TheAgitator.com
It Ain’t Because He’s Black
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008The idea that Obama wouldn’t be leading the Democratic primaries if he weren’t black is silly, and it’s no more sillier when it comes from a black TV mogul than when it comes from Geraldine Ferraro:
“What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not… .”
Perhaps not. But I do know of another young, articulate, telegenic senator who took office with no prior political experience, and was almost immediately talked about as a presidential candidate. And indeed, he jumped over a lot of other people to become the Democrats’ VP nominee in 2004. Maybe John Edwards’ quick rise was due to him being black, too. Or maybe, like Obama, it’s because he speaks well, connects with people, and has ideas that are receptive to Democratic primary voters.
But Radley, doesn’t the comparison defeat your argument? I mean, I would argue that the biggest difference between Edwards and Obama is race, and one has had tremendous success in the primary while the other (relatively) quickly bowed out. Something separated Obama from Edwards, and at this point race seems like as good of an explanation as any.
Plus, Edwards was chosen as a VP candidate, not heralded as a Presidential candidate based on one speech. There have been a few relatively unknown young senators chosen as VP candidates that wouldn’t have stood a chance running for the Pres job.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Obama got a big head start thanks to his support among black voters in the primaries. I also don’t think that support will translate into a presidential victory.
This is exactly right. To whatever extent Obama benefits from being black, Hillary benefits 1000 times more from being the former First Lady (and the, ahem, other thing).
ClubMed and Tokin, I think you two are underestimating Edwards phony factor. Personally, I can’t stand to hear Edwards talk ever, about anything. But I began liking Obama shortly after his DNC speech when I caught him mid-interview on the radio. I kept wondering who it was making arguements I completely disagreed with but was nearly convinced.
Also, there’s a good, recent bloggingheads about Obama and race with Ross Douthat and Debra Dickerson.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9914
Alex-
I’m not underestimating Edwards’ phony factor… I can’t stand the guy. However, Obama’s been caught doubletalking about many issues (decriminalizing marijuana and free trade are a couple I can think of off the top of my head) and he seems to get a free pass. Is this because he’s black? I don’t know, but it makes me wonder. I guess ultimately I have two points:
1.) The issue here isn’t whether Obama would be successful if he weren’t black. The issue is whether he would be THIS successful if he weren’t black. I think it’s an important distinction.
2.) Regardless of one’s personal speculation on the question (and that’s all it is… speculation), I think Radley goes too far in saying the idea is “silly.” He may disagree with it, but I think a sufficiently rational argument can be made that his race has been the difference between great politician and superstar politician to qualify the idea as, at the very least, “defensible.”
I think you could compare Obama to Bill Clinton, too. Young, articulate, telegenic governor of an obscure southern state rose from being an unknown (outside Democratic circles) with no national experience to political dominance that lasts to this day.
The problem with Edwards is that he seems phony, not just that he is. Whether or not Obama is any more or less phony than Edwards, I think that for a lot of people, Edwards comes of as a total phony and Obama seems like a good enough sort of guy.
ClubMed, I agree with your points. I do think a good case could be made that being mixed-race (but not black at all in the American sense) is on balance helpful.
Zeb made my point better than I did.
Are people this quick to forget that he didn’t have the support of the black community until recently? Hillary Clinton, mostly because of her last name and her Husband’s charm, carried the black vote in many states until most black people realized that Obama really did have a chance, and then they started to support him.
Obama’s popularity isn’t because he’s black. His popularity is because hes articulate, eloquent, knowledgeable, and could charm the scales off a cobra. He was popular when he won the Senate seat in Illinois by a landslide, winning 55% of the vote in the Senatorial primary against 6 other people (that means they split the other 45%!) and then went on to win by the biggest margin ever, earning 70% of the vote in the popular election.
The man was popular before he started his Presidential bid and it spilled over into it. It’s not because he’s black, it’s because of his personality.
Obama did not start out with 90% of the black vote.
IIRC, he and Hillary were splitting the black vote for the first few (2?) primaries.
*(&(*&*@#& Nando beat me to the punch…must type faster!
I’m inclined to agree with Matt’s comparison to Bill Clinton. Another apt comparison would be Ronald Reagan. All young, telegenic, easy-talking, reasonably attractive men who come out of nowhere and happen to have found a “message” that resonates with Americans during a particular time. When white people do it, it’s because of their personal attributes. When black people do it… it’s because they’re black, apparently.
When white people vote for white candidates, it’s because they like what they have to say. When Black people vote for Black candidates, it’s because they’re black, get it? It couldn’t at all be because Obama speaks to issues that the majority of Blacks care about, and addresses the issue of race openly.
