2008 at 4:53pm

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

The article seems to tiptoe around an inescapable conclusion--people understand it's socially unacceptable to be racist in public, but often have private racist sentiments. It's not necessarily being dishonest with oneself, or having a conflict of conscious and subconscious--they just know that they need to keep their racism private. Why people find this so hard to pinpoint, I have no idea.

- shiv

May 13, 2008 at 5:13pm

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

How does Obama listen to 20 years of the Reverend's diatibes if he is not more of a racist than me? Why does Obama need to kick off his Senate campaign at the home of 'that casual acquaintance who I have bumped into from time to time' if he doesn't approve of that guy's past as a domestic terrorist? How is Obama going to reach across the aisle in a bi-partisan way and unite our country politically if there is no evidence that he has ever reached across the aisle in any of his two legislative roles? Racism? Hell no. Vote against him because he is a fraud. He can call me whatever he wants because I oppose him, but I know a damned fraud when I see one. They come in all shapes and sizes, and colors.

- Jim B

May 13, 2008 at 5:14pm

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

This article, like most others, suggests white voters without college degrees are more likely to harbor prejudice against blacks because of their lower level of education. I think it should be noted these are likely to be the whites who have competed most with blacks for jobs and college admissions, i.e., who have been victimized by reverse discrimination, or whose friends have. In addition, the incomes of these whites are lower and they are thus likely to have lived in closer proximity to black people. We should therefore be chary of drawing any conclusion that keeping them in school longer would certainly diminish their racial prejudices.

