White Voters Deserve More Credit

The Clintons are playing the race card, and it isn't pretty.

In the four primaries and caucuses held so far, Barack Obama received between 34% and 38% of white votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada and 24% in the three-way race in South Carolina. If you believe the Clinton campaign operatives, and some of the media pundits who've regurgitated their spin, the 36% of white voters in South Carolina who voted for Hillary, and the 40% who voted for Edwards -- as well as their white counterparts in the three other contests -- voted against Obama primarily because he's black.

So, they suggest, he'll have a hard time winning many future primaries where white voters comprise a majority of votes. And, they imply, if Obama happens to win the Democratic nomination, he'll have difficulty winning the White House, because white Republicans and independents are even less likely than white Democrats to vote for a black candidate.

That was the clear message of Bill Clinton's statement after Obama stunned his wife by beating her in the South Carolina primary 55.4% to 26.5%, with 17.6% for Edwards. Asked a question that had nothing to do with race, the former president and would-be First Husband told reporters in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Bill was trying to do two things with this statement: linking Obama to Jackson in voters' minds and suggesting that Obama can't attract enough white voters to get elected President, so Hillary is the "electable" Democrat. His was seeking to pigeonhole Obama as the "black" candidate -- not only as a matter of pigmentation but also as a matter of voter appeal.

Clinton's campaign operatives were more blatant than the ex-President, shooting out emails comparing Obama and Jackson, noting that in 1988, Jackson won the South Carolina primary with 54% of the vote (to 19% for Al Gore and only 18% for Michael Dukakis, the eventual Democratic nominee).

The Clinton campaign message was transparent: although Obama can win enough black votes to win a few primaries, but he can't prevail in states where whites comprise a huge majority of voters, and certainly isn't as "electable" as Hillary in the November election.

But there's no evidence that the white Democrats who voted for Clinton and Edwards are racists who wouldn't vote for a black candidate. Exit polls don't tell us why they preferred Clinton or Edwards over Obama. Clinton voters might have preferred Obama over Edwards as their second choice. Edwards voters may have supported Obama over Clinton in a two-way race.

And even if Obama was their third pick, and even if race factored into their primary vote decision, that doesn't mean that, come November, they'd prefer any of the Republicans over Obama. If their vote in November is based on ideology, issues, or even personality, most Democrats would cast a ballot for Obama over McCain, Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani. So, too, might most independents, a majority of whom lean Democratic in partisan terms and more liberal than conservative on issues.

The Clinton campaign's comparison of Obama to Jackson is both racist and misguided, for several reasons. For one thing, Americans have changed in the past 20 years. Yes, racism is still alive and well, and there are still many examples of white politicians successfully playing the "race card" to ignite racial prejudice. The most blatant recent example was Republican Bob Corker's television ad during his 2006 campaign against Democrat Harold Ford, an African American, for the U.S. Senate seat from Tennessee. In the ad, a young blond white actress talked about meeting Ford, a 36-year-old bachelor, "at the Playboy party." At the end of the ad, she winks and says to the camera, "Harold -- call me." The ad was clearly meant to appeal to racial stereotypes and helped Corker win by a 51% to 48% margin, with Ford winning 40% of the white vote.

Despite Ford's slim loss in Tennessee, in the past two decades, America has seen more African Americans rise to visible positions of influence in politics and government, business, the media, religion, the military, and other institutions. Across the country, even in the South, white voters have become more comfortable voting for black candidates. An increasing number of blacks have been elected with white votes in contests for city council, school board, mayor, state legislature, Governor, and Congress. Prejudice hasn't disappeared, but in terms of racial politics, Americans have grown up. By comparing Obama to Jackson, the Clintons are trying to take us backwards.

Moreover, many voters who are casting ballots this year weren't even born, or were pre-teens, when Jackson ran in 1988. Voters under 29, even those under 35, are less likely than their to look at politics through a racial prism. They now comprise a significant and growing slice of the American electorate. In this primary season, Obama has been most successful at getting them to the polls and attracting their votes. Obama captured 52% of South Carolina's white voters age 18-29, compared with 15% of whites over 60, most of whom grew up in the Jim Crow South.

Equally important, Obama is not Jackson. Jackson came out of the civil rights movement and was identified as a figure tied explicitly to racial issues and racial conflict. He was also more radical in his political views -- at least the ones he publicly espoused -- than Obama. Jackson sought to build a "rainbow coalition," and definitely attracted the support of some white voters, especially in the 1988 Michigan primary, but most of his white support was among the left wing of Democrat voters. Jackson was hardly what political scientists call a racial "cross-over" candidate.

Obama's appeal is much broader both ideologically and racially. On key issues, Jackson positioned himself considerably to the left of the other Democratic candidates -- views that the media framed as outside the mainstream, just as they've done this year with Edwards' attacks on big business and the very rich. Obama's policy prescriptions, while certainly liberal, are very similar to Hillary Clinton's, with the exception of his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq. This Democratic primary season, it is John Edwards who is the most forthright progressive.

