Barack Obama, Chris Paul, and the “Lucky Black Man Delusion”
“I have a feeling that in this country where we’re at today in our thinking, it’s going to be harder to elect a woman
than to elect a black man”. — Former Senator and Presidential Candidate George McGovern
Oh, here we go again! Unlike Geraldine Ferraro who made the same assertion a couple of weeks ago, McGovern’s demeanor was conciliatory, his tone was free of righteous indignation, and he also expressed self-doubt. Regardless of differing deliveries, do we really need to rehash the absurdity of these statements every time some 70+ year old political blast from the past opens their mouth? Unfortunately – “yes”. Why? Because this recent CBS poll shows that more (white) Americans agree with them than believe that a black candidate faces more political obstacles than a woman (full survey).
This “black political advantage” notion isn’t just a “Ferraro problem”, isn’t just a “McGovern problem”… it is a “mass white denial problem”. The last time so many were so wrong on something so basic, poll data came out that a majority of Americans said “Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks”. And since we all know how that one what turned out, no stone should be left unturned in dispelling the myth of Obama’s great genetic fortune. A good place to start might be essay: “What Kind of Card is Race? The Absurdity and Consistency of White Denial” where author Tim Wise expounds on the historical track record of white mass opinion on the subject of race:
“what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963–at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the US, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation–nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities–almost the same number as say this now, some 40-plus years later?… What does it say… that in mid-August 1969, 44% of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job–two times as many as said they would have a worse chance?…In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even 40 years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.”
When looking through America’s rearview mirror, there is no time in history where white masses have got it right on “race”. Yet when it comes to diagnosing the current racial climate, we continue to imagine “sniper fire” where none exists, while ignoring the actual wars right before our very eyes (see educational and criminal justice systems). …Now fast forward to the 2008 presidential politics and throw in a twist of gender. Ferraro’s original statement and political observation that Obama “happens to be very lucky to be who he is” on account of his blackness has gained traction. Obama rightly called her words “patently absurd” and in a blistering rebuttal by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann the statement was called: “ugly in its overtones”; “laughable in its week grip of the facts”; and “moronic in the historical context”. His language was strong, so his words will be put to the test – in reverse order [2].
1) “Moronic in its Historical Context” - Reviewing the Past: Historically, there have been 44 elected (+ 20 unelected) first-time women Governors and Senators with 16 of 18 elected Senators winning at least one reelection term [3]. In contrast, there have been only 5 elected African-American Senators or Governors [4] post-Reconstruction and only one candidate (Ed Brooke) has ever served more than one term thus far. When factoring in re-election campaigns, history’s scorecard is even more profoundly one-sided as women hold a 60 – 4 election edge just since 1990. Prior to 1990 white women shared few statewide successes (non-inherited) while black men were virtually shut out.
2) “Laughable in its weak grip of the facts” - Reviewing the Present: In our most recent 2006 state-wide elections, 22 women ran as major candidates, and a record 13 women Senators (8) or Governors (5) were elected/re-elected. In head-to-head matchups with men women won 61% (11 of 18) contests. In contrast, Mass. Governor Deval Patrick was the only African-American male elected to statewide office as other candidates failed to cash in on the luck of their skin tone. Neither Democrat Kweisi Mfume nor Republican Michael Steele was able to beat Ben Cardin for Maryland Senator. Harold Ford was unable to parlay his blackness, resume, or long family political legacy into a victory. Other candidates like Ken Blackwell (Ohio) and popular former football player Lynn Swann lost in landslides. Current state-wide scorecard? 24 white women - 2 black men.
3) “Ugly in its Overtones - Reviewing the Insult”: Given the facts, the statement about Obama having a black advantage is – at the very least — profoundly and disturbingly ignorant of the racial political landscape. Obama bucks the odds, outworks, outsmarts, out-articulates, and out-navigates his political opponents against a stacked-deck, and his reward is to be told that he is holding all of the good cards. Talk about audacity! In the face of a mountain of objective data, the “ugly overtones” become crystal clear: “it is impossible to simply be less competent than a black man. There MUST be another reason…” And the search continues…
——————————
Behind The “Lucky Black Man Delusion”:
It is too easy and unfair to write off the masses of people who believe that Obama is politically “lucky” as merely rooted in bigotry or political motivation. Believing in “The Lucky Black Man Delusion” often goes a bit deeper than that.
A. Black Cherry Picking: Those who agree with Ferraro/McGovern often employ of an incredibly flawed logic of “selective bias” or in this case – “black cherry picking”. Some people like to accurately cite where Obama’s “blackness” may serve him as an asset or how some voters like “the concept” of Obama because: of the historical precedence of a black man becoming President; that his candidacy is appealing because it will empower youth of all races to dream big; or that his mixed-race background is metaphorical for bringing our country together. I, for one, will readily admit that his race – mixed with his heightened sense of diplomacy and discernment – will play a factor in reducing the global hatred and subsequent terrorism against our country on the very day of his election. So critics are absolutely correct that in certain instances, race can play a positive political role.
