This goes hand in hand with one of the major differences between sexism and racism: people of different races can prefer/factor in/dream of/abhor homogenous situations. People of different sexes cannot, not with the same degree of realism. You can blur more with sexism, and it's a much weaker insult to call someone "sexist" as "racist".

For example, most people have parents who are the same race but opposite sex. The cliche is a mixed-sex household of uniform race.

Okay, I don't know about the word "blur", but it's something.

I don't really buy it at all. 10% may be right for hard core racists who will say to themselves: "I will not vote for him; he's black", but the idea of racism as so frowned upon that it only affects the actions of a few hold outs is a media fiction. Stuff gets smuggled in, and because we agree that racism is a Bad Thing that only neo-confederates partake of, the press won't call it racism. Candidate X talks about plays the race card. Candidate Y's black friends call his judgment into question. Candidate Z is soft on crime. How many black Senators have we had since reconstruction again? 3, is it? You may be right qualitatively about how gender plays out compared to race, though: lacking the group of hard core haters but coloring everything we think about a candidate.

I wonder, as I did yesterday, if too fully accepting this framework -- trying to break out of it by being, according to the stereotype, atypically tough and hawkish for a female Democrat -- is what ended up leading Hillary down the path she's followed.

Which is to say, I think you might be on to something, but the strategy for dealing with it (because it's such a fuzzy thing; should we evaluate candadites differently based on gender? Are there things that are stereotypically female that are actually welcomed by voters?) is distinctly non-obvious.

This sounds generally plausible to me but I think you probably underestimate the number of people who just won't vote for a black candidate. _Most_ of these people are also republican anyway so it's hopefully not going to sink Obama but I'm surprised and worried when I talk to people I know and respect, who are not in most cases obvious racists, who have attitudes towards Obama that can only be explained by a deep fear of a black person being in charge. I'm sure that such people (in which I sadly must include some people I care about) would not vote before they vote for Obama. The good news, such as it is, is that this group is mostly old and soon will die.

On the other hand, I do think 3 is right; look at our recent "well, maybe black people talk about killing whitey when they're in private?" thread. Racism can be as subtle as sexism.

NPR reported that Clinton was going to "suspend" her campaign and "pledge her support" for Obama, with possible conditions attached.

3: I'm not sure if I agree with myself here either, but I think there's some sort of qualitative (not a "which is worse" quantitative) difference between how it plays out, and I'm groping.

Heebie's onto something in 1; something that fits into it is Obama's strong performance in states with essentially no black people. It's not that white voters in those states aren't racist at all -- as I said in the post, most people are on some level. But not dealing with race at all in their everyday lives seems to cut down on the degree to which race has a strong negative effect on their voting behavior; race just isn't terribly salient for them.

There's no similar group of people for whom gender isn't salient; society everyone is gender-integrated, pretty much.

So, for instance, I heard a progressive Democrat of some real power and authority say that she wasn't supporting Obama because she just couldn't separate him from Deval Patrick in her head, and Patrick had been such a disappointment.

it's a significant factor in how they evaluate candidates, that tends to disadvantage female candidates in ways that appear individual to that candidate specifically

Honestly, I think the exact same thing happens to black candidates.

To be clear, it's the "10% of voters" which sounds off to me, and the idea that either you're a hard core racist or race doesn't affect your voting. As a description of the difficulties female candidates face it's fairly convincing, and I would also buy that it's harder for voters to factor out gender than to factor out race. The crappy, trivial, personality-obsessed nature of political coverage seems almost specifically designed to make life hell for a female candidate--she's feminine and too weak to be president or she's a shrill harpy bitch. Though, there is a racial version of this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing: it's very important for a black candidate to be highly educated & qualified, not "street," etc. but if so then he's an out of touch elite who David Brooks decrees out of touch with Applebees salad-bar-goers.

As a description of the difficulties female candidates face it's fairly convincing, and I would also buy that it's harder for voters to factor out gender than to factor out race. The crappy, trivial, personality-obsessed nature of political coverage seems almost specifically designed to make life hell for a female candidate--she's feminine and too weak to be president or she's a shrill harpy bitch.

Definitely. And I think one important factor is that media culture -- celebrity culture, sports culture, from which our political media culture cross-pollinates -- is vastly more sexist than it is racist at this point, so whatever the private feelings of people sitting in their homes, they'll still be better-conditioned to root for the black star of their basketball team than they will be to root for Annika Sorenstam.

4: Yep, I think that's right, down to the non-obviousness of the solution.

3, 9, 10: All I can say is that I think 'exactly the same' is an overstatement. On the flip side, I think it's pretty clearly obvious that there are many fewer people who would categorically never vote for a woman than would never vote for a black candidate -- racism gets unambiguously hostile, while the sort of hostility you get with sexism is all complicatedly fucked-up and not unmixed with other stuff.

12 actually is one of the things that made me feel like Obama would be (I can say this now) electable in this country, because the ground has been softened by other realms of pop culture; insofar as Presidential contests are about star power, even racist white people are used to rooting for black men with star power.