As a civil rights activist and political candidate, Jackson's soaring rhetoric reflected his background as a minister and preacher. Obama has shown his ability to speak in the cadences of a black preacher, but as a former community organizer and law professor, he has developed a rhetorical style that easily crosses racial and class boundaries.

Jackson was a close aide to Rev. Martin Luther King. Obama is a generation removed from the civil rights struggle, but when he invokes King's memory and legacy, as he often does in the campaign -- frequently using King's phrase, "the urgency of now" -- it meant to simultaneously signal his gratitude for the civil rights pioneers as well as draw on King's moral appeal to white America's better instincts. Although in 1988, Jackson often urged Americans to "keep hope alive," it is Obama whose refrain, "the audacity of hope," has captured the nation's pent-up idealism in 2008. If anything, Obama is more likely than Clinton to appeal to independents and even some Republicans in November.

Sure, some Americans still vote along racial lines, just as they've often voted along ethnic and gender lines. But just as men are more likely to vote for female candidates now than they were 20 years ago, and just as Protestants are more willing to vote for Catholics than they did a generation or two ago, Americans have matured on racial matters.

Moreover, America's racial and ethnic mosaic has become more complex. In the Nevada caucuses, despite the Culinary Workers Union's last-minute endorsement for Obama, the vast majority of its Latino members supported Clinton, while most black members voted for Obama. But if Hillary winds up as the Democratic candidate, those black union members will certainly vote for her over any Republican by an overwhelming margin. And almost all of the Latino waitresses and hotel workers who cast caucus votes for Clinton will vote for Obama in November.

Likewise, almost all of the 78% of black Democrats who voted for Obama (compared with 19% for Clinton and 2% for Edwards) in South Carolina on Saturday will no doubt cast the ballots for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November. The bigger queston is whether the Democrats next November will invest the resources needed for an effective get-out-the-vote effort among blacks and young people who have come out in record numbers so far, in large measure to support Obama.

The Clinton campaign's sleight-of-hand trick to link Obama with Jackson is a desperate atempt to convince pundits and voters alike that Obama's South Carolina landslide was a fluke, and that his appeal to white voters is too slim to make him a viable candidate in most super-Tuesday states on February 5 and in the November contest. This ploy is as racist as George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" advertisement to stir white voters to oppose Michael Dukakis in 1988. Such appeals to racism worked 20 years ago. Hopefully these tactics won't work this year. And if Clinton wins the nomination by playing the race card, shame on her and on her husband.

Peter Dreier is the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program, at Occidental College. He is coauthor of The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City, Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century, and Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together.

Comments

[gemstone1000]

There's more sexism in this country than there is racism. It's pathetic.

[sarnold49]

What the hell is wrong with this country? Yeah the whites are voting for a black that has done nothing for them but the blacks won't vote for a white woman who with her husband has done a lot for them and NO ONE thinks that is racist? This whole damn country doesn't make sense anymore! We just decide that the people in Florida and Michigan don't count because their leaders didn't obey the rules? It's okay to take peoples votes away from them if we don't like their votes? So what the hell were we complaining about in 2000 and 2004? The GOP was just doing what we are doing now! This whole damn country has went mad!

[juangault]

The Clintons want to win. Not hard to figure out. It's a cool job, being the president. Lots of perks. Gotta wonder who wants to see America get better, who IS the best candidate for the people. The world is shifting. To winners and losers. Fewer and fewer in between. No joy, no justice. Just ego and hurt, leading to hate. That, is the legacy of the junior Bush, doin what he pleases.

[mheister]

Not only has Billary played the race card like it's going out of style - and thankfully, it is - but they've not hesitated for one second to play the gender card. "I'm a wife, I'm a mother" is carved in stone in Hillary's stump speech. Obama, to his credit, has not and I believe will not come close to ever even implying that gender should be a factor in voting. I have also observed that Obama did not bring up the race issue. He told his story, about a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother, as Edwards told his story about his dad the millworker. Race was brought up by the mainstream news media and the Clintons, not necessarily in that order. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sick to death of that kind of politics. Obama wasn't my first choice, but he's got my vote now. Congratulations Billary.

[janmB]

OBAMA IS A GREENHORN.
HE'S MORE GREEN THAN BLACK OR WHITE.
AFTER THE LAST ELECTIONS---WHY DOES THIS COUNTRY PERSIST IN ELECTING PRESIDENTS WHO
ARE THE LEAST QUALIFIED AND LEAST EXPERIENCED.

[riverhouse]

Well, excuse me, but I take exception to all those Clinton posters who decry the "racist America" who won't vote for a black man for president and who want to give a pass to Bill Clinton for his ugly racemongering because he's "just being truthful". I do not for one nanosecond believe America is a racist nation. I do know for a fact that some Americans are racists and won't vote for a black man. Why should that minority rule the day for the rest of us? Are we to play to the lowest common denominator and let the racists among us drag us into their stinking slime, or are we to move beyond them and their affliction of ignorance and hate? If the Democratic Party wants to roll over for the racist crowd, then I don't want to be a Democrat. And I think I won't be the only Democrat sitting home, hopes dashed, if the Clintons connive, lie and steal their way to the nomination.