…And so does gender. Many of the factors just listed also apply to Ms. Clinton. Not only that, had any man come on the verge of tears the day before the New Hampshire primary, it would have likely terminated their candidacy instead of save it. Now does that singular moment mean that women have an advantage in running for office over white men? Of course not! Such a conclusion is as “patently absurd” as Ferraro/McGovern’s statements. Women (vs. white men) may have a handful of selective advantages, but that is offset by far greater disadvantages beginning with the dangerous and sexist stereotype that women cannot be effective leaders.
B. Racial Barrier Amnesia: If white women have 100 political disadvantages to contend with, black men have 1000. They have to: 1) run a “cleaner” campaign than their opponents; 2) massage “white fears” at every conceivable turn while white candidates can inflame black fears and still win; 2) “transcend race” when no such “transcendence” is ever a requirement for white candidates; 3) be more eloquent speakers — if not orators. (imagine how far a black candidate as dry as John Kerry or Al Gore or as bumbling as George Bush might get); 4) Answer for the words of their pastor while white candidates can cozy up to the most the most radical white preachers without media, political, or voter retribution; 5) put your entire campaign on the line with historic speeches while walking across a political 3rd rail that no other candidate would be requested to make; 5B) sit by silently while your white counterparts will never have to bridge social national gaps on such hot-button subjects like “homosexuality” or “Islam in America” because “more answers are needed”; 6) Be judged, evaluated, and dissected by a cable news media contingent where not one single cable host in America [6] looks like you. This list could go on and on.
C. “The Privilege Delusion”: The formula is simpler than the Pythagorean Theorem. A2 (overstate the few assets) + B2 (ignore mountain of barriers) = C2 (”The Privilege Delusion”). Bigots will be bigots, but it is “the privilege delusion” that allows “the good people” of privilege to silently perpetuate and co-sign racism, sexism, homophobia, and economic exploitation. And therein lies the insidious nature of “privilege”: those who have it — whatever the privilege — are often so comfortable in its protective warmth that they often do not even recognize their blanket’s existence. And when the delusion reaches its most pathological apex, advantages become disadvantages, David becomes Goliath, and Obama becomes “lucky”.
If Chris Paul Were Running for President:
If politics were sports, and race was treated like any other topic, this conversation would be a whole lot simpler. The first athlete that comes to mind when I think of Barack Obama is Chris Paul – the brilliant point guard for the New Orleans Hornets of the National Basketball Association (NBA). In a world populated with household names like Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron, it is Paul who has become “the skinny kid with the funny name” and has recently emerged as a fresh face on the NBA elite scene. Paul is barely six feet tall which might sound big to you, but not his colleagues. In a league of 450 players, there probably exist no more than 10 players who are shorter. Paul’s height provides him with a low center of gravity which helps him: shift direction with the ball faster than his opponents can react; split double-teams with greater ease; “knife his way” to the basket with less obstruction; create steals on defense by sneaking up on a pass, and get more favorable fouls calls than the big boys as he flops to the floor.
Of course, those select advantages are not the reason why Paul: dominates a league of giants, leads the NBA in assists and steals, and is one of four leading candidates for this year’s Most Valuable Player trophy (Kobe, Lebron, and KG) . It is because he can move quicker, elevate higher, and most importantly, out-think his opponents. Should he win the MVP race over his more established rivals who stand at 6′6″, 6′8″, and 6′11″, he will be only the 2nd player in NBA history that small to win the award (Allen Iverson). So what is the difference between Barack Obama and Chris Paul in their respective races?
It is that when ALL thing are considered, no other player, no coach, no general manager, no owner, no commentator, no writer, no TV sports pundit, no fan, and certainly no public opinion poll would ever entertain the notion…
that Chris Paul is lucky to be short.
________________________________________________________________
[1] This post by Raving Black Lunatic shows that in 2006 Ferraro agreed that white women had an easier road.
[2] only elected office is focused on because it indicates the ability to democratically win statewide popular vote).
[3] Carol Moseley-Braun — history’s only African-American woman Senator– is one of only two exceptions. Paula Hawkins from Florida is the only other one-term Senator who failed at reelection. Oregon’s Maurine Brown Neuberger chose not to run in 1966, and the four women Senators elected after 2001 are not eligible yet for reelection.
[4] New York Governor David Patterson who just recently assumed office due to Elliot Spitzer’s resignation is not included here because he was not elected.
[5] In total 22 women ran for office as major candidates in 2006 including two all-women races. Women won 11 of the 18 of the total head-to-head matchups.
