But by the Content of Their Candidacies

Today is the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous final speech in Memphis, Tennessee. The one in which he stood on the mountaintop at end of his life's journey, looked back to valley of what had been and surveyed what was yet to come.

Behind was a life full of scattered victories, loss, despair -- depression, even -- but ahead lay many, many dreams.

Over the years, one dream has stood out more than most. The dream he expressed at the 1963 March on Washington, in which his children would one day live in a nation where they would "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Those words have become controversial over the years, with conservatives using them to claim King never intended for there to be social subsidies and affirmative action. Michael Eric Dyson picks apart their weak argument in his powerful book on King's legacy, I May Not Get There With You, noting how it ignored the very spirit of King's work and almost everything else he ever said. The event at the Lincoln Memorial was called the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" for a reason, you know.

Still, great progress has been made -- in some areas more than others.

Take the Democratic Party for example. Their Senate Chairmen of the 1960s like segregationists James Eastland and Richard Russell are a far cry from today's progressives like Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd. If anyone has embraced the spirit of Dr. King, surely it's the Democratic Party... right?

Sadly, some Democrats -- with great help from the media -- are becoming fixated on the color of skin with the argument that 'Barack Obama cannot win' because he has trailed Hillary Clinton in some states with white voters. Spurred on by the Clinton campaign, the media has fanned the flames, determining that the only way Obama can lose this thing is if a 'race gap' makes superdelegates bolt.

Obama's campaign is battling back against this, arguing that all along their model has been to expand the Democratic Party, increase the number of black and young voters and bring like-minded independents and Republicans into the fold. It certainly explains several of the overwhelmingly white states he won.

Which is why I ask that today the Party set aside the emphasis being placed on who-won-the-most-white-Democrats-where. Let's consider that there are some states in which the Clintons have been -- and remain -- very popular among Democrats. Consider that maybe these Democrats -- many of whom happen to be white -- are voting on the basis of who their favorite candidate is, and not against Obama on the basis of his race.

Voting on the content of their candidacies, not the color of their skin.

It makes sense, doesn't it? A lot of Democrats are white. And a lot of Democrats really liked the Clintons and want to give them another term in the White House. Hence, a lot of white Democrats will vote for Clinton. More in some places than in others.

But, as the Clintons have been implying lately, does it really mean that Obama is going to be wiped out among white Democrats against John McCain in November?

And if he will be, doesn't that say something terrible about Clinton? That voters aren't really voting for her, but against Obama -- and because she's alleging they're too racist, to boot!

Obama is working to expand the party with activating people who have never voted before. Take them out of the equation, and it would be Clinton with the nomination wrapped up. Clinton came into this race the prohibitive favorite, and at no point has she seemed to hemorrhage her base of support. The difference is that Obama made the pie bigger, and he's won the most states and delegates because of it. Am I the only one that makes sense to?

Apparently Clinton will be in Memphis on Friday to commemorate King's death. It would be most appropriate if she and the media could pay tribute to his life by giving credence to the idea that this campaign is not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their candidacies.

Whoever the Democrat is that accepts the nomination on August 28, he or she will be doing it 45 years to the day when King espoused his dream of equality. Both should honor it in their campaigns, and have faith that the Democratic Party is capable of being that just.

Or perhaps it's only a dream, after all?

Follow John R. Bohrer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JRBwrites

Comments

[Lazyeye]

Well, I think that Obama is a truthful person. And, sometimes, like myself -- it is hard to put your exact, innermost feelings into words. Especially in the personal arena. I am "white" (I hate being labeled, but, so far in our great nation, it seems a given...) -- and I understand perfectly, how Barack came to say, 'my grandmother had issues" (not precise words, but...) from a long culturally divided history.
What I do know is that since Barack Obama came on the scene, I no longer have to type or write or say the words, "African American" anymore. Suddenly, it's Ok to say black. And, I reckon until we grow up a bit more, it's Ok to say to me, "typical white".

