Slate.com: If Obama Loses, racism is the only reason McCain might beat him

Status
Not open for further replies.
lumbingmi

lumbingmi

Active Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
4,370
Reaction score
6
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, at 12:02 AM ET

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.
__________________
Click to expand...


Racism is the only reason Obama might lose. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

*** we re doomed :mad:
 
Yep, lumbingmi...that's exactly what I was talking about when I made my comment in the debate thread about why people were focused on his father being a Muslim. Just a thin disquise for what they won't really say...OMG HE"S BLACK!!!!! :roll:
 
Personally, I believe he's too radically liberal, way to the left of mainstream America and that's why he will lose. At least I hope he does.
 
Tousi said:
Personally, I believe he's too radically liberal, way to the left of mainstream America and that's why he will lose. At least I hope he does.
Click to expand...

<cough> so sah leeeee sim! <ahem> :laugh2:
 
Tousi said:
Personally, I believe he's too radically liberal, way to the left of mainstream America and that's why he will lose. At least I hope he does.
Click to expand...
:gpost:
 
Tousi said:
Personally, I believe he's too radically liberal, way to the left of mainstream America and that's why he will lose. At least I hope he does.
Click to expand...

So u re saying that America isn't ready to have Black or Woman in White House?
 
Question: Which voter is racist?

The one who votes for Obama because he's black?

or

The one who votes against Obama because he's black?

Answer: They both are racist.
 
Reba said:
Question: Which voter is racist?

The one who votes for Obama because he's black?

or

The one who votes against Obama because he's black?

Answer: They both are racist.
Click to expand...

Gotta to agree with you with this one. I m worrying about Obama being next MLK. I wish God would protect Obama from white supremacy but I doubt that would be happening. :(
 
lumbingmi said:
So u re saying that America isn't ready to have Black or Woman in White House?
Click to expand...
Where did you read that in Tousi's post?

It has nothing to do with "black" or "woman" but all about political philosophy of the candidate.

Personally, I would love to see a black or woman CONSERVATIVE in the White House. Actually, I would love to see a real CONSERVATIVE in the White House, period.
 
lumbingmi said:
Gotta to agree with you with this one. I m worrying about Obama being next MLK. I wish God would protect Obama from white supremacy but I doubt that would be happening. :(
Click to expand...
I don't want anyone trying to assassinate any of our presidential candidates. We need to resolve our differences in the voting booth, not in blood letting.
 
Reba said:
Where did you read that in Tousi's post?

It has nothing to do with "black" or "woman" but all about political philosophy of the candidate.

Personally, I would love to see a black or woman CONSERVATIVE in the White House. Actually, I would love to see a real CONSERVATIVE in the White House, period.
Click to expand...

He was hoping for Obama's defeat.
 
Reba said:
Where did you read that in Tousi's post?

It has nothing to do with "black" or "woman" but all about political philosophy of the candidate.

Personally, I would love to see a black or woman CONSERVATIVE in the White House. Actually, I would love to see a real CONSERVATIVE in the White House, period.
Click to expand...

Like.....Colin Powell?

Reba said:
I don't want anyone trying to assassinate any of our presidential candidates. We need to resolve our differences in the voting booth, not in blood letting.
Click to expand...

Agree!
 
lumbingmi said:
He was hoping for Obama's defeat.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not for reason of skin color.

Obama is too liberal for Tousi and me, no matter what color he is. If Obama was a 100% white blue-eyed blond, he would still be too liberal.
 
I don't know which president I favor, yet. I just saw in the news about arrests of like 3 mens who had guns while in some Obama event.

Jeez, it just goes to show how small certain people's brains are. Color is just a color simple. If he was white, he wouldn't have those racism issues.

It's not a matter of being ready for a colored president or a white woman, it's a matter of candidate having guts to be the next president that's not a white male. If no candidates try, America will never be ready.

If Rosa Park didn't refuse to give up her seat, America would not have been ready.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Like.....Colin Powell?
Click to expand...
If he ran on a true conservative platform, possibly. However, he is "pro-choice" which is not a conservative tenet.

Unfortunately, black conservatives don't get much public support so people don't know much about them. How much positive press do we read about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ward Connerly, Stanley Crouch, Shelby Steele, Alan Keyes, Armstrong Williams, or J.C. Watts?

Let's not forget conservative Hispanic, Asian, and Native American men and women, too.

Then again--why focus on color or ethnicity at all?
 
Reba said:
Yes, but not for reason of skin color.

Obama is too liberal for Tousi and me, no matter what color he is. If Obama was a 100% white blue-eyed blond, he would still be too liberal.
Click to expand...

I would pick Obama over McSame. McSame would repeat what Bush would have done.
 
lumbingmi said:
I would pick Obama over McSame. McSame would repeat what Bush would have done.
Click to expand...
If you choose Obama for his platform and not his skin color, then you and I are on the same page. I don't use skin color as a criteria for my vote either. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top