If you'd like, you can call this the "If Boston sports fans can do it so can America" theory.

8: I buy that there are voters for whom race has little effect on voting, but to describe that group as "everyone who's not a hard core racist" & to estimate its size at 90% of the popular seems: (1) way the hell off (2) to buy into the standard media fiction about how racism works in the U.S.--confined to a few hard core haters whom we all condemn.

8: I buy that there are voters for whom race has little effect on voting, but to describe that group as "everyone who's not a hard core racist" & to estimate its size at 90% of the popular seems: (1) way the hell off (2) to buy into the standard media fiction about how racism works in the U.S.--confined to a few hard core haters whom we all condemn.

All I can say is that I think 'exactly the same' is an overstatement.

I agree. Every variant of group-hate is its own special unique hate-snowflake.

oops, sorry.

11: Yeah, the 10% was very much pulled out of nowhere -- I think you could get percentages anywhere from 2% to 75% of white voters depending on the small area you sampled, and I couldn't dream to guess of a national average.

Though, there is a racial version of this damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing: it's very important for a black candidate to be highly educated & qualified, not "street," etc. but if so then he's an out of touch elite who David Brooks decrees out of touch with Applebees salad-bar-goers.

True fact -- in NY, this might be referred to as the David Dinkins effect: god forbid a black politician should be a tennis player who looks comfortable in a tuxedo. Buck was worrying that Obama would get treated like Dinkins was in office just this morning.

19: luckily, he's good at basketball.

the idea of racism as so frowned upon that it only affects the actions of a few hold outs is a media fiction.

I'm inclined to think this is true. And if it is true, maybe this is a reason to hope for a McCain/Jindal ticket. Any Democrats unwilling to vote for a Democratic candidate because he's black aren't likely to turn around and vote for an Indian Republican.

Racism can be as subtle as sexism.

Someone once said to me, "Subtle racism isn't subtle to people who are subject to it." I think white women are well equipped to assess subtle sexism; less well-equipped regarding racism.

And if it is true, maybe this is a reason to hope for a McCain/Jindal ticket.

Dude, there's no way it'll happen. Cap'n Amnesty & (okay playing the part of a racist-ass GOP cracker here bear with me) Apu? Never.

19: yeah, I couldn't guess a % either. And it also probably varies by candidate--the % of white voters who hold Barack Obama's race against him is probably less than the % who'd hold another black candidate's race against him.

I would guess that Clinton caught more gender crap than other female politicians, too--partly because of personal charisma & what have you, but above all because as First Lady she was a target for the right wing hate machine long before she was a powerful politician in her own right (or as powerful a politician as you'd normally have to be to be that big a target, anyway--no doubt she had plenty of influence, but, say, Nancy Pelosi has more, and plenty of female governors have a lot of influence, without being the subject of the same degree of smear campaigning.)

But not dealing with race at all in their everyday lives seems to cut down on the degree to which race has a strong negative effect on their voting behavior; race just isn't terribly salient for them.

This is one of the interesting things about race and America. We've had discussions about ethnic stereotypes before, and how many of us only knew certain stereotypes because of pop culture. In some way I think the same is true of race, because there are quite a lot of white people who for reasons that are informed historically by racism, but who didn't make those decisions themselves, just don't have a lot of contact with black people.

Not that this leads to a racial utopia. Hardly, because there's all sorts of structural and institutional problems, and the stereotypes that do survive are pernicious. And everyone seems to have a crazy redneck uncle. But it does mean there's a grain of truth to the matter when someone my age says 'I don't see race.' (Can be true of other ages, but I think it's more salient for those of us who weren't alive during all the Civil Rights stuff.)

They might be racist in the structural and institutional sense, and it's bad that the U.S. is such that they could get to age thirty without meeting a lot of black people, but they're not actively hating anyone. To the extent they believe racist things it's largely the fault of television and compounded by a lack of experience. And it's not going to be a reason not to vote for someone, though it might turn into a reason not to vote for affirmative action.

As far as the post, I think it's wrong, but in an interesting way, because racism also means Obama had to be a lot closer to perfect, just like sexism meant that for Clinton. Seriously, think about it. An Obama on his third wife, calls her 'cunt' in public, and Michelle Obama being a known philanderer. Think he gets out of Iowa?

#23. Yeah. I don't think it'll happen, either. But I sorta wish it would.

21: I'm still holding out hope for the Mormon as VP.

14: you can call this the "If Boston sports fans can do it so can America" theory.

Where have you gone Pumpsie Green?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Katherine-

Since LB has said the 10% number was randomly chosen, why not randomly choose another, and then see if you think the argument has any merit? Would 25% make you feel comfortable? As a nationwide average, I have a lot of trouble with a number much above that - the Obama-Keyes election didn't feature 25% of voters leaving that slot blank - but I could see it being well above 10%.

Anyway, I think there's actually a two-step progression with racism that isn't present with sexism. While 10% (whatever) of the populace might never, ever vote for a black, there's another 10% (whatever) that is really prone to falling for racist arguments, to the point where they'll be effectively as racist as the first group.