After all, Alan Keyes didn’t split the black vote during his Senatorial campaign against Obama just because he was black. He got killed because he fell on the wrong side of the issues that the majority of black voters cared about.
Most people seem to forget that you should like someone based on their words matching their actions matching your principles, and NOT what they SAY they will do for you in the name of more socialism, government centralization, and destruction of your liberty.
Lee:
The simple fact is, the majority of people in the United States believe the government has the right utilize coercion against individual citizens to achieve social ends. When a Democrat votes for a candidate who promises more redistributive government programs, they ARE voting their principles. When a Conservative hawk votes for stealing more of your money to give to the military industrial complex they ARE voting their principles.
Most people in the United States are in favor of more government centralization in some areas, and greater restrictions on individual liberty in some areas.
“What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not… .”
And who constituted Obama’s major primary opposition? A one-term Senator who had no prior political experience, and a one-and-one-third-term Senator who had no prior elected experience (but who did have a famous last name). In a race between three non-”Jerry Smiths,” one of them eventually was going to pull ahead, and I can hardly fault Obama for being the one.
I think the bigger question in this Democratic primary race was why the three candidates with the least experience led the pack, while the candidates with far more experience (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) were pulling single digits at best.
“I think the bigger question in this Democratic primary race was why the three candidates with the least experience led the pack, while the candidates with far more experience (Richardson, Biden, Dodd) were pulling single digits at best.”
Right, especially considering that Edwards likely cost the Dems the White House in ‘04 and Hillary has by far the highest negatives. The Dems, much like libertarians, are just sorry as hell at winning elections.
Most people in the United States are in favor of more government centralization in some areas, and greater restrictions on individual liberty in some areas.
And that is the problem. I am not debating the false paradigm of Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative, distractions from the real problem. I debate that people’s idea of government is WRONG, theft by proxy (government) through taxation and inflation is still theft for “the majority’s” pet program. Democracies (mob rule) ALWAYS fail. This country has not been a Constitutional republic for well over a century, and thus our demise will come in our lifetime or the next. No country lasts forever, and the USA will be no exception.
Sorry, but I’ve got to add to the first two comments by saying, yeah, it is partly because he’s Black, and the Edwards comparison is weak. (One of these men is extremely popular and has a serious shot at becoming the next President. The other was a lame VP candidate in a lame campaign.)
I don’t think that there is a cabal saying “We must put forward a Black candidate!” and I don’t think that any of his supporters are consciously saying “Oh good, a Black candidate, I’ll support that one!” But the fact that he’s Black (or half-Black, really) does make him more interesting, more modern…it makes him a more compelling “candidate for change”, which is exactly the role he’s trying to play. If he were White, he’d look a lot more like just another politician.
Lee:
Preaching to the choir. I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, or about what. But I doubt many people here are going to take issue with the general thrust of your comments.
Clinton and Reagan came out of no where? Ummm, no. Now Carter came out of no where, but he had the advantage of watergate fatigue and he still might have lost had the election been a day or two later. Edwards was considered a viable nominee by a distinct minority of Democratic voters, much less the general population. Just out of curiosity, had the Republican nominated General Powell or Sec Rice for President or Vice President would you assume race had nothing to do with it? And both of them have accomplishments to point to that justifies their consideration.
JJH2: Couldn’t tell what your position was, so just stating my position “for the record”. Google can now have a record for everyone to read. Maybe it will clear the cobwebs in the idiot minds out there.
Ms. Clinton would not be considered a serious candidate if she were a man. Her policies read like she cobbled them together after many shots with beer chasers. She has the charisma of yesterday’s newspaper left in the rain.
I am looking forward to the Democratic Convention. Perhaps the delegates will nominate a compromise candidate.
chsw
On the other hand, what kind of success would you expect from a Senator named Hillary Smith just starting her sophomore term? Ferraro and Johnson are both dumber than a box of rocks for making such asinine statements, and having no idea it leaves Hillary wide open to the same kind of charge.
I love the hounds going after Ferraro. To me she almost seems like a sacrifical lamb sent out to hurt Obama (the big mean man is keepin da wimmin down). You have the identity party fighting amongst itself over who’s the most worthy minority golden ticket candidate to run. Obama clearly has gotten where he is because of his brains and eloquence but its undeniable to me that the other big reason he’s around is that he is black or rather a minority candidate like Hillary. I think he’d have less trouble against a white guy who sounded/acted like Clinton. Though another smaller factor might also be people are just tired of/never liked Hillary and thats helping propel him.