Obama on Meet the Press: It's Still About Race and Gender

Under grilling this morning by Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press today, Barack Obama refused to play coy on any potential pick for the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket, offering only this clue: he wants someone with whom he can govern, he said, and someone who brings to the table strengths he may not have. While the CW types see in that caveat names like Biden and Bayh, Obama's main criterion leaves plenty of wiggle room.

Word comes today that the Obama campaign is floating the name of Ann Veneman, the Bush administration's *first* [update] agriculture secretary, a rather baffling idea, especially if you read Rick Perlstein's take-down at the Campaign for America's Future site. Is this some kind of ploy to engage female swing voters a bit earlier in the process than they would ordinarily tune in?

So, what about Hillary Clinton? Brokaw brought up an account by Clinton fundraiser Jill Iscol of a conversation she had with Barack Obama, in which Iscol said Obama's problem with Hillary was her husband. Pressed by Brokaw, Obama said he would welcome having Bill Clinton out on the stump for him, every day, as the interviewer phrased it, Obama noted how the former prez campaigned to great effect in "small, rural towns" across the country while Sen. Clinton worked the big towns "as hard as she did." In other words, would love, love to have Bill out of sight organizing the "hardworking white people" while the candidate continues to soak up the spotlight. A great strategy, actually, but I'm not so sure how well it will be received in Clintonia.

Answering another question, Obama seemed to reveal an evolving strategy for how do deal with the very issue that makes this presidential election so historic -- that of Obama's race. Confronted by very lopsided poll numbers favoring McCain in measuring the public's perception of the two presidential contenders as commander-in-chief, Obama gave an answer that surprised me: "I don't look like previous commanders-in-chief," he said.

I can't tell you how many times I've found myself shouting at the television when pundits cluelessly wonder aloud why, in light of all of McCain's gaffes, self-contradictions, Keating 5 baggage, health problems and notorious temper, Obama isn't fairing better in polls against McCain.

"Because he's black," I yell.

Hello?

BACKGROUND FOR THIS POST:

Here's how the L.A. Times's Peter Nicholas reported on July 12 the news of Iscol's conversation with Obama:

Obama replied that [Hillary Clinton] is on his list, Iscol recounted, and that it would be a mistake not to have her on such a list. But he also explained that he was thinking through a potential "complication" -- Bill Clinton.

"He said once you're a president, even if you're a former president, you're always a president," Iscol said.

Last week, HuffPost's own Seth Colter Walls reported that Iscol would object to any woman other than Hillary Clinton being named to the ticket. Not exactly what I'd call feminism.

Comments

[luvangelHussein330]

I know it's definantly about race. Just no one will admit it. They would rather hide behind some outrageous email circulating about Obama being some Gay, Muslim, anti christ, extreme tax raising, flag burner, who steals candy from babies in the name of Jihad in order to start a race riot against the poor harmless white people of America for slavery payback....or some other misinformation, to justifiy why they aren't voting for him. Heaven forbid they should be called a racsist.

[luvangelHussein330]

Iscol must think she is a vetter. how cares what she thinks! Pressuring obama gor Hillary is lame at best. She should either fall in line or kick rocks

[MtDavid]

I have several liberal friends who say, "I just don't know... There's something about Obama..."

Yeah, it's about race!

[waitforme]

NOT Anne Veneman! What a stupid idea. She was very much against environmental ideas when she was Ag Sec'y -- and much else that was unwanted.

NOT Hillary Clinton, for any reason. After what she did to Obama in the campaign. ('Tearing his face off', was one respected woman journalist's way of putting it.)

If Anne Veneman is suggested I do not have faith that he will pick someone great. Preferably he needs a woman, someone who is respected, experienced. Next to that, he needs a man who is someone who is respected and experienced. Either need to be someone whom we can trust and who has values we can respect -- that is, fairness to all, respect for women's needs, respect for people of color and for poor people. Not a precious rich guy who has been living in an ivory tower for decades.

[MadeInAmerica]

OOOOOH...Say it ain't so! Could Obama be "gettin' too big for his britches"?

[WFV]

I still say the VP pick will be someone not in the news. Definitely not HRC, but someone we don't expect at all. He will make a great choice, I am confident.

[kainen]

adele, you nailed it... the real swing voters in this elecion are the ones who have a problem with obama's melanin content.

[PumaAnn]

I just think he has confused a lot of people. They aren't sure what he stands for or what he'll really do if elected.

So they aren't committing.

Either the Quinnipiac poll in CA was way off (Obama plus 24 points) or Rasmussen is now way off (Obama plus 10 points). A downward shift of that magnitude in a blue state is very odd.

[ghop]

Actually, if you a really interested you should check out 538's analysis on a lot of these polls. The reality is that both polls are probably outliers.

I'm kind of sick of people posting on polling numbers without providing CONTEXT.

[PumaAnn]

Rasmussen is outlier? I do know that the polling companies sometimes get contracted for small polls, which then get to use their name. But this is CA, and it's obviously a big name.

[luvangelHussein330]

Willfull ignorance is not bliss and is quit immature if you don't know what he is about then youreally aren't trying or have your head to stuck in the ground of spite to see the forest for the tress. Instead of parroting PUMA (Politicaly Unethical Misguided Anger) talking points thnk for yourself and do some research start at his web page. His positions haven't switched much. McCain on the other hand if he isn't flip-floping its a gaffe daily. Wonder what Tuesday will bring.

