Advertise Here!
 

Most Viewed

Top 6 articles this week:

Write In

In order to use this feature, please sign in or register.

Advertisement
Reproductive Biology

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Obama and the race card

The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way...


By Jonah Goldberg

The news media have been shamefully stoking the idea that the only way Barack Obama could possibly lose the presidential election is if American racists have their way. Indeed, the fact that Obama isn't leading in polls by a wide margin "doesn't make sense ... unless it's race," says CNN's Jack Cafferty.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg says Obama is losing among older white voters because of the "color of his skin." Many journalists are so committed to the racism-explains-everything line they are labeling any effective anti-Obama ad as an attempt by John McCain to "viciously exacerbate" America's "race-fueled angst," in the words of one New York magazine writer. For example, a McCain ad noted that Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed former head of Fannie Mae who helped bring about the current Wall Street meltdown, advised the Obama campaign. Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty gasped that because Raines is black, McCain is playing the race card.
Obama's lack of experience, his doctrinaire liberalism, his record, his known associations with Weatherman radical William Ayers and the hate-mongering Rev. Jeremiah Wright: These cannot possibly be legitimate motivations to vote against Obama, in the view of the press. Racism is all there is.

Much of the argument for the centrality of race in this election hinges on the so-called Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, Los Angeles' black mayor, was polling well among white voters in the race for California governor. Bradley lost, suggesting that large numbers of whites had lied to pollsters about their intention to vote for him.

I have no doubt that the Bradley effect is real. But the Bradley effect does not reflect racism; it captures voters' fear of appearing racist. Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only makes non-racist people embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.
Ironically, a new AP-Yahoo News poll claims that among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters, racial prejudice is a significant factor. According to the pollsters' statistical modeling, support for Obama may be as much as 6 percentage points lower than it would be if there were no white racism.

I'm skeptical about those findings, as well as the overemphasis on race generally. But to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist. SP

COMMENTS

Commentby Kia | Wednesday, October 01, 2008, 11:40 AM

At first I wasn't going to dignify this ignorant opinion piece with a response. And seeing as no one else has commented, I guess they also felt the sameway. The obvious swipe at Obama and the one-sided opinion of the author or this "article" deserved attention.

I see the author conviently forgets to mention Sarah Palin's witch hunting pastor, and the Hagee pastor that endorsed McCain, but so willing goes off on Obama's ex-pastor. So,let me getthis straight. It's okay for the right-wing crazies to have pastors that blame single mothers and gays for EVERY bad thing that happens to America, but it's wrong for anyone else to have a pastor with controversial views?! Oh I see, it's one sided. It's okay is it's a white pastor because he's just "zany". But if it's black pastor, even though some of his comments were true, he's a "terrorist" and "dangerous". Okay, gotcha loud and clear.

Whether the author likes it or not, there are tons of people in this country who refuse to surrender the White House to a person of color, even though blacks are the ones who built the damn White House. And if George W. Bush isn't a prime example of what people will settle for, perhaps Palin will refresh their memories.  

Commentby Drew | Wednesday, October 01, 2008, 7:36 PM

Previous comment really proves a couple of points: 1) you can't make an observation, regardless of it's merit, which fails to praise Obama, without being labeled "racist" or "narrowminded". and 2) the issue is too loaded for most people to engage in rational debate.  

Commentby Harris | Thursday, October 02, 2008, 12:18 PM

I agree with Kia.

Jonah Goldberg has never written a balanced, well-researched piece on any issue.

Besides which, he wouldn't even have his job if his mommy wasn't a powerful editor. Jonah Goldberg is, like the Bushs and McCains he constantly shills for - a product of privilege who hasn't had to honestly compete for anything he has in life. It's all been given him by his rich and powerful mommy.

And Andrew is a patent, boring 'conservative' whose comments, like Goldberg's, come straight off a Right Wing talking points memo.

Think for yourself, or don't speak, Andrew.

To suggest that the media always shows love to Obama - after all the muck-raking and inuendo marketed against him this past year - is dishonest tomfoolery.

Worse than that, you know it, but just can't help yourself?  

Commentby Drew | Thursday, October 02, 2008, 4:23 PM

Thanks, Harris, for making my point. Your comment is filled with personal attacks, hyperbole, caustic labels, and loaded buzz-words. While you regurgitate your version of some vile party line, YOU would accuse ME of lacking originality.

If you were better at it, I’d suggest you try thinking for yourself. In this case, however, I’d recommend that you exercise the “cut and paste” feature on your laptop. I’m sure you have some relevant “Change We Can Believe In.” websites stored under your “favorites”.

I thought I had tired of partisans who were grossly “on message” until I read your’ comment. You clearly shouldn’t stray too far from what your camp tells you is information. Or, your might try reading the article that you purport to have commented on, and actually open and engage your mind.

Painfully, all Goldberg had to do was combine “Obama” and “race card” in the title of the piece, and we’re off to the races; all because Harris and his ilk don’t have the patience to actually read. (Confession: I “browse” too. But I’m not going to RANT until I’ve bothered to READ)

As I remarked earlier, too many readers (as if Harris were one) are willing to jump to conclusions and draw erroneous assumptions about one’s political affiliations or “leanings” based on one or two remarks; especially when they have to do with race.

We are at a critical point in the evolution of this country, both socially and politically. Healthy, open discourse is needed. Comments like Harris’ and Kia’s above don’t move us forward, they set us back. And they probably consider themselves the “progressive thinkers” in the debate.

Now if that’s part of any “talking points memo”, I missed it. But then, I missed the one preceding it as well.
 

Commentby Harris | Friday, October 03, 2008, 11:36 AM

Right, Right Winger.

Pointing out who Jonah Goldberg is and his relationship to the issues of the day is fair play.

As for Andrew, you are actually far more boring than I first asserted.

Need attention, Andrew?

Or is that an unfair quote of your previous personal attacks on others on this site?

Right Wingers don't play fair, don't talk straight, and use exactly the same methods they criticize in others.

As for me, I know Jonah Goldberg very well and said nothing untruthful or unfair about that Good Old Mommy's Boy. He hasn't earned anything he has in life through fair competition with others.  

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here.

The Sunday Paper actively moderates site content.
Offensive material will be removed.
However, user comments on display do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Sunday Paper or its staff.

Get what we're talking about
Items we've reviewed in the latest issues of The Sunday Paper, from Amazon.com

 
Advertisement
Zifty
Advertisement
Midtown Shop and Dine
Advertisement
High Tickets Now!