Politics of race
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: The Dick Morris thesis on South Carolina is fast becoming a kind of in the media world. (He suggests that Barack Obama has been trapped into going for a big win in South Carolina that establishes him as The Black Candidate and destroys his chances everywhere.)
It can only be true, of course, if the (in a 97% white state) was an abberation, which it may well have been for a whole host of reasons. But talking to African Americans in Charleston (where I am at the moment), there is still plenty of optimism that the racial aspect of his candidacy need not be fatal.
Trouble is, of course, that no poll can suggest whether or not they are right because of the obvious risk of people lying. In this election - with 20% of Californian Democrats undecided - I cannot really see how Mr Morris can be so sure.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Dick Morris has never been right about anything. I'm not that worried...
Actually, if anything, Obama's blackness is HUGE, huge asset. The problem is, the Democrats had their eyes on Hillary for a long time and now Obama's appeal is a monkey wrench in her gears. By the way it should be noted that Obama has little in the way of qualifications or experience to be considered for the Presidency. It is his blackness and charisma that is making people all over America swoon at the prospect of voting for him.
Justin:
The other major racial angle to his candidacy is Hispanics. Hillary is currently leading Obama 4:1 in national polls amongst Hispanics. The racial resentment that Hispanics have against Blacks (always salient in political science surveys), and the positive affect they share with white (of course there are Hispanic whites for whom racial commonality with whites is even more salient) is going to be crucial.
I think Morris is exactly right and he is not alone in coming to that judgment. Multiple independent political analysts have commented on the same. So in a sense there is a consensus amongst analysts and that is so because the media story that will come out of SC is not going to be about Barack but his victory amongst AA who are going to be salient.
Do also consider the "Bradley" effect and the social-desirability effects that up the exit poll data on Obama but not the real polling data. So in effect whatever data we are seeing is tainted. Analysts estimate the size of the effect to be anywhere between 2 to 5%.
I think the problem with the concept is that no politician including Obama is interested in loosing. Every politician want to win whether in white,blue, green dominated. South Carilina was there before Obama was born and even conceived of runing for the presidency. What America needs is someone who can solve the problems that face the country and the nature of American body politic dictates that no politician can be successful without being bi-partisan. From my neutral perspective, Obama on the Democratic side offer that appeal which can help them. So, they should infuse race because it is not about race but about the people. Assuming Obama wins the presidency, is he going to be United States president of blacks president?
I do think that Obama's race has come to be an issue in the election, but not because of racism on the part of the American people, but because the media it seems believe it to be a big deal, and therefore it is. Obama's race and illogical questions about whether or not he is 'black enough' when the all of the other candidates are not black at all, as well as the constant hammering of the question 'Is America ready?' may somewhat sabotage Obama's chances. If the media convinces the American people that a black man cannot win, they will choose someone else feeling that their vote for Obama would be futile, therefore ironically making it impossible when it otherwise would not have been.
I believe that Barrack Obama will win the South Carolina on his merits. In terms of experiences, there is nothing much to separate Senator Hillary Clinton and him. Just because she has spent over six years in the US Senate does not make her more suitable that Barrack Obama with little more than 2 years. The difference between the two is one of generational gap. Obama has this far astutely portrayed himself as someone who can be trusted by all Americans inspite of its checquered race history. So successful has he been that the irony is many veteran black civil rights leaders like Andrew Young and Al Sharpton have gone over to the Hillary Camp. Obama attracts the yound, icealistic lot just as JFK did. America, I believe is ready for just a generational leap.
I wish the media would stop proliferating the concept of Mr Obama being "the black candidate". He is absolutely equally as white as he is black. Does one's blackness automatically trump one's whiteness? Seriously? Let's PLEASE move beyond the erroneously perceived colour of this man's skin and focus on his stand on the issues and the urgency of the times and culture. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
The kind of people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate (or a woman) wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway, so race shouldn't be an issue.
