Race, the Numbers and the Nomination

In 2004 twenty-one percent of the votes for John Kerry were cast by black voters, and before the 2008 primary campaign Hillary Clinton was the favorite to get them all. Wasn't Bill called the "first black President of the United States"? Hadn't he established his office in Harlem just to prove his black credentials? Hadn't Hillary been surrounded by black aides and advisors in her senatorial elections and on her staff?

It was that huge bloc that discouraged others from running against her and seemed to give her an insurmountable lead. So how could you beat her -- run a black man against her and get a forty percent swing in the primary votes. Hillary might have beaten John Edwards 65% to 35%. But switch the black vote around with a candidate like Barack Obama and Hillary loses 20%, while Obama picks it up and wins the primaries 55% to 45%.

The guys in Chicago, Abner Mikvah, Newton Minnow, David Axelrod and Barack's chief of staff Pete Rouse were smart enough to figure that out and connected enough to get the start up money to finance his campaign. Their only question was whether Barack was black enough to sew up the black vote. They answered it brilliantly. Poor Joe Biden praised Obama in the New York Observer as, "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Those are nice words about Senator Obama, but what did it imply about the rest of African-Americans? Obama's first response was gracious. He said, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend." Later in the day, when Senator Biden came under attack from other black leaders Obama, according to the New York Times, "issued a statement that approached a condemnation. 'I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate ... African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns and no one would call them inarticulate.'"

In a matter of hours Obama had transformed himself and demonstrated his credentials as a defender of every African-American who had ever entered a presidential primary. Biden had provided the opening and Obama had swept right through it. Once Obama proved his appeal to white voters by sweeping the Iowa Caucuses and black voters realized he might actually win the nomination ninety percent of them have voted for him in the primaries and provided him with the majority that appears to have won him the nomination.

It was a great political strategy for the primaries, but how it will affect the general election? Will Rovian political strategists make it part of a whispering campaign and attempt to cast Obama as a racial candidate? Given the nature of the Willie Horton and the Swiftboaters I would advise Obama's strategists to prepare for the worst.

Comments

[Moose49]

I'm not sure what your point is either, but you're missing a basic fact: No one did more to sew up the black vote for Obama than Bill Clinton.

Obama's strategy has always been focused on winning the broadest possible base of support. But when Bill went ahead in South Carolina and started race-baiting -- calculating that if they could paint Obama as "the black candidate," they'd win the white vote -- it backfired. The African American vote solidified around Obama, yet outside of Appalachia, white voters still gave him plenty of support.

The great irony here is that if Hillary had only picked up 20 percent of the black vote -- something that was very likely prior to South Carolina -- she'd probably be the nominee. Poetic justice, if you ask me.

[IndependentTogether]

Someone should warn Clinton that she will be attacked because of her gender. Also, someone should tell McCain that he will suffer age-based attacks. I don't think they are aware of this.

[IndependentTogether]

I'm not sure I understand what it is that you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the Republicans will attack him based on race? Wow... what a revelation...

[Doofus]

Evidently, there's been another conspiracy at work to deny Hillary Clinton
the nomination. This time it's a clique (or is it claque?) of Chicago politicos,
perhaps abetted by un-named co-conspirator Dick Durbin, to get Obama
nominated instead. Hillary, after all, *deserted* Illinois for balmier climes, in
Massachusetts, then Arkansas, then Washington, before coming to
rest in New York, of all places, so she must be stopped.

[tedbear]

The Republicans have wanted to go against Clinton from the outset. They e-mailed registered Republicans to vote for her in Ohio the primary. Many did vote for her as instructed. There has to be a reason why the Republicans want to go against Hillary instead of Obama. Maybe it is because they don't really think McCain can beat him. Maybe it is because if Hillary beats McCain it won't be much different than having a Republican in the White House (which is true). The Clintons are not into championing the cause of the working class. The "white working class" in some states might think that out of fear of an Obama or out of simple misinformation, however, the majority of the people of this country don't believe it for a minute, and that is why Obama is the nominee. Don't forget everyone, Obama and the Bushes are Not Old Cherished Friends like the Clintons and the Bushes are Old Cherished Friends. Enough said (I hope).

[patmancando]

Then why have diehard staunch Republicans been pushing for Obama to be the nominee....writing flowery prose in columns, talking about how charismatic he is as pundits, and downright saying he would be hard to beat. Who are these GOPhers. none other than Peggy Noonan, Bill Kriatol, Pat Buchanan and Frank Luntz, who is the GOP wordsmith that change anti abortion to pro-life, making it sound by contrast that pro-choice people were anti-life. Frank Luntz runs the focus groups to test out not only words but ideas that gain public favor. Now, I ask you, since when were the GOPhers anxious to help us Dems. win the presidency. NEVER! So when the GOPhers realized they were mudd in the voters eyes, with Bush in the under 30% approval rating and a majority of Americans thinking the country was on the wrong tract....you think they would just give up? I think they realized the only way they thought they had a chance was to manipulate the Dem. primaries to get the weakest candidate nominated. And who do you think that is, no other than Sen. Obama whose resume' is so slim and besides the GOPher's 527s and swift boaters will not hesitate to play the race card..........Call them racists, they won't give a damn, and I don't think GOPhers will either.

[patmancando]

cont'd


So you think Hillary is the weakest and the GOP wants to run against her? She has demonstrated during this campaign that she is a formidable candidate with a tremendous grasp of policy and facts, and has the experience in the Senate and 8 yrs in the WH with Bill it get things done. She has won every debate, and has been able to take on Faux and O'Reilly coming out smelling like a rose. Even the MSM and pundits, clearly biased against her, said her performance was masterful, She has been brow beaten by the media, Obama's campaign and supporters, shouting for her to get out of the race because she doesn't have a chance of winning since the 1st of March, and she is still going..........strong and resilient.

Oh no, if you think the GOP wants to run against her instead of Obama, you are delusional. He is starting to stumble, and when he falls, it will due to his own failures, not anything Hillary has down.
The more he has to speak unscripted and answer questions spontaneously, the more it will show that he can't think on his feet. The more people hear those ers, ahs, ums, he uses when not scripted, the more people will doubt his capacity to handle the most difficult job in the world.