[JMBrodie]

HuffPost's Pick

I logged on originally thinking I was going to go on a rant about this being a defining moment in the history of our nation. The idea that people will vote for a person because they represent something good that we want to see... yeah, never had anything like that before, huh. Yes, there is something that touches me deep inside about the idea of Obama as my president. But then, there was something that touched me about Bill Clinton when he ran and about Hillary Clinton before Barack came on the scene. For a lot of you, it seems easy to box up the feelings of a great many people into places you can dismiss. It's not that easy. I remember when Michelle Obama made the comment about being proud to be an American for the first time. I knew what she meant. I worked hard, and I had had success in my life. I know where that success came from and I know the price that was paid. But I wasn't proud to be an American. I couldn't shake the images of lynchings and cross burnings and laws to limit my involvement in my own government. I loved my country, rooted for my country – my country that did not love me. Then this guy Obama comes along. He represents something that can be. If he wins, my life may not change very much, but my soul will be uplifted. And you got a problem with that, why?

[SonofLiberty1]

Yes, I think it will be a defining moment, the moment that we decide to either put someone who has at least some experience in the White House or put someone who is all talk and no action in the White House.

Sorry, but I don't really put much stock in Obamamaniacs who HAVE GOOD JOBS because they have NO REAL IDEA what they are talking about.

If Obama wins the White House and DOES NOT get things moving in say 3 months, be assured those of us that are hurting are going to be doing some real marching!

[nk007]

JMBrodie:

A very big thanks for voicing our sentiments. Bill Clinton inspired us not "stop thinking about tomorrow." Rev. Jesse Jackson implored us to "keep Hope Alive." Tragically Sen. Clinton (and Bill too) and many of her supporters seem determined to stop thinking about tomorrow and instead to think about yesterday. Sen. Obama has ignited a new vision that has inspired, and uplifted,millions of people: young and old, male and female, black, brown, white and all the colors in this multi-racial America. I strongly believe that if he wins this country will be "uplifted" even though all of us still have to struggle to make it a better land. Your post touched my soul.

[obamasboy85]

Great article, Jack! I'm proud of you, bro. I agree 100% with the points that you make in the article! I still can't believe that it has been 45 years! If you don't know who posted this comment, then I'll just say that I was huge supporter of MFUME in '06. That should provide a clue...lol.

Keep up the good work.

[booksnmore4you]

Can we finally get a grip on the fact that Obama is not black? He's bi-racial. He's as mixed as a mutt, if we were talking canines. Like America. This makes him an American candidate.

[nk007]

booksnmore4you;

Most learned anthropologist teach that there is only one human race with differences in pigmentation, hair, etc. A great many people we call Black are mixed with Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, etc. In this respect Obama is not unique. The problem is that race is so ingrained in the American social and cultural fabric that it is difficult to convince people that were are all part of the single human race with its genesis in Africa.

[sporcupine]

“Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”

Dr. Martin Luther King
April 3, 1968

This year, we can make a major step forward on Dr. King's final charge to us all. We can't do it by ignoring our diversity, but we can do it by delighting in our variety, by looking at one neighbor after another and delighting in their company and in a country that is home to us all.

I'm backing the guy from the Harvard Law Review, the one Richardson and Hamilton endorsed and Colin Powell says is worth considering, the one who hears a new challenge one day and answers it it cogently and consistently the next, the one who underlines UNITED in United States of America.

First , he's the best candidate for the job.

Second, he's changing the electorate with better politics and better politicking.

And third, after forty years in the wilderness, he's the one get us moving on that better nation agenda.

Yes, I'm delighted to have a candidate who isn't (entirely) white. But if Obama was the spitting image of John McCain, he'd still be the right one for the job.

[elbzee]

Wow, sporcupine, well said! I agree with you!

[TXfemmom]

Well, I think much of Obama's support arises out of the fact that he is black, charismatic, and photogenic, and not because of the content of his policies or experience. I don't think that anyone should not vote for someone because of the color of their skin not should they vote against them because of the color of their skin. Obama, however, has associated with someone who is racist and hates white folks and painted a swath across whites with a wide brush.

I have worked for Civil Rights for forty years, supported financially the Southern Poverty Law Center, which broke the Klan, and think that everyone should be judged by their character. When Obama through his grandmother, who is white, under the bus after she had loved him, protected him, sacrficed for him, and cared for him when he didn't have anyone else, but PROTECTED AND REFUSED TO SERIOUSLY REFUTE WRIGHT, THAT TOLD ME EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW ABOUT HIS CHARACTER.