A common thing to say over the last 6 months about Clinton race-baiting was, "What, voters didn't know Obama was black until Bill Clinton said it?" I said things along those lines myself. But the evidence is that a significant number of voters will act more racist if they're exposed to racist arguments - even if they reject them on their face. It's like the phenomenon where a smear, even once disproved, still harms the rating of the smeared.

So the coming ultra-racist campaign against Obama is going to cost him votes among people who would vote for a Nice Black Man, but can't stop their lizard brains from listening to racist slurs.

#27. Barabbas is my second choice.

So the coming ultra-racist campaign against Obama is going to cost him votes among people who would vote for a Nice Black Man, but can't stop their lizard brains from listening to racist slurs.

Speciesist.

29 was me, and posted before I saw 24.

I think you have the right distinction between the hardcore refuseniks and the subtly uncomfortable, and also the right focus on regional/community differences, but those don't map onto race and gender neatly. In some communities you'll find people more explicitly uncomfortable with electing a woman, but still plenty susceptible to thinking that Obama's pastor is scary, and in other communities you'll find people who will never vote for a black person, but still think Hillary Clinton is a little shrewish.

25: The relative treatment of Cindy McCain & Michelle Obama seems like one of the most blatantly racist aspects of this campaign season to me. (Though some of it is just the right having more sleazy propagandists who traffic in attacks on the candidate's spouse.)

The 10% thing has always been my point: out of the set of people who will NOT vote for a black guy, a large chunk (probably a majority) will also NOT vote for a Democrat. They can't vote any *more* Republican, so they aren't a net loss. You have to set off the remainder, who are real, against the also very real turnout gain among black voters.

above all because as First Lady she was a target for the right wing hate machine long before she was a powerful politician in her own right

I think this factors into why some of the sexism directed at Clinton has seemed so subtle. I've been hearing how she's a cold, calculating bitch since 1992. I was 13 then. I recognize that as a description influenced by sexism, but I can also see how 'cold, calculating bitch' would strike a lot of people as who Clinton just is, her Homeric epithet.

But the evidence is that a significant number of voters will act more racist if they're exposed to racist arguments - even if they reject them on their face. It's like the phenomenon where a smear, even once disproved, still harms the rating of the smeared.

See, this is why I think the last 8 weeks of the campaign has been harmful. The narrative line that Obama can't win in Appalachia might have been a reasonable surmise before the Pennsylvania primary, but now that we had that one, and counties in Kentucky going 90% for Clinton -- Hillary Clinton! -- it's an established part of the landscape. I think those numbers in Kentucky built on the numbers from West Virginia, which in turn built on the numbers from central Pennsylvania: 'we don't like the black guy, and it's perfectly to vote that way.'

I don't think Sen. Clinton can really put that genie back in the bottle, but I'd like to see her try . . .

Every time I look at this post, all I can think about is how, when I get that feeling, I want sexual healing. It is impairing my political analysis, I'm afraid.

Race is a factor with more than 10% around here in Wobegon. A McCain-hater here is staying home in November because of the n*gger. My job is to convince him that some n*ggers are OK, or alternatively, that Obama isn't a real n*gger. I regard that as doable.

By contrast, you can't really convince someone that a woman isn't a woman. It may be that at some deep level racists realize that race is somewhat of a fiction, in a way that sexists don't.

My job is to convince him that some n*ggers are OK, or alternatively, that Obama isn't a real n*gger....By contrast, you can't really convince someone that a woman isn't a woman.

Right, a black person who agrees to play by all white social codes is not threatening, but a woman who plays by all men's social codes is incredibly threatening.

Perhaps this: a racist person wants a homogenous group, a sexist person wants a clear division into two groups.

The relative treatment of Cindy McCain & Michelle Obama seems like one of the most blatantly racist aspects of this campaign season to me. (Though some of it is just the right having more sleazy propagandists who traffic in attacks on the candidate's spouse.)

34.2 to 34.1. I mean, seriously - when have Dems gone after a Republican's spouse (I'm sure it's happened, but not much - remember all that bullshit about how every liberal supposedly loved Laura? No we fucking didn't.)?

I'm not saying the attacks on Michelle haven't been racist - they're pretty much explicitly so, since she's the "black" one in the family - but that Dems' wives are considered open targets, and Rs' wives aren't.

Katherine's 3 is right, and obviously so. Take a look at the Jeremiah Wright sermons again. The actual arguments he's making in those sermons are arguments you could find being uncontroversially made by any number of white male professional blogs, but the style and rhetoric he uses are so culturally identified with Black America that he was immediately denounced as extreme and offensive even by white liberal bloggers who have made those same arguments (Ezra Klein, I'm coughing violently in your direction). The rumors and innuendos about Michelle Obama, the implications about Obama's drug use that were never made about Bush's, the insinuations that Obama isn't "American" enough - it's all about race, and rather transparently so.

"I think those numbers in Kentucky built on the numbers from West Virginia, which in turn built on the numbers from central Pennsylvania: 'we don't like the black guy, and it's perfectly to vote that way."