[6] This Media Matters study of cable hosts was conducted last year where all 36 hosts were white and only 6 were women. To my knowledge there still hasn’t been one African-American host
Sphere: Related Content
Why do you constantly repeat yourself, it is not like you are actually reaching the same audience as the MSM.
I’m still waiting for you to list the story behind the numbers you keep throwing up. If you can’t then you really are not providing a counter argument at all, you are just doing the equivalent of yelling out that the sky is blue.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI’ll rehash truth as long as people like you and public opinion polls rehash lies. As for who I reach, commenters make up less than 1% of the audience, and you only need one MSM writer to take an idea and expand on it. While MSM are usually weak about assigning attribution that doesn’t matter.
The data is quite thorough and speaks for itself to any rational human being. Even if you eliminated the last 300 years and just focused on our most recent election in 2006, your answer is right before your eyes. You will receive “the story behind the numbers” sometime after I right that column on “why water is wet”.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:44 pmWell, in fairness, it is not only 70+ “blast from the past” Clinton supporters who are making this argument. It is also young(ish) African-American Obama supporters like Dr. John McWhorter.
As he says in http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/04/obama_and_the_culture_of_black.cfm
“For all of his other plusses, part of Mr Obama’s appeal lies in the fact that many whites feel that voting for a black presidential candidate would be Doing the Right Thing.”
I think this is sensible and part of the reason voters turned rather rapidly on Clinton was the perception that she was race baiting.
Dr. McWhorter made a similar point two years prior here http://www2.nysun.com/article/40050
“The key factor that galvanizes people around the idea of Obama for president is, quite simply, that he is black. Other things about him don’t hurt, but that’s all — they are not the deciding factor. Take away Mr. Obama’s race and he’s some relatively anonymous rookie. Barrett O’Leary, even if as cute and articulate as Mr. Obama, would have to wait at least another four years, and possibly six or seven, before being considered as a possible commander in chief.
What gives people a jolt in their gut about the idea of President Obama is the idea that it would be a ringing symbol that racism no longer rules our land. President Obama might be, for instance, a substitute for that national apology for slavery that some consider so urgent. Surely a nation with a black president would be one no longer hung up on race.”
Having spoken with and read many white opinions on this (electoral) race, I don’t think this analysis is off-base.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:18 pmMarc,
I am quite familiar with John McWhorter and his politcs. His article is exactly what I would expect from the man. But my main problem is that he is wrong. Dead wrong. He wrote his first column back in September 2006. He already decided on his narrative early on. Frankly, the article is the typical insult to Obama supporters. He wrote it at a time where every black Senator besides one were about to lose their bid for high office the following month and 11 of 18 women won their elections against men. He merely states opinion with no supportive evidence.
Like I said in this article that is not to say that there aren’t kernels of truth, but only that the negatives so outweigh the positives. I admittedly like the fact that he is black, but not so much to put the future of the free world on that fact. The truth is that I see him as so much more qualified than Hillary and McCain that it is not even close. I would argue that if he were white, the race would be a wrap already…. Obama is a very special man. He truly is. I will have to explain to you his appeal in an upcoming column because this space just won’t do. Those who minimize him to a “black guy” or someone who can just give a nice speech just don’t get it. Which is why I need a full article to explain it.
– But yes, Clinton’s blatant race-baiting HAS turned off many supporters. Two months ago I held her in high regard myself, but she has since shown her true colors. And those colors are very ugly. And the way someone campaigns MATTERS. Her personal ambition is exactly like her husbands. The Clintons start out with solid beliefs right until their personal careers are at stake. And once that happens, they believe in absolutely nothing but self-preservation (see Bill’s signing of 1994 crime bill)
———————
Marc, in my world, facts trump opinions. Not all opinions are equal. I have not seen any opinions beside conjecture. One thing that I try to do in my writing is provide evidence. I have poured over every single AA and women who has sought statewide office.
I can tell you this: you can be 100% sure that if in 2006 13 black men won elected statewide office, yet only one woman did, then not only would I be arguing that Ferraro/McGovern/McWhorter were correct. But I wouldn’t even have to make that argument… because there would be absolutely no opposition to it. That is right, if the current and historical Senator/governor data were reversed with only 5 women elected in history, there would not be one single statement or article that refuted that Hillary has a tougher road. Not one.
Ignoring the current mountain of evidence is something that is almost soley reserved for African-Americans. Vitually every public opinion poll in history on race will substantiate this claim.
BTW, Marc, despite my strong disagreement here, I appeciate that you come genuinely seeking truth and without agenda. I cannot make this claim for all that frequent this site.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pmThank you MODI, and I appreciate both your post and your frequent, enlightened posts.
