The Democrats, Race, and Electability

All is not well under the Big Tent at the Democrat Party.

As the primary season drags on for the Dems, they are beginning to show their true colors.

The Dems are obsessed with color, skin color.

Although the GOP is so often characterized as the party of rich, white men, and as hostile to diversity, it's the Dems that are struggling with racial issues.

From the New York Times:

It is the question that has hung over Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and it loomed large on Tuesday night after his loss to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania: Why has he been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?

Lurking behind that question is another: Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?

Mr. Obama remains ahead of Mrs. Clinton in delegates, in the popular vote and in national polls, and Mrs. Clinton certainly has her own problems trying to herd Democrats into her corner.

But just when it seemed that the Democratic Party was close to anointing Mr. Obama as its nominee, he lost yet again in a big general election state, dragged down by his weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters. The composition of Mrs. Clinton’s support — or, looked at another way, the makeup of voters who have proved reluctant to embrace Mr. Obama — has Democrats wondering, if not worrying, about what role race may be playing.

“I’m sure there is some of that,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior political adviser, as he considered how race was playing among voters in late primary states. Mr. Axelrod said Mrs. Clinton’s biggest advantage had been among older voters, “and I think there is a general inclination on the part of the older voters to vote for what is more familiar.” He added: “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”

While arguably critical to determining the viability of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, the role of race is difficult to disentangle from the other strands of the political debate surrounding him, encompassing topics like values, elitism, ideology and experience. Although some polling evidence hints at the depth of racial attitudes in this country and the obstacles Mr. Obama faces winning white voters, it has historically proved challenging to measure how racial attitudes factor into voter decisions. (Respondents do not tend to announce to pollsters that they will not vote for a candidate because he or she is black.)

It is also hard to discount that Mr. Obama has arrived at this place in his candidacy after winning big victories in very white states. The crowds at his rallies are as white as any at a Clinton rally, and many analysts in both parties believe that racial attitudes in this country are changing at a breakneck pace, particularly among younger voters, making it risky to impose models from even four years ago on this unusual election.

When Obama lost big in the Ohio primary, it was said that he had an "Archie Bunker" problem. Obama failed to win over the white "Archie Bunker" Democratic voters.

What with Obama's big loss in Pennsylvania, Archie Bunker is once again rearing his head; and Adam Nagourney of the Times is playing on white liberal guilt.

Everyone seems to be asking: Why hasn't Obama been able to seal the deal?

"Lurking behind that question is another: Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?"

Time for the Dems to do some soul-searching. It's as though Nagourney wants to force white Dems to look at themselves and admit that they're racist, as if there's no other explanation for Obama's losses.

Nagourney points out that there have been "high-profile episodes that have rattled his campaign." No kidding.

Voters are getting to know Obama and what they're learning is not all good.

Nagourney seems to want Obama's problem to be race rather than his character, experience, and judgment.

Why is it incomprehensible that voters turned to Hillary because they are questioning Obama's qualifications to be the Dem nominee?

Isn't it possible that voters' concerns about the electability of their nominee have nothing to do with race and everything to do with the individual candidate?

I think it's troubling that the race issue is seen as a one-way street.

...For Mr. Obama, race presents two potential problems: Voters opposing him simply because he is black, and Democrats who will not support him because they do not think a black man can win a general election.

The results in Pennsylvania suggest that problems exist. A poll of Democratic voters conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press found that Mrs. Clinton drew 63 percent of the white vote while Mr. Obama drew 90 percent of the black vote, mirroring a pattern in many other states. More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.

Look at those numbers.

The striking thing is that only 10 percent of the black vote did not go to Obama.

Why is it that white voters are condemned when they don't vote for Obama, but black voters aren't condemned when they don't vote for Hillary?

Blacks appear to be voting based on race in far greater numbers than white voters. How racist! Why is that not an issue?

Nagourney cites two problems for Obama. The first is the possibility that voters oppose him simply because he's black.

Hillary has a similar problem. Do black voters oppose Hillary simply because she's white? That certainly appears to be the case.

The second problem for Obama is that Dem voters may doubt that a black man is capable of winning a general election.

Again, Hillary has a similar problem. Do Dem voters doubt that a woman is capable of winning a general election? Is that what's behind Hillary's losses.

I think it's weird that when Obama loses Dems will say it's because of his race. That's the same as saying Hillary's success is based on bigotry, not her abilities and policies. It's not that voters support her. It's that they're against Obama.

However, when Hillary loses, that sort of reasoning is tossed aside. She loses because voters actually support Obama. Her losses aren't chalked up to bigoted people not wanting to vote for a white woman.

Bottom line: The Dems aren't one big happy diverse bunch under a big tent.

Personally, I think the Dems have good reason to worry about the electability of their nominee in November, but not because of such superficial matters as race and gender.