Everyone cites the exit polls in these States showing that 30% of Democrats said they'd vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee as evidence of racism. However, in Kentucy the pollsters decided to ask this additional question of Democrats: who did you vote for in 2004. 30% said Bush.

Nancy Reagan came in for a share of negative attention -- I'm sure one of you with adequate google-fu can bring up the postcard with a drawing of her in pasties and a g string.

I used to have a bong named Nancy Reagan; does that count as negative?

Given the social dynamics of unfogged, I'm glad it was Lizardbreath who posted this thread. LB is both sufficiently respected and sufficiently argumentative, that people both feel free to disagree, but are also staking out substantive positions in disagreement, which makes for interesting reading.

Based just on my own impressions I'm inclined to think that racism is a more powerful limiter of opportunities in society than sexism (I originally wrote "more powerful force" but I think that sexism is powerful in ways that don't necessarily prevent people from achieving prominence or success), but that the level of obvious sexism around this race has surprised me and that it does seem like there are ways in which politics presents particular avenues for sexist attacks -- for the reason Katherine gave in 11.

Racism is more bound up with class.

47: And age, too, I think, but insofar as it tracks class and the likelihood of living in a neighborhood where there were actually black people, i.e., pre-white flight. My grandfather, who drove a vegetable truck, is pretty racist by contemporary standards, but probably has more experience actually living next to black people than most of his grandkids.

39: Have you shown him that Chris Rock routine to explain the difference?

Everyone cites the exit polls in these States showing that 30% of Democrats said they'd vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee as evidence of racism. However, in Kentucy the pollsters decided to ask this additional question of Democrats: who did you vote for in 2004. 30% said Bush.

My point, I think.

Race is a factor with more than 10% around here in Wobegon

Whatever happened to midwest progressivism?!

43, 50 -- So what do you think they were doing voting in the Dem primary? Whistling Dixie?

I'm not sure how this fits in with the discussion, but I found the disparate treatment of the two issues by the media striking. The impact of race and racism in our society was embraced as an important issue ripe for discussion. Pundits were falling over themselves to give their earnest commentary about racism in America, sometimes patting themselves on the back for admitting their own unconscious racism. While Obama's speech had something to do with this, and he should be aplauded for pushing the narrative in that direction, there was only a minimal effort to engage in the same analysis with regards to gender.

I think both Clinton and Obama potentially suffer more from subtle racism and sexism than other candidates do. That's because Clinton first came to public attention in a heavily gender-inflected way -- as a non-traditional first lady who triggered all kinds of insecurities about the proper role of a wife, etc. Her time as a Senator helped go against that, but maybe not enough. In Obama's case, he was such a blank slate -- his first high-profile job was less than four years ago -- that stuff like the pastor thing took on more importance than it would have for someone with a heavier bio and more previous public familiarity.

Obama benefits from his shape-shifting abilities, though, in terms of both looks and background he is able to present in lots of different ways. Transcending divisions is in his DNA!

Well, for all the sexism there apparently was, it played a very different role here than the racism. Obama wasn't going around making the explicit appeal that people needed to support him because America wasn't ready for a woman president. There's no Jeremiah Wright equivalent of a scary woman who had to be repudiated. Etc, etc.

Race is a factor with more than 10% around here in Wobegon

Whatever happened to midwest progressivism?!

Progressivism was an elite, excellent and honorable, response to populism, in my opinion. And populism has most often had a nativist and racist strain as much as an egalitarian. But an authentic, powerful tradition that needs to be harnessed for real success to be possible.

47, 48 are good.

Aww, most of the thread is good. But sorry, no offense, we are in the general now, not the Democratic primaries, attempting perhaps* to broaden the base, and I think any discussion of racism is counter-productive. I will take my cues on this from Obama or his surrogates, but will forgo racism analysis until December.

The campaign will know best which swing states will get resources based on demographics and prejudices.

*It may be useful. I will watch the leadership closely.

the implications about Obama's drug use that were never made about Bush's

Huh? Obama write a book admitting he'd used coke. Bush denied it consistently (if a bit coyly) - and everyone talked about it as if he had done it.

I really don't see what distinction you're trying to draw here. They weren't treated identically, no, but then they weren't identical.

PS - White professional bloggers say lots of shit that's considered too outre for TV discourse - this isn't news to anyone. I understand what you're trying to say about the bloggers themselves, but the Wright controversy was not about Drum's or Ezra's response to the video. I seem to recall another candidate this year who got in trouble because of things said by professional, white bloggers. US political discourse is incredibly narrowly bound, and Wright's comments were outside those bounds, whether they were legit comments or not.

I think what Alex said in 35 is right. Don't worry about the racist Republicans, they will never vote for Obama. As Emerson implied, the effort must be made to convince the racist Democrats to vote for the candidate of their party. If the number of racist Democrats is less than that of "progressive" Republicans who might be tempted to cross over, then Obama wins. If not, then the name calling about which party is more racist becomes problematic.

51: Wobegon is in the most conservative part of the state. Keillor doesn't tell you that. Wobegon is also 97% white. Not ethnically diverse, but a place where wingers and leftists live in peace, side by side. Though apparently the Trotskyist isn't going to be invited to his Jesus-freak inlaws' gatherings any more. A place where a few voters are so mad that they're willing to vote for an extremist of either party.