Two, very brief, points:
(1) I think you are setting up a straw man when you say: “Those who minimize him to a ‘black guy’ or someone who can just give a nice speech just don’t get it.” Nobody that I am aware of, including Ferraro, has made either this claim or any similar one. Everyone, correctly, acknowledges Obama’s tremendous intellect and political skill. That does not mean that it is ridiculous to claim, as McWhorter does, that the “deciding factor” that has been behind his meteoric rise is his intriguing heritage. Similarly, there can be no denying JFK’s intellect and oratorical skills, but the “deciding factor” behind his meteoric rise was his heritage and wealth. Same with FDR.
(2) I appreciate your use of statistics, especially in your previous defense of Isiah’s reign (at least in comparison to Layden’s ruinions reign), but it always fell flat for me on this topic and I believe I finally realized why.
I believe that asking whether it is more difficult for a woman or for an African-American man to be elected statewide or nationwide is really a fool’s errand. Both are exceedingly difficult, as your statistics show. Of course, women have been more successful in these races, but they’re also a much, much, much greater portion of the electorate. Considering women are a majority of voters, isn’t it surprising that there are so very few of them elected statewide and that no presidential candidate has ever made it as far as New Hampshire before?
Also, there are many, many states with a nationally representative proportion of women but a disproportionately small proportion of African-Americans. (This is not to suggest that African-Americans can only win when there are plenty of African-American voters, but you’re less likely to have African-American candidates in a state without many African-Americans.)
Perhaps it is more difficult to be African-American (and it undoubtedly was until the past few decades, without any doubt, though it was no cakewalk for women either), but the difference seems to be small. It’s kind of like the difference between wearing a 50 lb. weighted belt or a 50 lb. weighted backpack.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pmMarc R,
“I believe that asking whether it is more difficult for a woman or for an African-American man to be elected statewide or nationwide is really a fool’s errand. Both are exceedingly difficult, as your statistics show. Of course, women have been more successful in these races, but they’re also a much, much, much greater portion of the electorate.”
My man, doesn’t the last sentence make MODI’s argument in a democratic proceeding?
“Perhaps it is more difficult to be African-American (and it undoubtedly was until the past few decades, without any doubt, though it was no cakewalk for women either), but the difference seems to be small. It’s kind of like the difference between wearing a 50 lb. weighted belt or a 50 lb. weighted backpack.”
Then what accounts for the HUGE differences in education levels and economic circumstances? It just seems pretty clear the “black” 50 lb. belt is heavier than the somewhat lighter “woman’s” backpack.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pmMarc,
(1)Fair enough, I may have overstated it. Let me restate. “Those who minimize Obama’s race to ‘the deciding factor’ just don’t get it.”…Look for upcoming article for the elaboration. … and I disagree on FDR and and JFK… (unless you mean ‘wealth’ in the practical campaigning sense which is different)
“Of course, women have been more successful in these races, but they’re also a much, much, much greater portion of the electorate.”
Exactly! Thank you Ianfj. This is the VERY SAME DEMOCRATIC DYNAMIC that exists for presidential elections. Senator and Governor races are the very best predictor out there and the ONLY predictor out there to know who can win a popular vote statewide.
“Considering women are a majority of voters, isn’t it surprising that there are so very few of them elected statewide and that no presidential candidate has ever made it as far as New Hampshire before?”
No, actually it is not surprising at all. The emergence of women in electoral politics is fairly recent phenomena and one of the great by-products of the feminist movement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Of the 44 ELECTED female Governors and Senators in US history only 12 came before 1990! Now think about this for a second. Now there are traditionally only three standard paths to the president. Most often is being a previous Governor, less often a Senator, and sometimes a miltary hero. If the traditional pipeline to the presidency did not have women, then I would not expect there to be too many presidential opportunities before the 1990’s. The 2006 elections were a female revolution of sorts. 22 major candidates, 13 victories, and 2 all-women races. I suspect in 50 years from now, at least 40% of our Senators and Governors will be women. And with a bigger pool we will routinely see female presidential candidates. There is no surprise here.
“Also, there are many, many states with a nationally representative proportion of women but a disproportionately small proportion of African-Americans.”
Once again, exactly! Women have it easier for precisely the reason you state. And once again, that same dynamic is true for the presidency. The more you write the more you are agreeing with me.
The political difference between being an AA and a women is HUGE. The data and the very reasons provided in your previous post are clear evidence of that.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pmModi: Great post and analysis.
Perhaps you overlooked at both Ferraro and McGovern have a 35+ year personal relationship with Hilary Clinton. That is a long friendship relationship.
I believe part of the reason for their absurd analysis of the Democratic nominee is their positive emotion to her and their then natural bias’s thought process.
MSM I think should ask them honestly what their thoughts of black vs gender would be if both Barack and Hilary were strangers to them.