- Exguru

May 13, 2008 at 5:17pm

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

Ethnic Relations by Raymond N. Andrews I am very concerned about ethnic relations in my country,the United States of America. Ever since the presidential race, I am noticing that there is an ethnic divide in USA including especially the Democratic Party. At times, I wished that Barack Obama never ran for president,and so the ethnic tension would not be noticed. Sometimes,I wished that Al Gore would have run for president. He would have been a good choice. He's not in the presidential race though. Barack Obama is. The presidential race between he and Hillary Clinton is showing that ethnicity is a big factor. It's showing that ethnicism is problem that hasn't gone away. The ethnic divide is so obvious, and I feel that the media feeds into it. I also believe that the Clinton Campaign has ethnic-baited people and even dismissed Blacks as not being important in the presidential race. That has fueled Barack Obama's backing by Blacks. A lot of people focus on Barack's heritage as a Black, but he's half White on his mother's side. He's technically a biethnic Black,White person. Genetically,he's about the unity of Black and White. The Obama campaign has been bridging the gap between Blacks and Whites for many Whites have voted for him and not just many Blacks. He has been running as a multiethnic candidate, a candidate that represents the meltingpot of America. Unfortunately, the media and the Clinton campaign keep focusing on the Black side of Obama. There are some examples. Bill Clinton compares Obama's victory in South Carolina was compared to the black candidate,Jesse Jackson's victory in South Carolina. Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama wouldn't be successful in this race if he wasn't Black. That makes no sense to me. After all, he's not just Black. He's half White too. Geraldine just seem to focus on one half and dismiss the other half. She missed out on who he really is. Also, Obama has gotten far more white votes than Jesse Jackson could ever have received. Could it be that his White half also gives him affinity with Whites just like his Black half gives him affinity with Blacks? Of course, I believe that's the case. Obviously, Geraldine, Bill,and Hillary don't. A lot of the media don't. Obviously there are a lot of Americans that don't. The one drop rule seems to persist in USA. Many Blacks and Whites embrace the rule. It's a society thing that forces biethnic Black,White people to acknowledge one half and reject the other half. Many fall to society's labels, but many defy society and acknowledge all their heritage. Barack Obama is being depicted as even more Black now since the Rev Wright fiasco. A lot of Whites are criticizing Obama if he is all for unity, then why does he go to a Black church. Do they ever stop to think that Obama wants to get more in touch with the Black in him just like he is already in touch with the White in him after growing up with his White family on his mother's side? A lot of Whites accuse Rev Wright of being a racist. How is pointing out the ethnicism in USA being ethnicist? All you have to do is remember that President Bush said to the NAACP about that ethnicism is still a problem in USA. He said that you can change laws,but you can't change a heart. The American Civil Liberties Union called out USA on its ethnicism. They noted the ethnic profiling that exists in USA. A survey shows that many Americans know people that are ethnicists. Even 20/20 did a show that revealed that people with Black sounding names get much less job callbacks than people with White sounding names. These are things that confirm that ethnicism is a still a problem. Rev Wright refers to USA as the US of KKK, and people think that's being paranoid. Can you deny the fact that the KKK still exists in USA? There are 179 Klu Klux Klan Chapters across the United States,and they include 5,000 to 8,000 members. There could even be more members because independent chapters has made KKK groups more difficult to infiltrate and researchers find it hard to estimate their numbers. Some argue that KKK is different because it's not a violent organization now. My response to that is "If there is an Al Qaeda organization in USA that is not violent,should they be allowed to exist here in USA like the KKK?" Should the Black Panthers for that matter? I don't believe that any organization that has roots in terrorism should be allowed to exist. Therefore,I believe that all organizations that have terrorist roots should be completely banned. Rev Wright criticized American's policy overseas, and that gets him labeled Anti-American. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing,and even said that USA is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. Does that make Dr. King Anti-American? I don't think so. Barack Obama had refused to disown his pastor as he refused to disown his White grandmother. Many Whites criticized him for throwing his grandmother under a bus. All Barack did was point out that his grandmother made racial remarks about Blacks. How is telling the truth about his White grandmother throwing her under a bus? It's okay for White people to point out a Black person's ethnicism, but its not okay to point out a White person's ethnicism? I just don't get that at all. It seems like a double standard. Many Whites criticize Obama for not disowning his pastor much earlier. Have they ever heard of the sell-out factor? Obama would have been in a dillemma: please Whites in America and anger Blacks in America for rejecting a pastor who is prominent in the Black community and who is known for doing a lot to help Blacks which would result in being a sell-out by Blacks OR please Blacks in America and anger whites in America and be called a racist by Whites. These are issues that bi-ethnic Black,White people deal with. They are often challenged to make a choice when it comes to having affinity with Whites or having affinity with Blacks. Abolutionist,Frederick Douglass was the son of a Black woman and White man. He was married to a Black woman for a long time until her death. Later on,he married a White woman. He was given a hard time by both Blacks and Whites. Blacks accused him of betraying Blacks by being with a White woman. Today that's being called a sell-out. His response was that his first wife was the color of his mother,and now his second wife is the color of his father. He wanted to make a point that he wasn't all black and that he acknowledge both his White and Black parents. He believed that being married to a White woman shouldn't be a problem for he is half White. Frederick Douglass was the embodiment of