So what do you think they were doing voting in the Dem primary? Whistling Dixie?

Don't be naive, Napi (nor you, Ari). Vast numbers of American Democrats don't vote for national Democrats. They're Dems for family reasons, or because their local area is so heavily Democratic that Rs have no effective say in local politics. For instance, the only way to register a meaningful vote for mayor in most major American cities is in the Democratic primary - so people register Dem in order to have some say in their local government.

This isn't news to anyone.

Obama got less crap for the cocaine stuff than Clinton got for marijuana--granted, he handled it better. And as far as actually influencing votes, as opposed to Bill Shaheen & Mark Penn's inability to pass up a cheap shot, I think it's effect was close to nil. People don't care so much anymore. (I keep hoping that the acceptance of presidential candidates having tried drugs would lead to politicians to think that maybe being "soft on drugs" is no longer the third rail it used to be, & it's not all that politically dangerous anymore to support saner policies.)

In 62, I mean than Bill Clinton got for marijuana during the 1992 race.

I think any discussion of racism is counter-productive. I will take my cues on this from Obama or his surrogates, but will forgo racism analysis until December.

Yup. Too much discussion of racism and so forth is divisive and bad for Obama at this point. The generic Democrat has like a 10-15 point lead, the progressive agenda pounds the Republican agenda in the issue polling. He runs as generic young, good government, dynamic, progressive leader, and avoids any discussions of racism. His campaign knows this better than anybody. The first black president will be subsumed within the generic "new day", novelty, "yes we can!" message.

62: I share your hope, K, but don't think it's realistic.

There seems to be an enormous lag between what the electorate shows itself comfortable with and what the political class is comfortable with - the successful woman candidate thing being another example.

I just looked at a book about populism. The LaFollette Progressives, Minnesota Farmer Labor Party, and Nonpartisan League in North Dakota were hardly mentioned, because they are regarded as progressive and actually did accomplish a lot. But they really were all populist. "Populist" is just a smear word in a lot of scholarly writing, starting with Hofstadter.

There's no Jeremiah Wright equivalent of a scary woman who had to be repudiated.

And that's with Steinem and NARAL-NY running around making weird statements and writing reductionist op-eds. Surely Clinton had some radical feminists as friends or mentors along the way?

Picking at scabs from the Democratic primary is counterproductive. White Democrats calling racist attacks on Obama racist isn't, precisely because Obama himself is so constrained from portraying attacks on him is racist.

Or is it that people aren't as scared by radical feminists, who, it must be admitted, are not precisely threatening to sneak into your house at night to burn your bra.

Obama wasn't going around making the explicit appeal that people needed to support him because America wasn't ready for a woman president.

He also never attempted to use racism as a political tool to generate turnout, or blame any of his campaign's struggles on racism (of course, that could be because his race was beneficial to his bid for the nomination).

There's no Jeremiah Wright equivalent of a scary woman who had to be repudiated. Etc, etc.

Hillary's lesbianism, her affair with Vince Foster and her subsequent murder of him, her distant relationship with her husband etc. etc. ad nauseum, have been dealt with extensively.

Hillary is right when she says she has been vetted.

I don't suppose that Obama has been treated particularly kindly by the media, but it seems incorrect to say that Hillary hasn't had to answer for her associations, including her associations with feminists.

Wasn't Hillary messing around with Eleanor Mondale?

White Democrats calling racist attacks on Obama racist isn't, precisely because Obama himself is so constrained from portraying attacks on him is racist.

I'm not sure this is right, at least for me. I don't think I'd accomplish anything productive by calling out the racists that I know, or by pointing out racism that I perceive.

For me at least, I think bob's advice is good:

I will take my cues on this from Obama or his surrogates,

Obama and his folks really do seem to have this race thing figured out in a way that I do not.

Hillary is right when she says she has been vetted.

As the Tuzla incident indicated.

Wasn't Hillary messing around with Eleanor Mondale?

Hott !

White Democrats calling racist attacks on Obama racist isn't, precisely because Obama himself is so constrained from portraying attacks on him is racist.

That can end up being counterproductive too, unless its limited to working the press behind the scenes or the racism is obvious and egregious. "Won't vote for Obama? What are you, racist?" is a losing message to have out there.

Hillary never had to address publicly questions about sex scandals in the way Obama had to talk about race. Where was her big speech about how she was going to be able to restrain her husband and what role he would have in her White House? Her weird role as First Lady/ Vice President II in the first Clinton White House never really got hashed out. And no, the Vince Foster rumors never bubbled back up in any serious way---quite rightly in that case. Sure, she had to take a hit on the flying-into-Sarjevo-under-sniper-fire story, but that was an entirely stupid, self-manufactured stumble. Obama started his speech to AIPAC yesterday by talking about the email smear campaign about him; Hillary hasn't had almost any similar moments.

"Won't vote for Obama? What are you, racist?" is a losing message to have out there.