My guess ,Geraldine would stick with her point of view and McGovern would switch his.
For what it is worth Hilary has referred to Barack speeches as just words,and had used her campaign slogan as solutions not speeches.
John McCain has called Baracks speeches nothing more than empty platitudes.
A sports note: Bill Clinton is advocating clipping against his own democratic teammate as part of fair campaigning LOL.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pmA 70+ year old Hilary supporter is like a 10 year old celtics fan (or Tommy Heinson) who watches the game and says every celtic is fouled when they miss a shot, and complain about every foul that called on the celtics. if they lose its always someone else’s fault.
I just don’t get the automatic reach to find a simple excuse for Barack’s success as if the man has no skills. The underlying assumption in the comment is that Hialry is obviously the more competent candidate so if she doesn’t win it must be because of something that was out of her control.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:03 pmFunny and correct analogy OOO.
Ageing unfortuantly lets far too many people use rationaizing cyncism as wisdom YIKES.
Very important if Barack is not coup for the nomination to have the universities voting like never before in the fall,to counter my generation of geezers.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pmGreat work as usually Modi, keep the columns coming. I don’t know what your audience is, but I know that I find my self dropping things I’ve learned here into conversations, as a result my friends think I’m much smarter than I actually am.
A couple other examples you could have thrown in:
Barack has to worry about being labeled “the black candidate” which apparently is a bad thing. But I haven’t heard anyone worry about Hillary being labeled “the woman candidate”
Similarly, Hillary can explicitly say “I’m proud to be the first woman with a serious chance to be elected president, I want to break the glass ceiling, and I’m doing it little girls everywhere, yada, yada, yada” to great fanfare and applause. But Barack rarely will say how excited or proud he is to be the first serious black candidate unless the subject is broached.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:18 amJust a word of encouragement to keep up this most excellent work while time, flesh and spirit is willing. Hurt em with the hot hammer of reasonable reason, m’man.
Hillary’s camp is chock full of cherry pickers. Cherry picking the ‘best of’ the bill years and cherry picking the only pluses of obama’s color (which at best could only be viewed as a ‘bonus’) as if it were the soul of his candidacy.
They’re monsters who don’t realize that with that tactic they’re not only threatening to fracture the party but the reverbations could very well splinter the country for decades.
If justice is blind, so is ego.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:05 amMODI:
The Tim Wise data from those studies back in the day is priceless. I have to recommend for your reading pleasure, Dr. Bobby Wright’s Psychopathic Racial Personality. He explains these seemingly contradictory positions in a coherent manner. The book may be difficult to obtain - but if you’re in the city, you should be able to pick up a copy at most Black culture-themed book stores.
“Why do you constantly repeat yourself, it is not like you are actually reaching the same audience as the MSM.”
By the way - you’ll note that DMac has formally donned his Concession Hat. He’s now making arguments based on your “reach.” Compliments from the Loonie Bin!
A final word - I don’t have the time or inclination to study this more deeply, but I am fairly certain that “whites” would have had similar assessments of race relations after WWII in the 1940’s and even after WWI and after the end of the Civil War. This stuff is not new - and it’s why the collective opinion of “whites” CANNOT be part of a critical assessment of “race” relations. It’s as immaterial as the price of tea in China.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:28 amCharles - I couldn’t agree more.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:34 amMODI-
One final thought on this point because I think we may be talking past each other, rather than engaging.
Isn’t the best measure of how difficult it is to win the presidency for an African-American or a woman looking at past performances?
According to Wikipedia, there have been eight women to run for president since 1960 as part of a major party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates. I believe Sen. Clinton is the first to win a primary. (In fairness, two of the women were also African-American so they are difficult to count for purposes of this analysis.)
During that time, six African-Americans have run for president as members of a major party: Barack Obama, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and Carol Moseley Braun. Again, two of these candidates were women so they are difficult to analyze for this purpose. Both Rev. Jackson and Sen. Obama have had significant success (i.e., won more states and delegates than nearly every other candidate). Rev. Jackson’s relative success is particularly noteworthy considering he didn’t have one of jobs that is part of the traditional “pipeline” to the presidency. And Rev. Sharpton didn’t seem to really be running considering he did not have a campaign staff of significant size.
So what do these statistics show? Well, more women have run for president. But they have had zero success before this year. To the contrary, of the male African-American candidates from major parties that have actually had significant campaign staffs, there has been significant primary electoral success.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:39 ammmmm! cherries! marcr, thanks for weighing in. you should realize that the mere existence of a potential counter-argument does not nullify all that came before.
this pseudo-stat is a straw in the gale. you need to bulk it up. america hangs in the balance. bye-bye.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pmTo be technical, the Wiki list identifies women nominated to run for POTUS. It’s not clear to me the extent to which all of these nominees RAN.