unity of Blacks and Whites. Barack Obama has denounced his pastor, and he still is being criticized by whites for taking too long to denounce him, but he's also being criticized by Blacks for denouncing him too. The conflict of the black and white halves inside him and mirrored by the outside world are very apparent. Obama has been accused of being an elitist for talking to upper class San Franciscans about blue collar working class Pennsylvanians about being bitter and that that they could cling to guns and religion. Obama's opponents made the elitist charge after the senator from Illinois said some small-town Pennsylvanians are understandably "bitter" over the government's failure to reverse their economic decline and, in their frustration, "cling to guns and religion." He made the statement at a recent fundraiser in San Francisco, California. Bill Clinton said something similar. He said " When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure White men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'" So why is it that Obama says similar things and is referred to as being an elist and angers the blue collar working class Whites. Could the word "elitist" actually be referred to as "uppity" which is often reserved for blacks who stood up for themselves. Many ethnicist Whites believe that Blacks should "stay in their place" and they can be offended by a Black person that is successful. Of course, if a Black person talks about the problems that they have,they could be far more offended than a White person saying it. If a White person said it, he would be often viewed as being understanding and compassionate. There is something patronizing and condescending when a Black person expresses understanding and compassion for the problems of Whites. These are some things that I have seen as double standards of Blacks and Whites that are part of the ethnic divide. The perceptions,opinions,and views often differ between what a Black person does and what a White person does. It's always been that way,and those things have to change. I haven't used the word,"race" except for saying the presidential race. That's because I don't acknowledge the concept of races. I acknowledge ethnic groups. We are all part of the Human Race. In that we are the same. Therefore,we should focus more on that and less on our differences. Like Reverend Wright said, being different doesn't mean deficient. People can be different and equal, but they don't have to be separate. The unity of differences can bring about meaningful co-existence of ethnic groups that advance the evolution of the human race. I have talked about the issues of ethnic relations in our country. It's not about trying to divide us. I believe that pointing out things isn't dividing but waking people up. I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. We should discuss about our differences and our similarities. Learning about our similarites can help us find common ground. We could create a multiethnic,multicultural week which would be about all ethnic groups getting together, teach about our cultures and way of life that would even include our cuisine. There could be multicultural,multiethnic exhibits. We could watch movies with interethnic theme like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner","Guess Who","Soulman","Jungle Fever",and others. There could be books about multiethnic people and interethnic relationships like "Love In Black and White" by interethnic couple, Mark and Gail Mathanabe. Music based on multiethnic relations could be played like "Ebony and Ivory" by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder, "Black and White by Michael Jackson",and "Take Away the Colour" by Ice MC. There could be an annual survey in regards to ethnic relations including questions like how many know people of certain ethnic groups, how many people go to gatherings,functions that involve different ethnic groups, things like food. We could also ask things about interethnic friendships/dating/relationships. Questions about negative things should be asked including experiences of ethnic bigotry and discrimination. We could ask about fears and resentments in regards to ethnic groups. I also feel that questions of affirmative action and reparations can be part of the survey. I also believe that ethnic stereotypes need to be addressed during the survey to see how many people believe in them. After all,ethnic stereotypes tend to be offensive and they factor into ethnic prejudices. I also believe that we should make the June 12 Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court Ruling (that struck down all interracial marriage laws in USA) the day that multiethnic,multicultural week begins. We can discuss the importance of that ruling and how it has impacted interethnic relations. These surveys can be done anonymously too. I feel that gaining empathy and tolerance can only be done through actual experiencing. I feel that you have to walk a mile in a person's moccasins to understand them. That's just my view. Maybe that's how we can bring ethnic groups together. I am the son of a White woman born in Oakland,California and a black father born in New Orleans,Louisiana. I had half Japanese stepsisters. I have a stepgrandmother that is Hispanic who is the mother of my part Hispanic aunts/uncles. I have half Filipino cousins as the result of one of my maternal uncles married to a Filipino woman. Therefore I have a diverse heritage and background. I was even born in the multiethnic,multicultural city of San Francisco,California which is where my parents met. I grew and still live in Sacramento,California which was identified by Time magazine and the Civil Rights Project of Harvard University as the most racially/ethnically integrated major city in America. I grew up believe that we should all love each other. I grew up believing in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Dream. God bless the day when the gap between Blacks and Whites is closed. I end with a poem that I wrote: U N I T Y Unity is our ultimate goal for we are the same underneath our skins that come in many colors. Remember our blood is the same color. So keep that in mind. Don't throw away the dream which is unity. There are no separate races for there is only one race, and that is the Human Race. We are all created equal because we are all human beings, and so we should unite on our home planet, Earth. In order for our world to survive, we have to stop the violence and eradicate the hate which will ultimately destroy us all. Eternal peace will only be achieved through love and compassion as we struggle to coexist. We should love each other for we are all related and should be in unity.