The real trap is in the distractive propaganda aimed at sowing seeds of doubt. Dick Morris and those who share similar views may prove to be right if Americans - and especially the Obama camp -, lose sight of the broader issues that affect the lives of all Americans; that won them white support in Iowa and that brought them close to Victory both in New Hampshire and in Nevada.
My own view is that Clinton and Obama have been playing to different audiences.
Clinton has always taken the long-term national-wide view whilst Obama has been much more short-termist concentrating on specific primaries and especially in South Carolina.
The old phrase winning the battle but losing the war comes to mind and I believe that is what is going to happen here.
Obama will win South Carolina only to lose on Super Duper Tuesday - especially in the big states like California, New York and New Jersey.
Moreover, Clinton's long-term view is not just to February 5 but beyond - she knows that the GOP machine will throw mud at her and by establishing now that she is a fighter that will put her in a good light for many voters.
Whilst many voters say they want a unifier the truth is that negative campaigning still works and it is those who come out fighting the hardest that often succeed. Kerry was attacked at the last election and did not respond - he took the "I won't go to their level attitude" - and look how much good it did him. If Clinton wins - and I believe she will - then I don't think that will happen this time.
I wouldn't pay too much attention to what Dick Morris says--because of his many silly inventions, and because he's never impartial regarding the Clintons, whom he dislikes. In the column Webb refers to, Morris says, "So why is [former President Bill Clinton] making such a fuss over a contest he knows he's going to lose." Maybe I'm naive, but Mr. Clinton isn't running for anything in South Carolina. Morris also claims that Mrs. Clinton tried "to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement." That's not how most normal people interpret Mrs. Clinton's widely dissected remarks on the push for civil rights in the 1960s.
It is unfortunate that even in 21st century we should still be talking about black candidate, woman candidate, mormon candidate, evangelist candidate, and so on. How about reframing the discussion in terms of American candidates? Of these, some are for preservation of status quo, some are for revitalization of the nation and its image through change. My vote is for that - for hope and aspirations, for getting away from fear-mongering and class warfare. My vote is for Barack Obama.
So, merely because one happens to be 50% African, he should be weary of winning black votes in South Carolina? This is absolutely ludicrous. It amazes me that the media spends an extreme amount of time focusing on Senator Obama's African heritage. He is biracial. He is 50% African and 50% European, but why in the world is this important. He is a 100% human being who happens to be moving the very foundation of American politics. He is the first candidate in ages that has come along offering what the American people have dreamnt about: Intelligent candidates who get beyond issues that have nothing to do with our checking accounts, health of our children, and safety of our nation. He combines everything GREAT about this county in one package. And he is entirely focused on unity and disregards the divisiveness this tainted media promotes. If, other candidates behaved more like him, they might actually WIN!!!
Keep in mind that 20% of voters in California are independent (decline to state) voters. Only the democrats are allowing us to vote in their primary, which could make the primary very interesting.
Justin,
You make a very good point, this race is so hard to call because of its ground breaking nature that polls become almost useless - look at what happened in New Hampshire! It is a difficult balancing act for Obama, especially in South Carolina, but he has wide support among whites and need not become solely a black candidate. I think the fact that Clinton is so popular among blacks will prevent this from happening.
On a side note, I spoke to you after the Bill Clinton event in Charleston yesterday (I'm the one from England). It was great to meet you and see the Ö÷²¥´óÐã reporting from my adopted city. If you ever need an extra correspondent down here then let me know!
Matthew Carrington.
Mr. Obama will be measured as any other candidate....for his positions on the issues facing Americans, his experience, and his perceived expertise.
The race card is mostly for uneducated voters....which may play in some rural communities, but that is unlikely to win him an election.