I don't disagree, but it'd sure be a neat t-shirt to have.

By sex scandals, I also mean sexism and being-a-woman and that sort of thing.

Maybe the New Hampshire near-tears were as close as she came.

68:White Democrats calling racist attacks on Obama racist isn't, precisely because Obama himself is so constrained from portraying attacks on him is racist.

Which is why I added the "surrogates." I can't see how defending against racism would add to Obama's vote totals at all. Those who react to racism by voting for Obama will probably do so just by seeing the attacks, and would probably prefer to avoid the uncomfortable discussion.

December. I think going fullbore at racism then could swing some Senators.

Jesus christ, people. Yes, god knows active defense of a Democratic candidate against cheap attacks is doomed.

This is a perfect example of the bargain that the country has struck about racism: white Americans agree that racism a terrible thing. In return black Americans must pretend that racism does not exist. Claims to the contrary are "playing the race card" or "reverse racism." No thanks. I am not suggesting shrieking "you're a racist" at people, but the idea that it's best for all concerned for white people to pretend it away is absurd.

80.2:December onwards, as part of a legislative strategy. Lindsay Graham could be marginally moved on certain issues.

If passing Obama's programs is what we want to do.

Obama and his folks really do seem to have this race thing figured out in a way that I do not.

This seems important.

Obama and his folks really do seem to have this race thing figured out in a way that I do not.

I'm just taking this opportunity to note that the Obama campaign was, by far, the best campaign I've ever seen.

Whatever one wants to say about racism or sexism, part of what you have to say is that losers allways look they don't know what they're doing and Obama ran a good enough campaign to make things look easier, and to manufacture a certain amount of "good luck."

Really, when I think about it, it's hard to express just how impressive the Obama campaign has been.

There was a long period when part of my hesitation about Obama was "nobody makes it through a campaign without stumbling, and I want to know what his stumbles will look like." As it turned out, he managed to make it though the entire campaign without ever having a stumble that made him, personally look bad. There were episodes where the narrative was "will this cause political problems for Obama" or "Is Obama reading the politics of wrong" but I don't remember any where you came out thinking, "Is he in over his head" or "If he keeps doing [X] he will really look like a hack."

For five months Katherine? Will the nation be irrevocably damaged by a pause, or permanently improved by a confrontation? I ask again, who ya gonna move?

We will have eight years to work it out in a positive way.

I entirely endorse Obama's not calling most racist attacks on him racist & I do think he's got this figured out very well indeed, but the idea that random white supporters of a black presidential candidate face the same constraints as the candidate is just plain nuts. You guys seem to advocating essentially the Bob Shrum approach to the swift boat smear: don't dignify it with a response because the voters of good faith will surely see through it & the others are lost to us anyway. Fortunately the Obama campaign isn't that passive & there is an effort to, say, convince the press that the Muslim emails are racist smears & ought to be treated as such.

The LaFollette Progressives, Minnesota Farmer Labor Party, and Nonpartisan League in North Dakota were hardly mentioned, because they are regarded as progressive and actually did accomplish a lot. But they really were all populist. "Populist" is just a smear word in a lot of scholarly writing, starting with Hofstadter.

I agree by-and-large, and post-Hofstdter understandings are important. The lines within conventional politics were different then, so that it can be confusing to map them onto our own. LaFollette came from and his family returned to that Republican party which was at least as progressive in the upper midwest for a long time. In 1924 LaFollette ran a third-party candidacy and his running mate was Charles Lindbergh's father, C.A. Lindbergh Sr., who was a liberal Republican congressman.

87:Hey Katherine? It it makes ya feel good, go for it.

I think pounding on Iraq and economics are a better use of time & energy.

I see a risk, Katherine -- and I think this is something Obama has understood and handled effectively -- that calling out alot of the racism that has and inevitably will infect the campaign will end up alienating voters on the edge, the ones who are still sort of uneasily overcoming their racism but who still are very much afraid of the conversation. Obama seems to handle it well, leading the conversation very gently and very delicately in ways emphatically beyond my own personal capabilities. I think bob is wise to suggest we take our cues from Obama on this.

The thing is, black voters tend to react to what they see as racist attacks anyway, and the media tends to decide that: (1) they are playing the race card (2) Obama is personally responsible for every accusation of racism that any black person makes. I do not see how it helps for white Democrats to agree that it is wrong & counterproductive to talk about racism. Well, whatever, this is extremely depressing but not at all surprising.

In 1936 the Farmer Labor Party included both Communists and Nazi sympathizers.

Nobody gives a shit what we say at Unfogged.

That's not so, ogged.

93: Right, our real influence is manifested by being thought leaders at our organic food co-ops and Pilates classes.

Nobody gives a shit what we say at Unfogged

I wouldn't be so sure of that, "ogged".

There's no similar group of people for whom gender isn't salient; society everyone is gender-integrated, pretty much.

I think this is the important distinction: the groups are just very differently situated. Sexism is more pervasive because women are more pervasive.