- Raymond N Andrews

May 13, 2008 at 5:30pm

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

the problem, which may be unaddressable, is this: I'm a white guy and a moderate republican. I won't vote for Obama, but not for reasons of race. I was on a Condi08 committee for over a year. Obamas is clueless, inexperienced and extraordinarily naive. He has NO resume. My not voting for him has to do with policy issues. Since my precinct, however, is in a white suburb the media will tell us all that I voted on race. In fact the only people I even know who talk about and get wrapped up in race are democrats - you know, the party of diversity now playing the race card against each other with nary a mean old republican in sight.

- In this dimension

May 13, 2008 at 6:29pm

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

the problem, which may be unaddressable, is this: I'm a white guy and a moderate republican. I won't vote for Obama, but not for reasons of race. I was on a Condi08 committee for over a year. Obamas is clueless, inexperienced and extraordinarily naive. He has NO resume. My not voting for him has to do with policy issues. Since my precinct, however, is in a white suburb the media will tell us all that I voted on race. In fact the only people I even know who talk about and get wrapped up in race are democrats - you know, the party of diversity now playing the race card against each other with nary a mean old republican in sight.

- In this dimension

May 13, 2008 at 6:30pm

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

While a smaller than expected percentage of whites are supporting Obama, an even smaller relative percentage of blacks are supporting Hillary. I don't hear the writer suggesting this voting behavior has its roots in racism.

- Rex

May 13, 2008 at 6:37pm

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

The answer is no. He won't win the working class whites. Period.

- JD

May 13, 2008 at 7:07pm

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

I can't vote for Obama because I am conservative. It will pain me to vote for McCain but he is the best that we get this election cycle. His promise to finish the war in Iraq is his stongest appeal for me. If we can survive four years real conservatism may have a chance to stage a comeback. President Bush conceded far too much to the democrats and the GOP spending spree has been a difficult pill to swallow.

- Ralph Woods

May 13, 2008 at 7:16pm

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

I recall well the Willie Horton issue. Dukakis rightly deserved to lose on issues like this. Furloughing violent criminals is something a large majority of Americans oppose. If they'd shown a picture of a rough-looking white guy as Willie, it'd have had pretty near the same effect. Crime was a big concern in those days, and being soft on violent criminals in particular was not smart politics. Dukakis could have said he made a mistake, that he learned, that he would do it over differently, etc., but instead he copped to race. Bullshit! I'll likely vote for Obama this year, but this resort to racism is tiresome. The races in the US are pretty much equal... equal in having some among them that hate other races. But this shouldn't be used to distract from real issues.

- JTS

May 13, 2008 at 7:36pm

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

"Educated whites" with post-graduate degrees are far less racist than "working class whites". I happen to be an "educated white" with a post graduate degree who emerged form bitter poverty of a lower class working family. I still remeber attending predominately black schools as a child and being ostracized and physically assaulted by both the majority black students and teachers. Actually, I still carry many scars from that era, both emotionally and physically. Even after that harrowing experience, I would have no problem voting for a black candidate who I found to be the most qualified candidate in any race. However, Mr Obama lacks the experience and substance to be that candidate. Maybe many of these "educated whites" should look deeply within themselves and try to explain the real reason for their love affair with this man. Is he truly the real deal, or has guilt triumphed over reason.

- brian

May 13, 2008 at 7:52pm

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

Excellent article with many equally articulate responses. A question that I found missing in the rhetoric was, “If 84+% of black democrats voted for Obama (NC, MS, AL, LA, IL, to name a few), does that imply a form of reverse discrimination?” Even though this data point is only occurring in democratic primaries, I find a percentage as high as 84+ to be statistically significant and indicative of a meaningful focus on blacks wanting to elect a black. Not surprising really, suggesting that any form of discrimination should not be surprising. I wonder if seniors will be more prone to vote for McCain, or if women have a greater love for Hillary? The true insight in the article is that people would be surprised at the thought of a vote based on descrimination.

- LPM

May 13, 2008 at 8:05pm

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

Yes, there is racism in this political battle. It started several months ago when Obama started hearing he wasn't black enough to gain black voter support. He proceeded to pander to the black community who rewarded him with 90% of their vote. NO QUESTIONS ASKED! Worked very well in the southern states. About 33% of the Democratic party in North Carolina is made up of black voters. He got 31.5% of them. I will have no problem bringing up race in this election. He is the one who got the ball rolling.

- ncjack

May 13, 2008 at 9:09pm

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

This White (er, I mean "Garlic Nose") won't vote for Obama, but not becaue he is Black. He won't get my vote because a Marxist will only do harm to this nation.

- Randy

May 13, 2008 at 9:49pm

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

Will whites vote for Obama? Ask the residents of the mountain states.