In any case, winning the primary, is only a preliminary step, and he still has to win against the opposing party, in November, which may prove more difficult than the Democrats are willing to admit.
just by suggesting this theory - that a win for barack in SC means he is THE black candidate - contributes to making it so. we can no longer determine if it will be a natural phenomenon or if the imposition of this idea on to the voting public has made it so. if white voters FEAR that barack is the black candidate then this will effect their vote. the primary reason they might have this fear is because this notion has been imposed on them and repeated in the media for almost a week now. i have heard it on msnbc, pbs, cnn, and bbc.
intellectually, i think the theory is un-insightful and far from profound. is it a big shock that black voters may have an affinity for a black candidate? has obama not been favored in SC from the beginnning? not very revolutionary thinking. but certain journalists and campaigns will attempt to exploit this 'news flash.' and it will raise fear in white voters ... because america is still racist and white people (subconsciously) are always afraid that there will be a big black backlash against them. should the black public ever get unified ....
Jan 24's World Service coverage of the US primaries consistently used the locution "Democrat Party." This is an insulting usage developed in the past 10 years by Bush et al., I suppose to avoid conceding that a party or electoral system might actually be democratic. Maybe your using it is naive, but using it suggests that you favor the Republicans.
Actually, reading your blog suggests the same. Why are you assuming that Edwards is out of the race? Why buy into the US media's preference for a race vs gender contest, and forget about the issues?
Likely Obama will fall short, but primarily because he lacks the political experience, particularly campaign experience, of the Clintons.
Hillary will likely be the Democrat candidate. She could pick Obama as her vice presidential candidate, but if the campaign is too acrimonious, she won't.
Obama will be well-positioned for either 2012 (if Hillary loses the general election) or 2016 (if she wins and serves two terms.)
Race is a factor in South Carolina and all over the USA (for that matter in GB too) In the past it was the white Americans who furthered the Black White differences. That was in the past, it is the Black population of America that makes Black an issue now. All too often I have heard Black Americans say Whitie owes me, my Great Grand Father was a slave. Let me remind the Black population Whites were also slaves. They were
called "BONDED SERVANTS" and worked in the coal mines and steel mills of the north.Who owes their decendants?
I did not understand Senator Obama's great success in Iowa, I do now. WOW!!! What he said regarding taking on McCain, changing the playing field in foreign affairs and his understanding of health care tells me that he has a vision. A vision which many are missing out on. Obama is speaking not only to Democrats but Republicans and Independents as well. I AM GLAD… Senator Edwards has been good, however he must come to realize that not only middle class Americans live in this Country. He comes across as only wanting to be the president of the middle class. Finally, I have been disturbed as to whether Senator Clinton has a vision outside of a strong desire to win. Added to that, Senator Clinton continues to speak of her experience and decision making. Yet, what I remember of her experience & decision making process are poor decisions. She is the only First lady to have her name associated with scandals in the Whitehouse during her husband's tenure as president, "Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate," to name a few. Furthermore, I am dumbstruck that she would try and polarize women away from any other candidate, - suggesting that she would like to be the President of women. Again, there are more than women living in the U.S. Boy if she were Elizabeth Dole, yes, or even Chelsea Clinton… ah well… Obama has my vote NOW!!!
It is not surprising that Obama appeals to white voters, given that he is just as European as he is African. How can Obama ever
"transcend" race, if he's constantly treated as only half a person? His unlikely ancestry makes him the embodiment of an American. He should stress that at every opportunity. If we acknowledged this important aspect of Obama, we would truly take a step forward. It's impossible to minimize the role his mother played in making him the man he is today.
The point about Obama is we actually for the first time a post-racist candidate - one who is comfortable in a totally non-phoney way (cf. the Clintons) with people of all backgrounds - that is what is makes him so valuable to a country with such a diverse population as the United States and also incidentally will make him serve as a model for politicians in Western European countres with their now similarly diverse populations. Unfortunately, the media is lagging way behind on this.
For everyone who opines that Obama doesnt have enough experience to be president, I would like to say two words: Dan Quayle.
