Randall Kennedy, the award-winning author, Rhodes scholar and esteemed Harvard Law School professor, is worried that Obama will lose.
So worried, in fact, that he has already begun analyzing why Obama will lose, if he loses, and the repercussions of that loss, if there is one, in an expansive essay for the Washington Post:
If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I'll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I'll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip. If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn't win... (emphasis added.)
We don't know what will happen. But just to indulge Kennedy's hypothetical: If this is a close election, decided by a single state, say, or a few points nationally, then it would simply track with the last two presidential races. You know -- when white Democrats lost to a Republican candidate that many experts, reporters and most of the liberal establishment thought should definitely lose.
It is entirely possible that Obama can transcend racial prejudice and win the election; or transcend race and still lose for other reasons.
Now Kennedy could end up being right, too. If Obama loses in a blowout, underperforming compared to traditional Democrats, or losing blue states because white working-class Democrats rushed to McCain, then we can have that conversation about racial prejudice.
Kennedy didn't even wait for that, though. By the end of his essay he hit Stage Five, acceptance of that potential Obama loss:
But I hope that soon thereafter [an Obama defeat] I'll find solace and encouragement in contemplating this unprecedented development: A major political party nominated a black man for the highest office in the land, and that man waged an intelligent, brave campaign in which many millions of Americans of all races enthusiastically supported an African-American standard-bearer. I hope that I'll take to heart the wisdom offered by [one] of my students. "Obama losing," one wrote, "would be hurtful, but it still spells substantial progress. . . . Change WILL come -- the wheels have been set in motion."... Even if Barack Obama loses in November, he will have bequeathed to all America something that should bring comfort and pride to even the most disappointed of his followers. He has reached the edge of the pinnacle. And shown that we can stand atop it. (The end; emphasis added.)
Why should they? If the Democrats lose a third straight presidential election, there will be angry soul-searching on every topic -- from politics to policy to race. And it won't be pretty.
Agonizing over the contours of that debate, however, is as premature as Kennedy's essay -- and this blog post.
--
Ari Melber writes for The Nation and The Washington Independent, where this piece first appeared.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
My problem is that half of the democratic party buried its head in the sand and refused to even consider that this may be a problem in the general election. This clearly was not the time to take a chance on Obama and take the chance that people will not vote for him because he is half black, and let the Repubs will win again.
Any time one points out Obama's shortcomings or the problems with his electabliity, they are labeled racists, when in fact they are just realists. I was a Clinton supporter, and I believe that even the Republicans know she was the more qualified candidate, and that just makes the nomination of Obama make the Democrats look stupid, and worse, careless at this crucial time. Strategy is a factor of any contest, the Repubs know it, look at the Palin pick. Why can't the Dems ever learn??
But this is exactly what we have chosen to do by nominating Obama. It is the audacity of continuing to hope, despite the easier option of conceding to failure.
Dear Professor Kennedy, please spend less time making diagrams, and more time volunteering. Visit www.barackobama.com or your nearby Obama office. Put yourself in the vulnerable position of hoping even though you may fail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-NrT5JTVo
I know that this has been said before by Gerry Ferraro -- and it was greeted by screams of "racism" just like every other statement critical of O's candidacy -- but if Obama were white, he wouldn't have even been considered for the nomination because of his lack of experience.
Many of us Democrats who now refuse to support Obama might very well have supported him further down the road, when he had a real record of service to back up his candidacy. The tragedy of all of this is that his candidacy is flawed because it is premature, and not because of his race. It's even more sad that people won't acknowledge the real reason for his loss.
Like it or not, he didn't WIN votes by "being black".
I read the worst comments on the Huffington Post before Clinton lost the nomination and, astonishingly thereafter too. I often commented that Obama's supporters should be magnanimous and charitable in victory but that advice was cast aside. Instead, many Obama supporters continued with their vituperation towards Clinton and me for that matter.
Obama has now made a series of miscalculations and his campaign is definitely foundering though I believe, and hope, he can resurrect it and regain the momentum in this general election campaign and ultimately win the presidency. Hopefully, some of Obama's supporters have learned this. Support is earned.
However, I don't think that there are really that many, I hope and in the end, Obama wil lget the votes he needs simply because he is the better candidate.
Would America rejects God if He were black?
I also see religion as a bigger factor than race. Ignorant people who think Obama is a Muslim so will vote for McCain and those that want Roe v Wade overturned will vote for McCain/Palin. I am nervously optimistic that Obama has registered enough new and younger voters to counter these republican voters.
I will stay in the present and stay focused on the goal. I'm going out this weekend to canvas and urge voters to register.
It has been my experience from younger republicans that Rev. Wright assaulted their religious system of belief. The FEAR that Obama could “possibly” be a secret Muslim outweighs the FACT that he is black/biracial/different color.
I also have to say that I as an agnostic, mature and rational thinker my first reaction to Rev. Wright was totally visceral and felt like a blow to the gut. It was a mix of repulsion to Rev. Wright’s bombastic pseudo-religious sermons and trepidation that most of the “mainstream” religious voters would be unlikely to view this rationally.
This is just my experience
Is there racism in this country? - yes
Are any racists going to be voting for president? - yes, racists of all available colors will vote for president (yes, Virginia, they CAN be)
How many racists are going to vote? - Nobody knows, but many with an agenda think they know
Has McCain acted like Bush 44? - No, not in the eyes of many good and thoughtful people
Could/will McCain/Palin win WITHHOUT the racist vote? - Most assuredly, the country comes down center-right, directly in McCain's lap
Is the left's vehement denunciation of Palin sexist? - For the most part, no. Democrats (and especially Hillary supporters) will do anything to make sure the first woman elected on the national ticket is Democrat, even at the expense of reason. Also, Republicans of their imagination would never vote for a woman.
Thank you, Oracle. - No problem, my child.
Something called "courage" goes a long way ... and is the only way towards real change.
For the author to suggest that a landslide win for McCain/Palin would mean that Obama had lost because of his skin color is simply wrong. McGovern lost by 61 - 37% (520 - 17 electoral) because his politics were so far left. Obama is the first Democrat nominee since '72 to come even close to McGovern's far-left views.
where the f**k have you been for the last eight years ?
lefties is that suppose to be an insult as opposed to neo-con that turn everything they touch to s**t
I think you're wrong. Youth are quite stupid, and easily manipulated. I think the voting age should be raised to 40.