[egal]

Of course it's race; nobody says as much because then the newsfolk might have to examine their own egregious biases and bigotry the whole country has viewed. And who wants to admit that a significant proportion of their race is stupid and hateful enough to base decisions not on issues, but on skintone? If they faced that, then they might have to give up their longstanding, implicit beliefs they're somehow SUPERIOR to the other races.

That's why it was okay to say black people who clearly were voting based on politics were actually voting based on race, and why it's okay to assume that any black person saying they would vote for Obama because he came from the same economic background, with the same sort of experiences in his history, is really saying they'll vote for him because he's black.

Painting the tale that way makes white people feel superior, let's them say to themselves: "see, MY race would never be so shallow as these stupid n-words". By admitting that more than half of their race, in fact, IS voting purely based on skincolor and ridiculous suspicions thoroughly discredited, they would have to acknowledge that they really aren't innately superior after all.

Too bad the so-called feminists insisting they wouldn't accept any female VP other than Hillary haven't yet caught on to the fact that voting or not voting solely because of gender--especially just because a certain female isn't being advanced--is what real feminists fight AGAINST.

[lpeggy]

well said. :-)

[kyllroy]

Of course its about race, but even the most deeply racist Democrat has to face what is in his (her) best interest. Usually its her (his) pocketbook that leads this horse to water and makes him (her), drink. Focusing on race only pours salt in old wounds. If they end up running to McCain because of race issues, they do it with the nagging feeling that it is probably going to cost them plenty. Blacks voting for Obama can't help themselves. Its just too good to be true.
Lots of Obamaians cite reasons to not include HRC as VP. I disagree. 17.3 million voters cast their ballot to give her the chance to be president. She has proved herself as more than capable. With her fully on his side, she would be a formidible ally, and they an unbeatable historic team.

[Jjc2006]

Give me a break. If race or gender did not matter, do not matter, we would not have a solid two hundred years where ONLY WHITE MALES NEED APPLY. Race matters and gender matter but for the first time in 200 plus years, they matter for many in a POSITIVE WAY. NOW, the white males are all about lecturing women about how if you are really feminists, gender should not matter. BULL!

And why ONLY Hillary for many of us. Because a woman other than Hillary would be the ultimate brat moment. She is the best and has proven she can get the votes...18 million of us.
This recalls to me an incident when I was an adolescent..I wanted to borrow my sister's BLUE shirt. She was in the power position, older and it was HER shirt. She told me "You can borrow ANY shirt of mine, any EXCEPT THE BLUE ONE." We laugh now at the adolescent mentality of that statement. She knew what I wanted.

The Obama campaign KNOWS who the overwhelming majority of women want. If his campaign says "any woman EXCEPT Hillary" it will speak to the maturity of his campaign and the hordes of adolescent minds supporting him.

[kyllroy]

What's funny is that as a long time Clinton supporter, I see no gender or race issue here. Our country has way too many more important things on our plate, including a war brewing, families losing their homes and jobless numbers increasing to lower our sights this election year. The candidate with the best solution should be our primary concern.
If this isn't our focus, then our priorities have become muddled somehow. Maybe a day on the fireline, a day helping out in a homeless shelter, or a day in 140 Degree F heat in a flakjacket would help return us to reality.
How could Hillary not be on the list after the millions of supporters are counted?

[bwither]

Gimme a B
Gimme an I
Gimme an L
Gimme an L

Gimme a list of the donors to your presidential library so that it doesn't become an issue the rest of the GE, as has been mentioned many times before.

[PumaAnn]

She is on the pretend short list. 50% of Dems polled want her as VP.

I don't. Thank goodness it's just a phony short list.

I'm hoping he'll pick Edwards. *beg*

[several]

"I can't tell you how many times I've found myself shouting at the television when pundits cluelessly wonder aloud why, in light of all of McCain's gaffes, self-contradictions, Keating 5 baggage, health problems and notorious temper, Obama isn't fairing better in polls against McCain.

"Because he's black," I yell. "

How interesting. What I yell is "Because they aren't surveying cell phone users or newly registered voters!"

A 'survey of likely voters' means people who voted in 2004 (and sometimes 2000 and 2004.) There have already been record numbers of newly registered democratic voters this year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/27/ST2008042702368.html

And people who have cellphones but not landlines are more likely to be in Obama's demographic, not McCain's:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/14/cell_phone/

It isn't about race. It is about insufficient polling methods.

[Adele Stan - Huffpost Blogger]

Several is correct on the larger question of how polls are conducted, about which I'm currently working on a piece. Put race, I believe, still is the determining factor among the demographic that *is* reflected in the polls. Nice work, Sev.

[presto]

And where do you place those who simply do not like Obama? Where do you place those who are life-long Republicans and have a genuine opinion in the small government/big government dialog? Where do you place those who are honestly appalled at Obama's lack of experience and elusive substance? Where do you place those who can still find something in Ralph Nader? Where do you place those who will draw a line in the sand on civil liberties? Where do you place those who will support neither McCain or Obama because fools do not learn and they are both marching on to more havoc in Afghanistan? Where do you place those who will not stand by as their party and the candidate of their party uniformly paint the opposition as ignorant racists? It is illogical and profoundly damaging to do that. It is tunnel-visioned attitudes like that which will ultimately lose what should have been a no-brainer of an election. It needs to stop.

[gurukalehuru]

His race might also explain why he is not faring better. Spelling counts.

I wouldn't worry too much, though. He can pick any vp he likes, male or female, as long as its not Hillary, and he'll win the election in a walk.

[dawn2dusk]

i believe you're both right