If you add in the "Keith" factor [named after Keith Olbermann of Countdown on MSNBC] the levels of uncertainty are even larger. However, the Clintons are tough campaigners and use to being in a slugfest. Barack does not appear to have learned the lesson of political battle; even John McCain was killed in South Carolina in 2000 by the lies of the Shrub. Barack should look at how the McCain of 2008 contrasted with the McCain of 2000 and learn the lesson. Politics can be and usually is dirty pool.
I think we will be suprised by Obama's success. There is a growing movement of support for Barack Obama. Friends who have been entirely disenfranchised by US politics, are actively getting involved. Many Democrats are scared to even consider Obama because they've been led to believe that Hillary is the only viable option. Once they realize that is not the case, his support will grow.
Americans are hungry for a leader who can inspire a nation.
In 2005, Dick Morris predicted Condi Rice would run against Hillary. Oops.
All the same, the Father of Triangulation remains an able strategist.
According to Mr. Morris (New York Post) Hillary has blown it early and often. Her "campaign professionals (including Bill) decided to stress experience, precisely the wrong message in a Democratic primary. Prematurely appealing to the center and abandoning the left, she fell between two chairs - not sufficiently centrist to win independents or liberal enough to attract Democrats."
Does Hillary miss Mr. Morris sucking on HER toes? Time for a reconciliation? After all, 2008 is the 30th anniversary of Morris' involvement in Clinton campaigns.
I thought I was beginning to get the hang of all this. Bow I'm more confused that ever. I think all wait to see what Super Tuesday brings before I place any more bets.
I am glad to see that the party elders appeared to have successfully muzzled Bill and that both campaigns, [Obama and Clinton] have pulled cranky ads that potentially undermined the Democratic race as a whole. Polls are polls - votes are votes and only the latter is at all significant. Blacks, Hispanics and Women aside, there is a huge raft of Americans out there who will have their say on Feb 5 and they will be swinging like crazed pendulums until the polls close. Obama won Iowa and Hillary was beaten into a distant third. In NH and Nevada she got the edge but Barack was so close behind as to incite Bill into 'black ops' mode. This contest will go to the wire and my money is on the young senator from Illinois to win it by a whisker. In the meantime, lets hear what meat is on the bone from both camps.
hillary has ruined it bama will win
Obama has been trapped because he must win in SC. Expectations are so high. People presume because he is bi racial that black voters in SC will come out for him in droves. Yet, here is the connundrum. If he doesn't win, then people will assume Iowa was a fluke and no one will know for sure how to carry the US South in November. His ship will be sunk. Except for VP, an offer I assume he would take, should Hillary offer. Further, I think that Obama has facilitated open, frank discussions of race, a rather positive, rare event in the US.
Obama will sink or swim with the Hispanic vote.
That much has become clear.
I think the above analysis is spot on, that is, an Obama win in South Carolina (pretty much guaranteed) will only cement Obama's reputation as the black candidate in the race. There has simply been too much talk of race for it to be otherwise - and that most definitely includes the Obama camp too. In the end though, I reckon Clinton will get the nomination. In their heart of hearts most Obama supporters know that too.
And just think: a few months ago we were all worried that Obama would not be accepted by the African American community because he was too 'white'. I am fairly certain Mr. Morris is incorrect, and perhaps may be attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. His view rejects the notion that a candidate can be good for everyone, not just one race or another. I also think Mr. Morris ignores the fact that Obama trailed Hillary in NH by only 2 percentage points, hardly a loss of the proportions necessary to classify Iowa as an aberration.
Obama win in Iowa an aberration? Few months ago it was said Obama will not be accepted in the black community because he is not black enough and today you spell doom for his campaign if he has a victory in SC. What a contradiction?
I am sick and tired of this senseless distraction about candidates being a Mormon, a Muslim, black not black enough. American people wake up. Like the Roman Empire you about to crumble. America needs a leader who can unite the country and solve huge challenges such as an economy in recession, huge trade deficit with China, protracted and costly Iraq War, mortgage melt down, millions uninsured etc.
Go to work, do some research and find out what the candidates stand for to make an informed choice.