[sand252]

How is it possible for you to "think" that his support arises from the fact that he is black, charismatic and photogenic? Have his "supports" said those things; has that theory been polled or tested? Based on reading comments on numerous blogs, it is clear that people support him because he is smart, quick-witted, thoughtful, among other things. It may, however, be true that his race, charisma and photogenic qualities have helped him to a large extent with certain groups and have hurt him with other people. Furthermore, it is imprudent to call someone a racist without knowing the person. It is telling when numerous white people from the Chicago community that know Rev. Wright have defended him and have told detailed stories on how he has either helped that person or has made them and other people feel welcomed in that church. Additionally, persons that have actually watched the entire sermons (not clips) say that, in context, what he was saying was not racist.

Lastly, Obama did not through his white grandmother under the bus -- he attempted to illustrate that his grandmother has said things that he does not agree with just as Rev. Wright has and that he loves them both. There is no need for anyone to object on behalf of HIS grandmother except for members of his family -- and no one from his family has.

Sidenote: supporting civil rights does not give you the right to judge his relationship with his pastor and his

[FogCityJohn]

TXfemmom, I have to at least give you credit for honesty. You claim you're against Obama because he "has associated with someone who is racist." So you're admitting that your views are based on guilt by association. The crucial question then is whether you hold white politicians to the same "guilt by association" standard. Have you examined the people with whom Hillary Clinton has "associated" and held her responsible for their views? I suspect you haven't.

Oh, and nice job repeating the right-wing talking point that Obama "through [sic] his grandmother . . . under the bus." Of course, he said precisely the opposite in his speech, but then, why should you let Barack Obama's actual views get in the way? You've already shown you prefer not to consider his own views but to impute to him the views of others. I might have thought that someone who had "worked for Civil Rights for forty years" would understand that all black people don't hold the same opinions, even if they "associate" with one another.

[elbzee]

Again with gramma thrown under a bus????

Since when do the words "made me cringe" equate with "throw under the bus"??? Why is everyone so upset about Obama's poor ol white granny being so dissed????!!! EXCUSE ME?

Txfem, you've told us everything we need to know about your listening skills.

[AnninCA]

What is wrong with you that you cannot see how inappropriate it is to hold someone up to ridicule who raised him?

Do you have a clue as to what it takes to raise a child?

[AnninCA]

I agree. It's really nothing to do with his race. It has everything to do with his attitude toward's people.

His remarks about his grandmother said it all. Absolutely.

[jade7243]

Good God...Can you people not READ ? Did you not get the sentiment, the purpose of the article?

Let me answer for you.... NO YOU DID NOT! You completely missed the point. And that is sad,

Frankly, those of us who did grasp the meaning of the author's words -- just words -- should really just let the rest of you wallow in the sewer where you belong, instead of trying to lift you out of it. Watch out for the floating excrement and giant roaches.

[Gma11]

I am among those who had parents and grandparents who were very good people - but whose unconscious racism and homophobia often made me cringe. There was no changing them. You live in California, I take me? I have a daughter who lives and teaches there (Cal State Fullerton - actually she's chair of one of the departments). Her students ask her why they're still studying racism - isn't this behind us now. She speaks of her all-white home town in rural Wisconsin - no, it's not. So you may not have had a grandmother with fears of black men. Many of us did.

I'm encouraged that the entire church organization of which Obama's church is a part had decided to engage in a serious faith-based. experiential and honest dialogue on race. One of the most encouraging news items of the day!

[Aleka]

Yea...why don't I beleive you...where else I have I seen this "im not racist but...SCARY BLACK MAN DONT VOTE FOR HIM"

Seeing people like you and Clinton fan the flames of hate while playing innocent and pointing the finger makes me feel sick. Are you really so small? Do you not have a conscience?

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Don't forget the Democrats proudly billed themselves as The White Man's Party for a century, old habits die hard.