- Hunter

May 13, 2008 at 10:46pm

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

Much of the anti-Obama comment refers to the 90% Black vote for Obama. I find that to be a thoughtless and/or White racist argument. Whites are dishonest to equate Black racism to white racism. They are not equal. Black racism is a natural result of centuries of legal slavery, discrimination, and deprivation of legacy. White racism is the natural result of greed, born out of the need to dehumanize a victim in order to wring a profit from his body. Black racism is a result of Black experience. White racism is a result of White environment, starting with the mother’s milk. Blacks are racist because of what was done to them. Whites are racist because of what was said to them. Black racism is a natural defense mechanism, necessary for survival of the race. White racism is an unnatural vice born of corruption, necessary for White supremacy. Black racism is needed to restore the poor Black’s sense of self esteem under attack from a racist White environment. White racism is needed to maintain the poor White’s sense of superiority over someone else. Black racism can be justified. White racism cannot be justified. American Whites who complain about Black racism when one third of all Whites will never vote for a human with one drop of suspect blood and when half of them will never vote for a “Nigrah-lovin’ librul” should look in the mirror if they want to see a racist. The only reason Bush sits in the Oval Office is because of White racism. Any complaints about Bush? Black racism will not disappear until at least one generation after White racism has completely disappeared from the planet Earth, Confederate flags included (John McCain, take note). First in, first out! Anyone who expects anything else is either a White racist or a thoughtless fool. Take your pick.

- Atrooper4

May 13, 2008 at 11:31pm

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

Clinton will be in possession of a popular vote lead at the end of the nomination (county Florida and Michigan). In a rush to judgment, democrats have chosen the wrong candidate --- again. Once again they will ask themselves "what went wrong" when the election is over. First, democrats should not let the media choose their candidate for them. Second, democrats should let the people choose their candidate - rednecks, hillbillies, etc - their opinions and votes should be valued as much as Oprah's or any brainiac professor. Third, democrats should try to embrace, rather than alienate, the centrists in the party (remember Lieberman, Zell Miller, and the blue dogs?). I enjoy watching the spectacle. It's like watching a vehicle plummeting off a cliff...

- Democrat_Implosion

May 13, 2008 at 11:46pm

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

This compares to hundreds of years of black oppression how? How inconsiderate of blacks to worry about injustice in the white community. They were too busy being hung from trees, experimented on like lab rats, picking cotton, and being forceably assimilated in order to become " civilized." But by all means due tell us how whites have been mistreated.

- purepunk

May 14, 2008 at 2:08am

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

Why is it that when only 40% to 60% of whites don't vote for Obama that the media calls it racism and when 90%+ of blacks vote for Obama it's not called racism? It would seem to me that the arguement that blacks are voting for Obama based on race is a lot easier to make than the arguement that whites are not voting for him because of his race. Aren't both racism?

- Geoff

May 14, 2008 at 2:14am

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

A-Men!

- JT

May 14, 2008 at 2:17am

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

"white America" ...right... An imperialist empire built on the blood, sweat, tears,and sunburned whipped backs of African Americans for hundreds of years. I'm worried for this country when individuals such as yourself spout bigoted racist remarks. Go promote your race war somewhere else. This is 2008 and history will be made in November.

- purepunk

May 14, 2008 at 2:26am

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

"white America" ...right... An imperialist empire built on the blood, sweat, tears,and sunburned whipped backs of African Americans for hundreds of years. I'm worried for this country when individuals such as yourself spout bigoted racist remarks. Go promote your race war somewhere else. This is 2008 and history will be made in November.

- purepunk

May 14, 2008 at 2:33am

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

Interesting. My hunches about white voters and race were similar. But what about blacks and race? Here in Ohio, if Obama gets about 90% of the African-American vote that is expected then he gets a 480,000+ plurality from black voters. What's the research on balck voters? Has their been any?

- Ohio hack

May 14, 2008 at 7:30am

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

If this were a fair analysis, there would have been some discussion about black people's prejudices. The statement about the GOP becoming an almost all white party also reveals your bias. Why is the question not about why blacks vote monolithically Dem because they promise a particular outcome for all regardless of effort or ability or attitude? This is a disguised political hit piece and nothing more. Liberals need to feel superior to others who disagree with them and need to be able to reject their ideas without actually having to defend liberalism because it usually can not be defended on its merits. That is why non-liberals can't hold differing opinions, they have to be "wrong" for a "reason". This is more liberal PC B.S. I dismiss you as prejudiced.

- Dr. Dave, white guy

May 14, 2008 at 7:49am

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

I agree with Ms. Mendelberg. I am black, not Afro-American, 61, and have experienced this new racism first hand. It just an old tune played with different instruments. I have been called lazy by white friends who knew I worked two full time jobs for 15 years. "You how you people don't like to work." Like I was an exception to the rule. Every black man or woman that I knew growing up was a hard worker and they never profited anything but more hard work. Perception has more reality than truth.

