Race and its (Positive) Effect on the Presidential Race

So even though I haven't really been pleased with the coverage of race in this year's Presidential race (i.e., I'm clearly ignoring part of my identity by voting for either Obama or Clinton, Obama isn't black/white enough, the Dems have unresolved issues with race still, Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, etc.) outside of Obama's speech on race, which I personally thought was so on-point and thought-provoking, I'm posting this interesting article on what it is to be of mixed-race in America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/31race.html

Race is such a complex issue in America, even almost 40 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I think is why I was so disgusted with the media trying to make it seem like I as a black woman was conflicted about who I should vote for based on physical characteristics. It's also disheartening to see/hear instances of someone thinking that they've been discriminated against but are automatically dismissed because people think that since there are no Jim Crow signs up anymore or that we're in southern California that racism doesn't exist. At the same time, there are some individuals who allege race discrimination at every corner, which I also think is bad because it does diminish the instances where discrimination does in fact occur.

But this is precisely why we need to have more candid discussions about race in America, and why I hope these discussions don't end on Nov. 5. We ALL make judgments about people based on their ethnicity, skin color, how they wear their hair, etc., but before we can really embrace our differences, we should try to understand why some of our differences are sensitive areas for some.

That's your public service announcement for the day. No more holding of hands and singing Kumbaya from me. I promise ;)

Spring break...but no break from the campaign

Sen. Obama delivered a significant speech today in Philadelphia. It was designed to help answer the controversy surrounding his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Most commentators have described this speech as crucial to the larger direction of the campaign. Take a look and leave some feedback. How do you think the speech functioned to address this controversy?

Apparently, White People & Educated Black People Like Obama

This post has absolutely nothing to do with polling data.

Instead, it has to do with the widely popular viral blog "Stuff White People Like" and more recent spin-off, "Stuff Educated Black People Like" SWPL's tone has a far more sinister bite, dripping with sarcasm and satire. SEBPL is a self described parody created by a self described educated Black person.

Their only point of intersection so far? Barack Obama is on both lists.

On Stuff White People Like, he's #8. Here's the entry, in its entirity:

Because white people are afraid that if they don’t like him that they will be called racist.

Lovely.

Here's the entry from Stuff Educated Black People Like, where he comes in at #12:

Educated Black People Like Barack Obama, but it’s not for the reasons you think.

Yes, Obama is an Educated Black Person, so of course we LOVE him. However, there are other reasons educated blacks like the Senator from Illinois. Another reason is that he’s the first Black person to run for public office without going all Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on America. Obama has not once gotten the NAACP or Black Panthers involved in his campaign. We also like him because he has not solicited their help in his campaign for the Presidency; because educated blacks know that these two men would hurt rather than help Obama’s campaign. Al and Jesse are educated black people, so we like them; but educated blacks can only stand these two in moderation. All the yelling and rhyming annoys educated black people.

When discussing politics with an educated black person, do not automatically assume they are a supporter of Senator Obama. This is almost insulting because you are basically saying that because Obama is black and they are black, the two must go together. Allow your educated black friend to discuss the issues that concern them and they will usually tell you that they support Obama because of how he stands on national issues. It is important for an educated black person to explain why they like Obama, so that they can separate themselves from the uneducated or other blacks who like Obama just because he’s black.

It's funny. SWPL supposes white people like him only because they don't want to appear racist, while SEBPL says that educated Black people feel the need to look past race in justifying their reasons for liking him, and also that they don't like uneducated Blacks who only like him because he is Black, even though they like him as a candidate. There are many interesting claims about race here, and there's definitely shreds of truth to some of the claims. For me, It begs the question... is doing/not-doing something to avoid a talk about a candidate's race just as racist as actually confronting it in a relevant context? More importantly, is it racist of these authors to accuse White/"uneducated" Black people of liking Obama only because they are White/he is Black?

Obama and Republicans Skip 'State of the Black Union'

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/index.html

I, for one, am not quite sure how much of a story Obama's absence at this event is, but I *do* think it's notable who else *didn't* show up...This isn't to say that I'm giving Obama a pass for skipping this event in order to campaign, it's just that I'm pretty sure he's aware of the issues plaguing the black community since he's lived every day of his life as a black man, and he can definitely relate to the black experience. But his absence is a problem, at least for the media, because he's black. Shouldn't the real problem be that no Republicans showed up? And isn't it bad that even the media isn't surprised that no Republicans came to the event? I understand that Republicans have pretty much written off getting black people to vote for them for 40 years now, but I think that not attending events like this perpetuates the stereotype that Republicans don't care about black people or the issues plaguing the black community at all- something that I don't believe is true.