Do you all have more information on the fundraising, staffing, etc.?
Is there any place to take this other than the agreed and established point that “white” women and all women significantly outnumber Blacks in the electorate.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm– Thanks to many for the kind and encouraging words.
– P.B., you are probably right about Ferraro and McGovern, for me it was the CBS public opinion poll that really made their biased opinions so relevant…. Note: I was just looked deepr into the poll beyond the article, and it showed that 58% of black folk believe that it is harder for a black man and 18% believe the reverse. A major disparity there vs. white opinion. I just added the data to the article.
– Jones, you are so right about that point about that point about Hillary wearing her womanhood as a badge. Now I don’t blame her and nothing is wrong with that. It is just that Barack cannot do the same without losing votes. He is supposed to “transcend” race. I wan’t to live long enough to hear a pundit compiment a white candidate for “transcending race”.
– Folly: “If justice is blind, so is ego.”… you are absolutely right. Did you see Hillary’s interview with FOX News yeasterday. She was basically saying in not so many words: “If I can’t win, then no Democrat will win. So there! Take that bitches!” She is ready to turn the convention into some 1968 affair… She and her husband believe in absolutely nothing… but themselves…
– Temple, I will check for “Dr. Bobby Wright’s Psychopathic Racial Personality”… sounds interesting… I live in the DC area… so I might not have to go back home to cop a copy… about public opinion polls, in the Wise article he states that very few were ever taken on race prior to the 1960’s. But every other single piece of information on record is pure delusion. I’ve got this book “Arguing about Slavery” which goes over the congressional discussions post the “Gag Rule”… the delusion was astonishing… most slaveholders did not consider themselves unethical… they just convinced themselves that slaves were happy in their place and that they were doing the right thing… it is truly amazing what the human mind can conjure up in order to preserve privilege…
March 28th, 2008 at 3:30 pmMarc,
you ask: “Isn’t the best measure of how difficult it is to win the presidency for an African-American or a woman looking at past performances?”
Most of the candidates mentioned fall into the “symbolic candidate” category. Braun just came off of a lost Senate election and ran her campaign “as the only woman”. Sharpton, Chisholm, and Keyes never had a shot, KNEW that they had no shot, but just wanted to get their voice heard — which I support (unless you don’t drop out at the end like Nader). BTW, have you ever HEARD some of the shit that comes out of Alan Keyes mouth! But I digress.
Jesse is in between. He didn’t have the traditional resume, but his alternative resume as leader was as strong as anyones. Much better than Michael Dukakis. Even still and despite the SC victory. He was never deemed a real threat.
There are only two black men who “had a shot” and you forgot to mention one. Colin Powell. He came out glowing from the Gulf War, he was non-threatening to whites because he was a Republican, and he could have possibly Eisenhowered his way in — assuming that Republicans would allow him past the primary. Of course, Powell is that rare military exception that does not have to win statewide office.
On the female side Christie Todd Whitman was being discussed as a viable presidential candidate for 2000.
Here is the bottom line. Up until the 1990’s the mere POSSIBILITY was closed off to both women and African-Americans. It doesn’t make any sense to quibble about 2 black individuals or 2 women… the sample size is utterly meaningless. Especially when the traditional pipeline did not exist for either.
Since the 1990’s only one group has experienced a political revolution: WOMEN. Looking at the Governor/Senator pipeline, black men have not. The ascendance of Barack Obama in politics is as good an indicator of a larger pattern as Tiger Woods is an indicator of a future wave of black golfers. At the end of the day, they are both merely exceptions to the rule and they are just more competent than everybody else.
At the end of the day, it’s all about “the pipeline”. Forty years from now, when female presidential candidates are a regular part of electoral politics, it will be clear to everybody… and we will all look at that CBS poll in shock the way we do now at some of those 1960 polls…
My only caveat is that an Obama presidency could change some of this dynamic because, should he win, he could have a transformative effect on the voting electorate… which may ultimately be more important long-term than his actual presidency…
March 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pmFor what it’s worth, I believe you’re right about most of the women being unserious candidates, but far from all of them were. Ellen McCormack in 1976 had enough support to get secret service protection, but won no primaries. Elizabeth Dole also ran a serious race in 2000 without any success. Same with Pat Schroeder in 1988.
Yes, it’s a small sample size, but so is the sample size of current statewide elected officials.
Another issue to consider is that African-American candidates often can count on overwhelming support in the African-American community but female candidates barely, if at all, get a larger share of crossover female support from the other party. Is this an advantage in the Democratic primary?
March 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pmAnother amazing post, Modi. No joke, this is very important stuff you are writing about here. Great work.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:27 pmYou will receive “the story behind the numbers” sometime after I right that column on “why water is wet”.