- Thomas Butler

May 14, 2008 at 10:14am

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

Thanks for the insightful summary: As a white rural truck-driving gun-totin redneck, the blacks you encounter stare sullenly and resentfully at you at the 7-11 (I'm sure their lives are just friggin FABULOUS) so it's OK to use that as an excuse not to vote for an intelligent articulate black guy whose policies could improve your own life? ... sorry, I'm a stupid Democrat, not following you here.

- Pat

May 14, 2008 at 10:17am

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

Race is the great occasion for deceit. Nobody but nobody will tell you the truth. But there has been a subtle shift in the style of dishonesty during the last generation. 35 years ago people would say they believed "equality" was just around the corner, and they believed it. Well, white people believed it anyway. And white people readily voted for any Barack Obama who came down the pike. But then they all got burned. They noticed that their generosity was not appreciated, their friendship not reciprocated. Blacks got meaner, more resentful, criminal and violent. Whether this was because of an unbridgeable gulf between the races (wiring in the brain or differences in nervous physiology) or because black people had just had too many generations of resentment and failed promises, it was an uncomfortable political fact for the next three decades. The Democrat Party got to be like a 1972 college dining hall, with the blacks segregating themselves at the Black Table, and the whites scarcely noticing that they were being dissed and shunned. America--which is to say White America--does not want a Negro President. That's how it is. America is like a great city, perhaps the greatest that ever was. But now it is full of self-doubt and riven by financial and social crises. And now it faces the possibility of having its first Negro mayor. So it has to ask itself...does this mean our city is getting better and more progressive? Or does it mean we are in irreversible decline? Our first black mayor. Good thing or bad thing?

- Sallie Parker

May 14, 2008 at 6:34pm

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

I just find it curious to read Republican comments here that "Obamas is clueless, inexperienced and extraordinarily naive. He has NO resume." Did they somehow come to a different conclusion regarding W in 2000?

- r b-j

May 14, 2008 at 8:06pm

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

This is a fascinating discussion, all the more so because so little of it is about Obama. For the most part, it seems to consist in charges and countercharges among the discussants. By their nature, these differences are emotional and cannot be rationally resolved. They will only ramify resentment and get worse and worse. Now, bear in mind, that Obama's appeal was that he would bring us beyond such conflicts. That, he manifestly has not done, which will become ever more clear. My guess is, actually, that over time he will increasingly be resented for having brought this mutual animosity upon us. Anybody who votes for him will have to do it on some other basis than the creation of racial harmony, and if he is to win, that basis would have to have broad appeal. I cannot imagine what it would be.

- Archaeopteryx

May 14, 2008 at 10:44pm

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

I can't help but wonder why blacks vote overwhelmingly for the party that fought to prevent the voting rights act from becoming law in the early 1960s. Democrats in congress and their hero John Kennedy prevented the voting rights act from becoming law until Lyndon Johnson joined with Republicans to make it happen.

- Geoff

May 15, 2008 at 1:28am

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

This was an interesting article, thought-provoking but not without some weak spots. However, what I find far more interesting are the comments. I am surprised to see how many right-wing kooks (sorry, I can't see any other way to put it) read TNR. I am referring to the numerous conspiracy-based comments...Obama's a muslim, he belongs to an extreme Christian Black nationalist church--come on which is the line??? make up your mind! Also the tone of some comments from a number of the supposed Clinton supporting democrats are quite concerning and actually reinforce the conclusion of the article.

- Stunned

May 15, 2008 at 10:52am

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

How about this. Because the Blacks who vote for Obama are educated, poor, and working class he is covering all the bases. Because the whites who may refuse to vote for Obama are of the lower(est) classes, maybe that says more about the America we are striving for. White females must get over themselves. They act like they just got an opportunity to work and compete. Blacks in this country have been working all along. White females have had over 30+ years to create their own companies. It seems the white women who have been successful in breaking the so called glass ceiling (why they strive for that eludes me) have been republicans. If you've got it you've got it.

- Luccie

May 15, 2008 at 12:46pm

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

"I am going to write in Clinton as my choice in November if she does not win the nomination" Then you're a fool! So out of spite, you'd rather throw your vote away? So we can end up with McSame? 100 more years of Iraq war, a broken economy etc... I support Obama (and I am a middle-aged, middle class white woman) but if Hillary won the nomination I would gladly vote her. She is a strong candidate...I just think Obama is better. Fact is, my first choice was John Edwards.