As electorates if you fail to do your home work then you will pay the prize with another Bush in 08.
Only in the "media world" could any "thesis" that stupid to become "accepted wisdom." What does that mean, anyway? Only that same cadre of lazy, insecure scribblers who measure their own worth in part by their proximity to insiders like Dick Morris are repeating what Dick Morris wants them to say. Garbage.
Only in the "media world" could any "thesis" that stupid to become "accepted wisdom." What does that mean, anyway? Only that same cadre of lazy, insecure scribblers who measure their own worth in part by their proximity to insiders like Dick Morris are repeating what Dick Morris wants them to say. Garbage.
I am very disapponted that the color of a person still matter in the U.S. today...America, we are the number one country in the world with racial division and this need to stop.. Obama is an American like any other american who deserve the chance to lead this country regardless of his skin color. In the marines, racial division is our greatest enemy, we are one, serving as brothers from the same belly..
Why not the American public follow the exemple of the U.S. Marines corps and let there be one America and one American.
The premise of this entire article is redicilous and racist. To suggest that only members of a certain race will only vote for a candidate of the same race make absolutly no sense. African Americans, White American, Latino Americans, all Americans ultimately decide thier candidate based on a number of issues not just race. The media needs to focus on the issues. America is a nation of many different people and we need a Presdident who can bring us all together as Americans to so we can reamin a great Nation.
#18, no you are totally incorrect. The DEMOCRAT PARTY has been in use as a term for MANY years, not just the last 10.
Barry Goldwater( remember Him?) referred to the party as the DEMOCRAT PARTY, in 1966 when he was running for election as the Jr Senator from Arizona, and stated the Party was called the DEMOCRAT Party for the past 100 years( at that time) at least get your facts correct, even when blinded by your hate of GW....
An open letter to the Clinton campaign: As a local television political affairs commentator, I am extremely appalled and disgusted by the Hillary Clinton campaign’s political "hit" tactics using Ex-President Bill Clinton in the role of "bad cop". Not only will this style of campaign lose my vote, but also I will begin speaking out against Hillary's candidacy. As a life-long moderate, I believe that the issues facing this nation are the most critical we have ever faced since the Great Depression and World War Two.
Such destructive party in fighting turns off the very voters you are trying to bring into the political process. Stick to the issues and topics that real people are concerned about, run a squeaky clean campaign, not one ruled by character assassination in place of new ideas.
The Ex-President can not change his damaged legacy using his current method of high profile support for your candidacy. On the contrary, he is doing greater damage to both which will come to haunt your campaign
in the general election with devastating impact.
Independent voters do not want Bill back in office and his current tactics only serve to reinforce his shortcomings and their fears. The country has been moving toward the Democratic Party’s ideals and this election is the Democratic Party’s to lose. The Republicans cannot win as they have Bush’s ghastly legacy of war, corruption, short sighted neo-con international policies, failed economic planning, destruction of basic American civil rights, no new ideas, nor can they re-unite this fractured nation.
Ms. Clinton, I implore you immediately stop the destructive bickering and move toward a positive, cooperative campaign strategy…for if you truly care about this nation, your actions or lack thereof will speak far louder than any words.
I am really tired of the oversimplification of this race into one about race and gender. I "revised" a recent CNN article to see how it would sound if the headline were: "Gender or race: White men voters face tough choices in S.C."
The overall reality is this: Any Republican will lose in November to any Democrat (due to the record of the Busg administration) UNLESS the Democrats chose to commit suicide by nominating Obama. -- Ken in North Carolina
If someone chooses to not vote for Obama, the automatic assumption is that the voter is racist.
I would never vote for Obama, but it has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
#1
I have never voted for someone that young.
#2
I am all for change, but not the kind he is offering. One of his books praised the idea of the Federal government setting salaries. No thank you. That is socialism.
Fact is that the Democratic Party calls itself exactly that. Republicans will deliberately mangle the name, but journalists should not do that unless they wish themselves to be seen as party hacks.