Sounds about right!
March 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pmModi, Beautiful article. Regardless of the outcome, in time it will be agreed that Obama ran a revolutionary campaign. The first campaigner to utilize the internet, for fund raising, expanding his base, and mobilizing his foot soldiers. None of this have anyting to do with race or gender, or age.
He organized a more cohesive staff, and his strategy for the “small” states have been stealth like. Anyone else runnning a traditional campaign against Hillary would have been slaughtered, But Barack’s brilliance is the key to his success.
You compare Obama to Cris Paul. I more compare Obama to Hannibal crossing the swiss alps and terrorizing the roman empire. Like Hannibal, Barack is an excellent strategist, and has followed that with near perfect execution.
If he is elected, he will be our first non-affirmative action president.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:32 pmMarc,
Since 1990:
60 Elections won by women (includes re-elections)
4 Elections won by AA’s (Mosely-Braun in both categories)
I am very comfortable with the sample size relative to the distribution to draw this conclusion.
Yes, a black candidate has an advantage with the black vote in primaries and women have advantage with women. the problem is most states don’t have big black voting blocks. Obama got this thing started in Iowa wher 5 or 6 people look like him. he was heavily disadvantaged but pulled it through.
– SML, thanks.
– Imhotep: Yes, his campaign has been nothing short of revolutionary. He took a page out of Dean’s book and ran with it. What has been the fundraising difference is the small donors which make him less beholden to the corporate powers that be….if Obama is Hannibal…then Hillary is Hannibal Lector the way she is cannibalizing the party…
Hannibal
March 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pmCheck it…
March 28th, 2008 at 10:40 pmhttp://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/752239/27404176
Temple… your link is jibberish…
March 29th, 2008 at 1:26 amBarack Obama only got 38% of the “vote” in Iowa. He certainly has scored a nontrivial share of the white electorate, but how many delegates would he have if his percentage of the African-American vote weren’t 90% but closer to the 50% that a white candidate might be getting against Sen. Clinton? Let’s just say he would have a sizable delegate deficiency and there would be calls for him, not Sen. Clinton, to quit the race.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pmMarc, the black Iowa vote is pretty negligible. Black folk make up just 3.7% of the Iowa population.
The main reason he scored 38% of the “vote” to Hillary’s 29% was because of John Edwards getting 30%. The campaign platforms of Edwards and Obama are quite similar, and it is reasonable to assume that Obama was hurt more than Clinton by Edwards in Iowa. This point was confirmed since the election when 9 of 15 Edwards delegates were awarded to Obama (I think he stands at 52% with still with 6 of Edwards delegates still uncommitted) It is quite reasonable to believe that without Edwards, Obama wins at least 55% of the delegates at the caucus, perhaps more.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pmMarc: In the spirit of what the Obama campaign attempts to be about please do not take this as snark.
When Obama began in Iowa at least 100 AA from ages 20-70 I knew thought he was a fish out of water,in 96 percent white Iowa.
No lobbyest money ,a grass roots campaign I knew no one White,Black Asian or Latino who thought he could pull Iowa off.
The White vote has sent shock waves to old AA geezers like myself.
I could see Hilary losing by just her high negatives in red states, far easier than losing large in blue /purple states like Minnesota,Maine, Vermont,Iowa, Nebraska Washington.
Pessimistically, this is still America,and I can see stll the Clinton money machine coup in the end at 50-50 odds.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:48 amModi; As a child I would here my father,uncles take pride in the career of Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby.
To me historically wise and to many others Barack fighting for the presidential nomination is the same sense of pride,and he faces many of the same obstacles they did.
I do understand the Chris Paul analogy and in the context your useing it,it is correct.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:03 amP.B., from a political perspective, the analogy sounds about right to me.
Are you from Iowa?
PS: Marc, speaking of “snark”, I hope my comments did not come off as such… sometimes tone can be interpreted 100 different ways.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pmModi: Born and raised in rural Indiana. Quite a bit like much of Iowa.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:50 amHave spent half my adult life in Canada Quebec and Ontario.
Still an American citizen.
Chris Paul has played better this year than Steve Nash played in either of his MVP seasons. REad that again.
I dare somebody to argue differently, and I really want somebody to explain why the massive outpouring of support Nash received is no absent. That’s why Chris Paul is Barack Obama.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pmOh and MODI, please check out this post I did a while back that shows how Ferraro’s position has magically changed now that her candidate is losing.
http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-is-ludicrous.html
March 31st, 2008 at 1:06 pmI believe that’s why YOU are the “Big Man.”