- camanokat

May 15, 2008 at 3:51pm

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

I don't plan on voting for Sen Obama, should he be the nominee, in the fall because he's black. I don't plan on voting for him because he's sexist. There's nothing on his issues page about judicial appointment philosophies or reproductive rights. He doesn't seem to think that it's an important issue, despite its being yet unresolved and in grave danger of being overturned. Hillary Clinton intends, if elected, to sign and finally codify Roe into law.

- Canaryincoalmine

May 16, 2008 at 5:51pm

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

Hs problem is he is not qualified. He seems to make more blunders as time goes on. It is unfotunate that race has to keep coming up. I am angry with MSNBC that keeps brining up this negative seperation with people such as educated whites non educated whites. THat has made alot of Americans mad. Obama has two big problems His MAJOR lack of expereice and the people in his circles.

- Len Cantaini

May 17, 2008 at 9:43am

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

The Clinton "campaign" didn't set Hillary apart as white - it was the aggessive media, needing to analyze and over-analyze EVERY voter who exited the primary polls, separated the parties by color/race and thusly reported how the whites and blacks would vote. They reported. Clinton commented. And it nothing to do with race and everything to do with experience and capability as to how I will vote, and if Hillary is not a candidate, I will not be voting. I cannot in good conscience vote for either McCain (too conservative, even though he is really moderate) or Obama (too naive, too inexperienced and unable to answer the hard questions in debates.) He may be book smart, and he may have worked the streets in Washington, but as John Edwards noted in an early debate, Obama DID NOT EVEN VOTE on the tough questions in the Senate. How will he direct a presidency?

- dorissann

May 17, 2008 at 9:18pm

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

Blacks have historically and tradionally voted democratic. It should be no surprise that Obama has gotten 90% of the black vote...black people vote their party, no matter who is the democratic nominee. However, when you get white people who have voted democratic their entire lives say they won't vote for Obama, they would vote for McCain first because he is white, that is truly a racist. Race should not be a issue if you vote your party...no matter who is the nominee.

- Dee

May 20, 2008 at 7:34pm

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

If anything being black is an advantage to a candidate in America today. White people want to believe that they are not racially prejudiced. If Obama wasn't an anti-American, socialist he would be unbeatable. The problem with the most junior Senator is not that he is black, it is that he is the most liberal member of the US Senate. As long as 4 out of 5 violent crimes in the US are committed by black men you would have to be just plain stupid not to be prejudiced against black men. Just go for a walk in a black neighborhood after dark and see how prejudiced you really are. The police are profiling, they are pulling over everyone driving down the sidewalk. One thing you can't do in the US today - tell the truth about minorities!

- John Isom

May 21, 2008 at 10:19am

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

This is a very well-written article. It is good to see journalism that is thoughtful and well-researched.

- JO

May 21, 2008 at 1:15pm

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

first obama has to take his wife by the hand and get jeremiah wright and the three of them should go to college and take patriotism 101. then i would vote for barack.

- joseph mauro

May 21, 2008 at 3:18pm

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

I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR BHO IF HE WERE WHITE!!! TOO MUCH BAGGAGE, ZERO EXPERIENCE and QUESTIONABLE FRIENDS??

- Anne

May 22, 2008 at 1:09pm

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

hmm.. If a very rich white man screws the working class white nation, is he a racist? TALKING racist trash is one thing, and DOING dirt to our Ameriucan families, the fighting folk stationed overseas, and cutting tax breaks for yourself anf your rich friends - thats another thing. ACTOIONS speak much louder than WORDS. Dont jump to any conclusions about We The Voters - I think we (whomever WE may be) are ready and able to LOOK AROUND OUR COMMUNITIES, see whats changed these last 12 years, and think deeply about what these past few administrations have done to the "white working man" and his family. We'll vote our hearts AND minds, in a new way. Great article. I dont agree with this one bit on pg 7 "...Obama's problem: If 9 to 12 percent of Democratic primary voters in swing states have been reluctant to support him because he is black, one can assume that, in the general election, 15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents may not support him for the same reason...." for my reasons stated above. Peace and one nation to us all

- Ama

June 4, 2008 at 11:49am

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

"Obama's chief political adviser David Alexrod on National Public Radio claimed white working class Democrats barely exist and hardly matte" And your proof is...??