Barack Obama may have dark skin, but he is not the descendant of slaves and he barely knew his African relatives. The white grandmother who raised him is very much alive and cyncial about this campaign. He was hired merely as a paid community organizer. Not a bad person at all, but supremely inexperienced for the position of President. And what's worse, he would lose the election for the Democrats, if chosen as their candidate in the general election. He is a "rock star" creation of the media and a section of the Chicago establishment. Let him get eight more years experience in the Senate and run in 2016. He's too young now.
I find it disturbing that anyone listens to Dick Morris anymore. You may remember that he is the guy who was thrown out of the first Clinton campaign because of relations with a prostitute. He then went on to make absurd documentaries such as 'Fahrenhype 911" in which he claimed Clinton was too soft of terrorism. Basically, this guy will stop at nothing to throw a stick in the spoke of any democratic campaign. More troubling: he seems to have been successful: look at all the people here arguing about a non-issue.
Bottom line: paying attention to anything Dick Morris says is an easy way to discredit yourself.
Dick Morris is in the political game for hinmself only. When advising Clinton the power wemt to his heaad and he had an affair "because he could".
He is two faced and cannot be believed.
People tend to talk more of the demography of South Carolina to seem to be the reason why Obama won because about half of Democrats there are blacks. But they seem to forget the fact that he convincingly won Iowa, 97% whites and Hillary finished third. Hillary had never even had a convincing victory so far, and never won more delegates were she finished first despite the fact Whites are the overwhelming majority in New Hampshire and Nevada. So it was not race that is moving Obama forward but because he is the better candidate with candour and vision and people liked him. When Oprah endorsed him, they said because she is black, but Caroline Kennedy and John Kerry did endorse him, they said they are disappointed. He will keep winning.
Everybody is talking about RACE. What criteria is used to classify people as "WHITE" or "BLACK"? Why do people refer to Senator Obama as BLACK, knowing very well that he is coming from the mixture of two races (from WHITE mother and BLACK father)?
The politico comment, in case you are not aware, was a poor take on the cover of TIME magazine after Obama's stunning Iowa win: It's the voters, Stupid! Am a white American female I will say what I hear all over my home state (and Hilary's political home) NY: WHO CARES WHAT RACE OBAMA IS???
What Americans of all labels are responding to in the man is his point blank directness in the issues he presents and the way he presents them. We have been hostage to small but powerful special interests here who have used CorpSpeak or GodSpeak to get elected. WE ARE SICK OF THEM.
Race-minders are either victims of racism who are fighting for justice or neurotics who fear what isn't just like them. I imagine that America's blacks will overwhelmingly support Obama, and MANY non-black Americans will also. Every voter votes what resonates with them. Obama resonates with non-blacks who appreciate who the man is, not the packaging he received at birth. To politico I respond: It's the Change, Stupid! and hope he and those like him in the US and elsewhere get out of the way because this train is rolling!
I live in Carson City NV, and participated in the caucus. In my precinct, the first separation had Obama and Clinton in 1st and 2nd, but Edwards had less than 15%. In the second separation, the Edwards team turned en mass to join Obama. Only 12% of the Edward's group went to Hillary. Obama took our precinct by 59%.
The point is, I live in "Rural Nevada". We had 2 precincts caucusing in the same room and it was a sea of white faces. This region is not known for being friendly to minorities, outside the confines of a casino.
I think the Nevada results actually represented a far more significant push for Obama than anyone has realized. Anything north of Vegas is so white, your head swivels at the novelty of seeing a black face.
He's the only candidate I've cared about since Bobby was killed, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Race has no part in what I see in this man.
Evan andersen
It must be tough to be an African American voter in this election. It is hard to know whether they vote for whom they are most confident or vote to help get racial issues behind us. evan andersen thinks if there was a Danish guy running that he would vote for them just for being Danish. Is this being Nationalist or proud? Hard to say but even harder for the American Racial divide.
evan andersen