[LeeFromVA]

I think Barack Obama has the best chance of winning the general election, but let's say for the sake of argument that he doesn't have the best shot at winning. Does that mean we should abandon him? Does that mean we should pick an inferrior candidate with the best shot at winning? I don't think so. It's time Democrats starting picking the BEST candidate and quit worrying about who the Republicans think is the best Democratic candidate. We need a candidate with integrity and honesty. Remember folks, you're not only picking the nominee for the general, you're picking who you want to represent the Democratic Party. Do you think we'd be best served with Hillary and all her lying, and dirty politics? Can't we make a statement that we're better than the Republicans? That we want to lift ourselves up out of the gutter? I WANT A CANDIDATE I CAN BE PROUD OF. IT'S TIME THE DEMOCRATS STOOD FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN WINNING PETTY FIGHTS WITH THE REPUBLICANS.

[RepublicanBrain]

It is a dream. Not because of the candidates necessarily, but because of the Democratic voters. NOW and feminists are out in support, cheering Hillary's XX chromosomes and lambasting others for not supporting it as an attack on women. Obama's got the same thing with his racial ancestry. People are talking about how "symbolic" it is as if that means anything. This is about merit, while Hillary's woman-ness and Obama's skin color are little more then sight gags to amuse the crowds.

Anyone who says "Let's move into the 21st century by voting for a woman/black President" doesn't have the interests the nation at heart. They aren't interested in progress. They just want to see something. That's the saddest thing I've heard in quite a while.

[Gma11]

There was a post somewhere here yesterday about an old pro-Civil War argument. Should we first support women's rights or abolition? Which is more important?

This argument is based on the type of divisive assumptions Obama is attempting to move beyond. Whether America is ready for that is another thing!

[bernie12]

"doesn't that say something terrible about Clinton? That voters aren't really voting for her, but against Obama - and because she's alleging they're too racist, to boot!"

why no, it doesn't say something terrible about her, it is the same argument that has been made against her for years, "people won't vote for her because she's a woman, therefore nominate someone else" - implying that americans are sexist louts but this doesn't ring as "terrible" to you. just the way god intended it right? this isn't sinful or awful or a denial of basic human rights when the argument is made against a woman, it's just life?

i'm a democrat who will vote for obama if i have to, but clinton = racist themed lectures like this are infuriating. and if obama supporters don't realize that clinton supporters are not racists, you are going to lose us. one of the reasons the Clintons have stayed in such high regard has been there willingness to bring race and civil rights into the national discussion. if you think clinton supporters do not share the dreams of MLK, and to accuse us of racism you will lose us, insult us, alienate us much farther out than november. if you think that the struggles of only select minorities are worthy of the obama campaign then the big tent is crumbling, democratic party. if mccain were pro choice, you'd really be in trouble.

[efranklin]

I guess sometimes an article just goes over one's head. The whole point of the article is that Clinton is not making an argument *for* her candidacy, but rather an argument *against* Obama's. She thus is tasked with convincing the old poobahs of why voters will not support him in November. This is the problem with an entire campaign framed in the negative. Every argument is tainted with pessimism. It's been a long depressing string of anti's, nope's, and never's from the Clintons, and it's tiring people out. Anti-speeches, anti-hope, anti-unity, anti-change, anti-fill-in-the-blank, etc.

[deutchs]

Exactly!!

[AnninCA]

I believe he couldn't care less if he loses us. Otherwise, he never would have played the race card or demonized Hillary or insulted Democrats for Clinton as he has.

He imagines that we'll have no other option but to vote for him.

He's wrong. I can write in Hillary's name. I can leave that race blank. I can vote for Nader. I can do a lot of things other than give him my vote.

He won't ever get my vote.

[Mesaywar]

I do believe that you've finally voiced the source of your irrational hatred of Obama; you realize that he does not need you, or your kind.

And that even if he does lose, his supportes will still respect him, because he will have lost without selling himself to become president,...the way Hillary Clinton has.

And I believe that the resentment may also stem from the realization that although he might lose, she most definitely will. And, in for years he will be more organized, respected, and well funded than he is now; while Hillary Clinton just might be campaigning for dog-catcher somewhere in upstate New York.

[JAJ2007]

Exactly - couldn't agree more.