- VVAJC

June 11, 2008 at 6:22pm

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

Careful guestimating how many Dems will find fault with Obama because he is Black. By Ohio and PA so many voted that it nearly equaled total Kerry/Edwards voters. That was a high turnout election so it's fair to say that those exit polls do reflect the full electorate among dems. In this case you may want to reduce your expectation from 15-20% to closer to 11%. Also, consider many liberals may have been afraid of nominating a black candidate because like you they are afraid he won't win in November. For them race would be an issue in the primary but they will not have a problem supporting Obama in the general.

- Paul

June 12, 2008 at 9:03pm

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

Is it not amazing that the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party, John McCain, and his Vice-Presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, come from states (Arizona and Alaska) that have very small African-American and minority (Asian, Hispanic, etc.) representation? When I quickly surveyed the 2008 Republican Convention on television, I was not amazed to see the dearth of Asian, Black and Hispanic representation in the crowds. I did see (1) one black female who was probably a maid to some quasi-rich Republican family who was forced to show her "face-in-the-place" in order for the Republicans to espouse, "See, we are not prejudiced - there is a black person in attendance at our convention" - LOL. America really belongs to the American Indian, and we all know who really took it, I mean stole it..., the same persons who brought the slaves over....

- Aaron John

September 15, 2008 at 2:09pm

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

Did a fact check on this one (Habit of mine; I always do that before sending things around.), and everything checks out. Well, I couldn't verify the thing about moose burgers; maybe she was eating argula instead. * If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.' * Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, it's a quintessential American story. * If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. * Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick. * Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. * Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded. * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. * If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive. * If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. * If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. * If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. * If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible. * If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's. * If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable. OK, much clearer now.

- roxy by proxy

September 16, 2008 at 1:11pm

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

This was sent to me by a friend who is indeed concerned with the issues...and she is white. Did a fact check on this one (Habit of mine; I always do that before sending things around.), and everything checks out. Well, I couldn't verify the thing about moose burgers; maybe she was eating argula instead. * If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.' * Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, it's a quintessential American story. * If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. * Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick. * Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. * Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded. * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. * If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive. * If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. * If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. * If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. * If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible. * If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's. * If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable. OK, much clearer now.

- roxy by proxy

September 16, 2008 at 1:13pm

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

If you study history, the history of slavery, lynching, segregation, labor history, women's suffrage, American interventionism (almost always in support of exploitative forces) and if you see how it is (regardless of party)progressives who have fought for the dignity of all and conservatives who have supported the status quo,you will see why Wright's views make sense to many people. He is not saying hurt America...he is saying make it better by exposing abuse and hypocrisy...by calling a spade a spade, if you prefer the old racist idiom.

- devi

September 16, 2008 at 1:19pm

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

Very interesting reading the comments in here. I am not black or american but do find americans highly rascist. There seems to be a definite divide in america wheither it is perceived or not. A guy in the comments section was complaining that 'we whites gave blacks everything and what did they give us ...nothing' excuse me sir but who gave whites the right to give anyone anything? I thought ultimate power and authority comes from a higher source. We all do bleed red you know. Its funny that humans are the only species that act like this. Its quite absurd its its form. You'd never see a white labrador shun a black one or vice versa. I believe all rascism except in certain cases comes from whites. Heres why (1) whites have always been in charge in the usa because of their numbers being in the past over 90 per cent and now at 80. Being in charge they subjected what they percieved to be lesser races to genocide and murder in america or slavery. (2) Black racism which i do not believe to be rascism at all is a defence which blacks put up to defend themselves against white aggression. In the 30's it was the clan and segregation, in the 40's, 50's 60's the civil rights movements and the 70's and 80's whites cordoned themselves off in large surburban gated communities and left blacks in misery in slums in the inner cities. Whats the old saying that a country and its people will be judged by how they treat their fellow man then my friends in the annuals of history the united states will be judged in a very poor light. The only change will come when whites become a minority and i will hazard a guess the blacks and other races will not treat them as bad as they did them.

- trenttothemax

September 20, 2008 at 10:49pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close