[twinkerbell]

I will probably vote for Obama on Super duper Tuesday because I cannot stand Ms. Corporate Democrat (Reublican-lite). Like Harry Truman said, if you want a Republican, vote for the real thing. My concern for the Democrats this year is if McCain becomes the Republican candidate. He is a genuine war hero draws in independents and Reagan Democrats (mostly white males) who will be disinclined to vote for either a black male or a white woman. I suppose I should hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination but I'm so tired of voter for the lesser of 2 evils. Hold your nose for too long and you suffocate!

[ronmyers]

I predict the Clintons will play the race card for all its worth. They are shameless. And I am sure they laugh up their sleeve at those who try to tell them how to campaign. The irony is that the gender card largely plays itself, more I believe than the race card in this case and will spell doom for the Clintons in the general election.

[BigBen]

I wonder if OPRAH would have endorsed Barak if he were white? If the answer is no then surely Barak introduced the race card. If he were white would the vote be the same in S.Carolina?If not then can people really ignore race? Is it the 500 pound gorilla at the table that liberals are afraid to talk about? Would Ted Kennedy have endorsed Barak if he were white?(a half term Senator taking on his friend Hillary) I don't think so.Ted was particularly vicious against Jimmy Carter, have you forgotten? Poor Kerry never received such an enthusiastic endorsement.I guess he can't stand being the small fish in a big pond.No Democrat for 50 years was worthy of being president since JF died, in his opinion.
P.S. At least Bill has one thing in common with Caroline's daddy, but the east coast establishment press were a lot kinder to Jack than to the country bumpkin from Arkansas.(I guess we can ignore that kind of prejudice.)

[nighthawk808]

And not a single mention of the voters who will be voting third-party rather than Democrat if Hillary gets the nomination. Somehow, in Mr. Dreier's eyes, the only choice is Her Highness or a Republican in that event.

But if Hillary does get the nomination, I'll be voting for a female candidate: Mrs. Noneoftheabove.

[LisaP]

Barack Obama's mother is a white woman. Thus, he is a handsome man with caucasian features and skin the color of a really great tan. If you don't realize the power inherent to his physical appearance, the electability this confers to him (i.e., we--black and white Americans--can quite literally see OURselves in him), you're being naive. If he were not attractive AND light of skin, white America wouldn't give him a chance, regardless of his greatness as a leader.

[sokolowmus]

All Bill was saying was: winning in SC doesn't mean you win the nomination. And yes, Obama is black, and it's stupid to ignore the fact that it's very doubtful racist America will elect a black president. Are progressives dumb enough to ignore this simple fact?

Edwards is the only candidate who, according to all polls, can beat any of the GOP contenders. And he comes off as more progressive than Obama or Hillary.

[tstreet]

Bill Clinton was pointing out the obvious. SC may have been an anomaly because Obama got such a large percentage of the black vote.

Or should B. Clinton ignored the obvious and not comment on the obvious for fear of being called a racist? Clinton's mistake was not racism but the fact that he didn't realize how biased the media is and how we would be unfairly attacked.

Black people voted for Obama in overwheming numbers which is to be expected and which is their right. These are just facts that need to be taken into account in evaluating whether Obama can go all the way to the nomination.

I think, however, that B.C. should have been sophisticated enough to see this coming. Apparently, he is not watching enough mainstream media.

The jackals are everywhere descending upon Bill . In that sense, nothing has changed since the 90s.

More facts and less biased analysis would be appreciated from those who have old axes to grind. Who knew? B. Clinton a racist? I think not!

The Republicans and other associated Clinton haters are in their glory. Just turn on the TV.

Sadly, we in the Democratic party are going to lose regardless. I hope both candidates can find a way to patch things up. Otherwise, expect another tragic loss next November.

[DHFabian]

Few people are focused on race above ideas, even though our race-obsessed media keeps droning on about it. We live in a racially diverse world. Most (certainly not all) vote on the basis of the ideas/ideals that the candidate represents.
We are at a dangerous point in history, not because of terrorists, but because of our government's decisions over the past quarter century. We are looking for solutions, and for people who have the means, energy and wisdom to move those solutions forward.

[nads2985]

And what of Obama surrogates trying to link him to Jesse Jackson?

At New York's City Hall earlier this week, there was a pro-Obama rally in which a black elected official who supports Obama made the same comparison Bill Clinton did, stating "If you look at the fact that Jesse Jackson in 1988 won New York City with a coalition of diverse supporters that is not as diverse as we think Senator Obama would be able to put together, I think he has a very good chance of winning New York City."

How do you attack Clinton for doing the same thing Obama's very own supporters are doing?

The source: http://www.nysun.com/article/70277 (at the end of the article)