I would guess that you could get an equal number of people to sign off on the statement that African-Americans should be treated equally and the statement that women should be treated equally, and that in each case the numbers in support of such statements would be gigantic. But if you live in IA, there's little specific content to the statement about African-Americans, and few opportunities to disagree about what the statement should mean. With women in IA, there are a lot of opportunities to disagree: flex-time, disparate numbers in a field, etc. So you get many more opportunities for friction. But you also get many more opportunities to strike the little micro-deals that make for a robust social contract.

As well, I can imagine that because of the oft-intimate relationship between men and women, it means the "other side" might feel that there is more at stake in gender issues, and be more intractable. But I can also imagine that there are more opportunities to pull people over from the "other side" precisely because of that intimacy. Gawd only knows how this is enfolded in any specific situation.

And, I'm sure, the relative potential power makes a difference as well. Consider amending the Constitution to take the vote away from African-Americans vs. amending it to take the vote away from women. Both are enormously, extraordinarily unlikely to happen, but the second seems somehow more unlikely, because women don't actually need allies to prevent it while African-Americans do. Another case where I have no idea what the specific effects would look like.

I think any discussion of racism is counter-productive. I will take my cues on this from Obama or his surrogates, but will forgo racism analysis until December.

I think bob's right about the above. New conflicts without the opportunity to address them personally seem like a problem. Perhaps as Katherine suggests, that kind of sucks. But I think it's correct as a description of where we are, and I don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe it depends on who the surrogates are: if those Dems least likely (or perceived to be least likely) to overcall racism make the claim, maybe that's the defense that is needed. But I assume Obama's campaign has that well in hand.

Let the Healing Continue

Tyler Cowen has his moments.

One reason to softpedal racism is that everyone knows that stuff already, and a lot of people have been innoculated to charges of racism. Second, racism is an unforgivable sin and something few are willing to admit to. It's a personal accusation, at times a smear, and you're basically asking people to renounce their whole past life. You might shame or intimidate a few people, but most will just skulk off without saying anything.

Of course, no one was shy about accusing Hillary of racism. Cueing MC.

I'd suspect that a few gross examples of racism will pop up here and there. These might work for Obama. Accusations of subtle, coded, or underlying racism won't, though. And then, there can be oblique, high-minded, non-accusing responses, which Obama is good at.

Obama's first week as the leader of the Democratic Party is off to a good start:

Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution. They shook hands. But Obama didn't let go, leading Lieberman - cordially - by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign. The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

It's a personal accusation, at times a smear, and you're basically asking people to renounce their whole past life. You might shame or intimidate a few people, but most will just skulk off without saying anything.

Yes. I'm trying to put my finger on what Obama does so right on this, and I think part of the genius of his big speech on race was that he was able to talk about racism without it being about making accusations. Sort of, hey we've all been guilty of racism in some form or another, let's try to find a way together to talk about it and make a change.

I hope once this election passes, the Democrats are in a strong enough position to tell Lieberman to go fuck himself and strip him of all his committee assignments.

I think that he should be made Chairman of a new Committee of Ditches, Sumps, and Bogs.

there is an effort to, say, convince the press that the Muslim emails are racist smears & ought to be treated as such.

Of course they are smears, they're lies! They're not true! Why not push it on that basis?

It may be that at some deep level racists realize that race is somewhat of a fiction, in a way that sexists don't.

Sounds reasonable to me. Unless I've misunderstood what "fiction" refers to. There's a stronger case that racial difference is thoroughly socially constructed (in whatever respects are supposed to be relevant when choosing a president) than that sex/gender difference is.

I think that he should be made Chairman of a new Committee of Hogs Ditches, Sumps, andBogs.

If by "Chairman" you mean "Ingredient" and if by "Committee" you mean "Food".

I'm fine with forgoing all further discussion of this matter until after the election (and only then if we lose). One last note, though:

61 -- 90% in some counties? Who's being naive?

Nobody gives a shit what we say at Unfogged.

That's not what I was promised. I was promised power, and I en't giving up on that.

That's not what I was promised. I was promised power, and I en't giving up on that.

Cala is HRC! Figures.

Suckers.

I was promised power, and I en't giving up on that.

You will always have the calabat.

I don't know about Wobegon, but having lived all over MN and ND for 18 years I have to say that midwesterners (at least those of a MN and ND stripe) are racist too. I used to pride myself on being from a 'progressive state', but in retrospect that was just dumb; since moving to Chicago I've realized that rural(suburban)/urban is vastly more important than redstate/bluestate (though the latter distinction isn't without some merit). Of course I also look back at all the small towns I lived in with a burning hatred (mostly for reasons unrelated to racism), so I'm not unbiased, your mileage may vary.

107: I don't understand what you think is so incredible. It's not as if we don't know what these Dems do in non-racial contests. 30% of them voted for Bush. 30% say they'll vote for McCain. There's no logical reason to accuse any of those voters as being racially-motivated in voting for HRC (which isn't to say they aren't racist - most probably are; but the implicit claim is that any Dem whose voting order puts Obama behind McCain is ipso facto racist, and that's not what the facts say. The facts say that 30% of KY Dems vote for Republican presidents. And - around here at least - it's been taken as a given that HRC is more Republican-like than Obama).