I think that the nature of politics in this country is due for a major change...Our generation holds some different beliefs than our parents, and with this primary season so far, we're seeing that young people aren't holding so tightly to party lines the way our parents are. Now would be a good time for Republicans to try to win some of us back...So why aren't they doing it?

Is This Really Obama's "Real" Race Problem?

We've talked a little bit about the Bradley effect in class regarding Obama, but the following article seems to expand a little bit more on the issue (or does it?). The argument made in the article is that the real race issue with Obama will be with white liberals, whom the author says basically practice de facto racism. There have also been arguments made that the liberal media is so quick to call politicians of color, most notably Obama, "eloquent" or "articulate", words that are rarely used to describe a white counterpart. This argument claims that using these words in particular to describe people of color implies the idea that despite Obama being president of the Harvard Law Review (which indicates some level of familiarity with the English language, one would think), it's still surprising to meet/hear a person of color who has a firm grasp of the language.

Here's the link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_race_problem_whi.html

Does the article of the author have a valid point? In light of the polling inconsistencies in New Hampshire, are we to believe that if Obama doesn't win big tomorrow, that the Bradley effect is the reason why?

Votes Will Speak for Themselves

And then there were two. John Edwards' departure from the primaries leaves the race for the Presidential nomination down to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In the narrow contest between the two, securing Edwards votes could provide a valuable advantage in the polls. Political analysts believe that Edwards supporters will lean towards Obama, due to their similar political viewpoints. However, both candidates have been trying to reach out to Edwards and know how powerful his endorsement could be.

Yet there are other issues that could factor into who gets the votes. As much as people, especially Obama, have tried to stray away from race, the issue has been unavoidable. Much of Obama's South Carolina victory was attributed to large volumes of Black voters, but polls show he won across all demographics, including gender, except for seniors over 65 and Whites 30 and above. Although he had nowhere near as much success in Florida, my point is that he still has a universal appeal.

Tellingly, the ONLY demographic in which Edwards won was among Whites 30 and above (he tied the 60+ers with Clinton.) Obama was last in those categories.

I am nowhere near a political scientist so I know I could be simplifying this: looking at the numbers alone, we could believe that a majority of White voters would vote for Clinton because she came in second in that category (and has beat Obama in that demographic throughout the primaries). However, ideal-wise, Edwards voters parallel more closely to Obama. Where will the Edwards votes go?

In a situation like this, I believe media coverage and framing will certainly play a role for these undecided voters. If the media focuses on ideals, viewpoints, and politics, I believe that voters may be more inclined to vote for the candidate they most closely align with. However, if this becomes a campaign about race (which I do not think it has too much save for the Martin Luther King comment), the results could turn out much differently.

Ultimately, the votes will speak for themselves.

What is this election really about?

The CNN article "S.C. debate to highlight Democratic fight for black vote" raises several interesting issues brought about by the prospect of a black president in the United States. While some feel that Barack Obama would be the natural recipient of the black vote, many African Americans have been hesitant to cast their hopes behind the candidate until recent polls in South Carolina. They fear that doing so may result in a wasted effort because America will never really elect a black president. Similar sentiments have been raised regarding the proposed acceptability of the American people, due to Obama's extraordinary victory over Clinton in the Iowa Caucus, followed by subsequent losses in New Hampshire and Nevada. How many citizens purport a certain level of open-mindedness in public, but vote differently in a private ballot? Is American ready for this change, or are they only interested in seeming as so? 

Personally, I think that it is excellent and very reflective of the changing face of society and what it means to be an American to have an African American and a woman as frontrunners in a presidential election. However, because of these firsts, both candidates run the risk of being pigeonholed into their respective categories. As opposed to personal attacks on each other, and media focus on race and gender, it would be nice to see both candidates evaluated more by their positions on the issues and whether they are capable of doing the job. Obviously race and gender cannot be easily ignored, but sometimes you have to question what this election is really about, and are the physical attributes of the candidates overshadowing what's really important, or is this what is really important in the eyes of the American people?

Race or gender? Reax

An interesting read on CNN has raised some questions for me. CNN published an article discussing black women having to choose between voting their race (Obama) or their gender (Clinton) in the upcoming Democratic primaries. CNN then posted a follow-up to the article, with reader reaction. One of the more interesting reactions was from a reader who basically said that he's a white man who is counting Edwards out, meaning that he too has the "plight" of choosing between race (Clinton) and gender (Obama) when he selects a presidential candidate.

My question is this: Do you think this line of reasoning will ever take hold among voters should Edwards drop out? Will the media think this aspect of the presidential race is even worth reporting? Or is the whole issue of voting race vs. gender oversimplified? While CNN attempts to shed light on a group of voters that will play a key role in who the next Democratic presidential candidate is, does the race vs. gender thing reinforce what appears to be an underlying idea that women and minorities can't look past surface characteristics?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html