March 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmMODI…I hate when that happens. I’ll have to fix it later.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pmP.B. — Been to Quebec once… very pretty city…
Big Man, I’m with you on CP3… and check out that he is over a turnover less per game… but more importantly GREAT POST on Ferraro!!! How did I not know that!!!! Why wasn’t that Ferraro quote anywhere in mainstream media… (okay, I know the answer) …a 2nd hat tip to Jack and Jill… Your comment is just another segment of THIS IS WHY WE BLOG…
March 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pmI had teh same reaction when I clicked on the article. It was some random commenter on Jack and Jill who was spreading the word.
It’s inexcusable that this was not noted by the mainstream media. As a journalist, I have been so depressed at how bad a job my profession has done. More importantly, I’ve been sickened by how convinced people were that they were doing a good job.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pmYou know Big Man, it has been less than a year that I’ve been blogging and my whole world has changed from the new world of information that can not be found in the mainstream. You are right, it is inexcusable. The Ferraro quote originated in the New York Freakin’ Times not exactly an underground journal.
So let me ask you, when a quote like this slips by or say, when Rev. Wright is quoting former Iraqi Ambassador Edward Peck… just how much of this is gross oversight or purely intentional in your humble opinion?
March 31st, 2008 at 5:27 pmWhen I first got into the business I thought it was accidential. The more I do this job, the more I realize how much power individual journalists have regarding what rises to the level of news, and how events are framed. So, I don’t think the people are racists looking to promote a racist worldview, but I think they are promoting the dominant worldview that they ascribe to, and that world view does not account for all perspectives. Combine that with a few folks who are pushing a racist worldview and we have today’s media climate.
Rev. Wright was treated the way he was treated because he challenged the dominant worldview. Ferraro’s comments were handled the way they were handled because she was reflecting the worldview of many people. She was castigated for saying what she said, but there was an undercurrent that assumed she probably believed those comments because many white people do believe them. Very few white people actually considered the fact that she lying her ass off knowingly to score political points. They would rather label her an old out of touch politician.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pmBig Man - before I cleaned up the categories on my blog, I used to have one called “JournalJism” - just for stuff like this. The field is rotten to the core - the good work is being done on the periphery.
Of course, there are those pearls that are occasionally the product of insiders who get out…like Smoke and Mirrors on the drug war by a former WSJ reporter.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm“Very few white people actually considered the fact that she lying her ass off knowingly to score political points.”
Yes, I should know. I was ONE of those white people. The level of her indignation made me believe that she was absolutely sincere in her absolute absurdity. I also factored in that she lost two statewide elections including one very close primary so that there were some white sour grapes at work as well.
Temple, can you direct me to links on some of those stories years ago that showed government officials behind pushing drugs into the black community…
April 1st, 2008 at 4:29 pmModi-
Thank you!
I.ve enjoyed reading your posts since I discovered your blog. I am really astonished by the clarity of reason you possess and display. What I gather is that its not just an overt denounciation of racism or race pandering, but a rebuttal of the unfairness in this society of one class over another or a denigrating representation of facts or individuals in persuing an angenda. A honest evaluation of the facts in historical context instead of the usual manipulation to support or justify a position. That’s good!
What I’m really impressed with are the comments to your posts. You don’t seem to get the usual ugly, demeaning, and racist comments regarding race you see on other blogs. The people that come here are more interested in intellectual dialog, discussion, and sharing of thoughts. That’s good!
Google Contras and see where that leads you.
Thanks for your contributions.
April 5th, 2008 at 2:32 amPhil,
thank you for your very kind words. You state:
“What I’m really impressed with are the comments to your posts. You don’t seem to get the usual ugly, demeaning, and racist comments regarding race you see on other blogs. The people that come here are more interested in intellectual dialog, discussion, and sharing of thoughts. That’s good!”
I do like that there is more intellectual discussion here, but I think there are a couple of reasons the usual bigots that populate ESPN conversation tend to stay away from commenting. It is because many of the regular commenters will hand them their ass if they don’t come with logical arguments and reasoning. It is one of the few sites (see Sports on My mind; The Starting Five) where the bigots don’t have the luxury of strength in numbers. I’m often more likely to get derogatory stuff via email (I got aquainted with the Nazi crowd after some posts in October on the Jena 6). It also matters who picks up a story. If DeadSpin picks one up (its been a while) you are more likely to get some one-time drop-in bullshit.
In any case, it would be nice if discussions on race could be elevated a couple of notches like Obama suggested. Unfortunately, after initial praise for his speech, their subsequent coverage didn’t honor his request….
April 6th, 2008 at 3:38 amhoarsen tur markshot hammerstone vesicoprostatic plucklessness indiscovered coraciidae
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pmGoSWFL.com
http://www.rvrhs.com/
I love you christopher brown
March 25th, 2009 at 6:15 amHi, nice posts there
thank’s for the interesting information
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pmI added your blog to Google Reader.
July 12th, 2009 at 4:20 am