No one (around here, anyway) was shrieking "Sexism!" when Obama won 80% in Idaho or 90% in the Virgin Islands. In those places, HRC literally didn't show her face; Obama, more or less, did the same in KY (maybe he went there at some point, but I recall reading that he scheduled no events there in the week before, spending his time in OR instead). What a shock - give voters the (figurative) finger, and they won't vote for you.

This has been the implicit narrative of much of the primary, which has been driving me to defend a woman for whom I didn't actually vote: Obama won a dozen states by more than HRC won KY. His voters were inspired by his inherent awesomeness. Her voters were inspired by their own foul racism.

Binary, and really fucking offensive.

61, 107: The 90%s were certainlyjarring, but I wanted to point out that in the February 12th Virginia primary Clinton got has high as 90% votes in one of the SWestern mountain counties (and above 80% in most others) of Virginia, so I don't necessarily think your building from Pennsylvania analysis works.

It's not as if we don't know what these Dems do in non-racial contests.

North Carolina is another good example. Democrats dominate the gubernatorial and General Assembly elections, and take the mayoral races in almost every city. But in Senate and presidential races, the state has been reliably Republican.

111: Right, but I don't think I'm allowed to hit people with it or else Obama will have to denounce me.

North Carolina is another good example.

Ha. I was actually thinking that Carolina is a good example that cuts in the other direction: we know NC voters, Republican and Democrat, will vote for women in statewide races, but, post-Gantt, we remain unsure about their comfort in voting for African-Americans in statewide races.

There's nothing much new in this article, but I did find this interesting: "if Sen. John Kerry had received ten additional votes per precinct in 2004, he would have won Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and, subsequently, the White House."

113:As part of the move toward comity, I no longer denounce Clinton-bashing or Clinton-supporter bashing or comparable activities. A unilateral disarmament as sign of good faith.

OTOH, I hear Chuck Norris faints at the very sound of the name "Obama."

we remain unsure about their comfort in voting for African-Americans in statewide races

True, but the Gantt races do still come with an asterisk, I think. He was up against a very powerful, four-term (five in the '96 race) incumbent who had a brutally effective political machine. Also, it's a very different state now than it was 12-18 years ago.

That said, I don't expect Obama to win NC in
November.

Yes. I'm trying to put my finger on what Obama does so right on this, and I think part of the genius of his big speech on race was that he was able to talk about racism without it being about making accusations. Sort of, hey we've all been guilty of racism in some form or another, let's try to find a way together to talk about it and make a change.

The "I agree that for many reasons, white people are justified in thinking they are the victims of pro-black prejudice in our society. So can't we also agree that maybe black people, perhaps mistakenly, are entitled to feel a grievance too?" approach worked perfectly.

119.1: Bob, the Gandhi of Unfogged.

119: I'll do my part for unity by adding Obama-bashing to my usual repertoire. For a start, check out his absolutely shameless pandering to AIPAC yesterday, during which he promised an "undivided Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel, suddenly became an apologist for Lieberman-Kyl, and promised to "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel." Mmmm, change we can believe in! One thing you can say for the man is that when he decides to live down to expectations, he starts living down to them really fucking quick.

Race is a factor with more than 10% around here in Wobegon

Whatever happened to midwest progressivism?!

That's not contradictory. My ballpark guess is anywhere with

124 cont: ( whups, html) , anywhere with < 80 % is pretty progressive

123: Fucking AIPAC. If there's any one non-governmental organization responsible for fucking up American foreign policy beyond all hope, it's them.

126: Need I even say it, Hitler?

Fucking fuck, Barry O.

Hitler wasn't really a non-governmental organization, after 1920 or so.

123: How craven.

129: AIPAC has frightened me into clarifying that I was calling Apo, not AIPAC, Hitler.

I'm too tall to be Hitler.

How come nobody told me about this blog? Ot has some of my favourites:David Sirota, two good pieces by Rick Perlstein, Digby, and this here on-topic piece by Orcinus's Sara Robinson

As is the usual case, when I read these vague things about we confrontational boomers should get out the way and let the pragmatic team-oriented Millenials rule, I say sure, whatever, you mean compromise on torture? Allow another pro-life Justice? Maybe give in on global warming? And they say "Old fogey, that isn't what we mean at all. We will get all the good stuff without confrontation"
I guess Millenial Conservatives like Jonah and Douthat and Lopez and Malkin don't want that boomer confrontation either.

And I guess I just too old to get it, it being just a younger generation's style of bullshit.

119: I'm ready to stop saying mean things about Clinton, too.

133:Following up on 133 I am following up on 133.

Trying to give Sara Robinson's argument, which is an important Obama argument, as fair a shake as I possibly can I am spending a lot of time on that site, and places it links to. Specifically discussion of Rick Perlstein's Nixonland apparently has a theme of "60s left losers condescended to the poor conservative Dixiecrats".

A Millenial analyzes boomers. I'm snarking, I really am working on this stuff.

Max Sawicky shows up in comments at TPM. I thought the dude was completely irrevocably gone from the nets.