Who Dealt the Race Card?

Is there a race card? Partially. Who's playing it? Some parts of the media and some supporters (i.e. Slick Willie). I was watching Joe Scarborough and crew this morning on MSNBC and after about an hour, I had enough!

Some of the things Scarborough and other political pundits were trying to analyze were quite funny and a little bit depressing. Seriously, it was as if these guys forgot everything they were saying a couple of weeks ago. According to their so called polls, Hillary Clinton was supposed to win PA by 20 points but now that she won by only 10 points, Barack Obama is the one at risk because he couldn't connect with the working class, blah, blah, blah. Then why did he cut the lead of Clinton in half? So what he spent more than she did in PA; he needed to do so to accomplish such feat against an established brand name like Clinton. Has it even donned on these pundits that maybe Obama spent such money on ads not really for this primary election but for the future if he gets the nomination?

Not only that, they were talking of Obama always in ties that are knotted really tight. He needed to loosen up so to speak. Are you freaking kidding me? The same folks said last year while he was campaigning sans tie that he needed to look more "presidential." All these talks on the airwaves this morning after a primary state loss when the guy has won more states and delegates than his opponent and eight or nine states still up for grabs.

Sent by Moji | 10:09 PM | 4-23-2008

Does race matter? Well, sure it does BUT I do think that it's import is changing in more subtle ways that TV "media" bothers to cover. You're right Michel, Obama has won by big margins in some pretty non-black folk states. Jeez, Senator Clinton had all the cards in her deck in Penn. all the political endorsements save one, a popular former President as a spouse, and name recognition. Add to that some outlying pockets of bigotry and you got yourself a winner.

But to the question of the media's narrative, I just have to say that I'm through with most of the mainstream TV "media." Just this weekend I heard ABC's Cokie Roberts declare that Senator Obama's aspiration for change was silly. Holding forth that our government was built to move slowly...blah, blah, blah. Is this what stands in for reportage? Then you've got that great monument to sweating, spitting, and self-aggrandizement, Chris Mathews swelling with pride every time he sees more than two people of color together on stage at an Obama rally. Ok, I'll stop.

My point is that race is just one of the bromides the media uses to turn a subtle story into a really simple money making gotcha. Gender, class, and yes race are all used as a way to gin up sales.

Nuance is superfluous.

As in the Rev. Wright thingy I thought the job of the reporter was to report the man bites dog aspect but then to continue onto tell we the great unwashed masses the who, what, and where behind the SENSATION.

Sadly, we seem increasingly left with only sensation. Thank goodness for NPR.

Sent by Raul | 11:59 PM | 4-23-2008

The "News Media" is so focused on whether or not Obama can win the White vote that they alienate Black,Hispanic, Asian,Muslim, etc. Americans in the process. What is this obsession with the "White Vote"? The blatant portrayal of the White vote being all that matters, with no discussion of Clinton losing the Black vote in record numbers, provides evidence that people of color are still considered secondary in the American political process. Is the media so ignorant to the fact that they engage in in a racist dialog? I think not!!! We can not move beyond a racial discussion when the very individuals that control our media serve race up to us for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Even if Obama wanted to escape being a Black man, the media damn sure wont let him. Last night on a panel discussion on Hardball, Chris Matthews said that Hilliary Clinton successfully made Obama a "Darker candidate". Not a single "Political Expert" challenged that comment..So..Is race a factor? Racial identity is always relevant. Race used as tool to divide or view individuals differently is what makes race a factor.

Peace
GlennD
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn | 12:18 PM | 4-24-2008

The "News Media" is so focused on whether or not Obama can win the White vote that they alienate Black,Hispanic, Asian,Muslim, etc. Americans in the process. What is this obsession with the "White Vote"? The blatant portrayal of the White vote being all that matters, with no discussion of Clinton losing the Black vote in record numbers, provides evidence that people of color are still considered secondary in the American political process. Is the media so ignorant to the fact that they engage in in a racist dialog? I think not!!! We can not move beyond a racial discussion when the very individuals that control our media serve race up to us for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Even if Obama wanted to escape being a Black man, the media damn sure wont let him. Last night on a panel discussion on Hardball, Chris Matthews said that Hilliary Clinton successfully made Obama a "Darker candidate". Not a single "Political Expert" challenged that comment..So..Is race a factor? Racial identity is always relevant. Race used as tool to divide or view individuals differently is what makes race a factor.

Peace
GlennD
Austin,Tx

Sent by Glenn | 12:18 PM | 4-24-2008

I just listened to the interview you had with the Pennsylvania voters. "Its her turn".What is meant by it being "Her turn". Michelle, you are my girl..I love your show..but how could you let that slide without more discussion.

Sent by Glenn | 12:47 PM | 4-24-2008

"Can Obama get white working class voters to vote for him?"

The answer is yes, but only for re-election. How do I know this? I'm originally from Chicago, that's how.

Call it the Harold effect, which counters the Bradley effect --Harold as in Harold Washington. Working class Whites in Chicago ran to vote for Republican Bernie Epton after the Democratic primary, normally the lock for mayor, went to Harold. It was a bitter campaign, followed by bitter council fights during the first administration. At the end of his term, though, Harold (and, yes, every Chicagoan called him Harold) delivered for all Chicagoans, not just those who voted for him, and White worker class Chicagoans voted for him for re-election.

Now, few of these re-election voters will start singing, "We Shall Overcome," any time soon. However, if Obama provides bread-and-butter politics to these voters, they will come...

...in four years, of course.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 1:20 PM | 4-24-2008

Race has only mattered, as always, for the candidate of color. Only Sen. Obama gets questioned. (I won't repeat your excellent commentary Michel. I'll just cosign.) So, Michel, if you get to interview senator McCain, please, PLEASE, ask him some variant of this: When Martin King was murdered, Barack Obama was 6 or7, and Hillary Clinton was 20 and John McCain was 36 (at that moment, he was in the Hanoi Hilton). At the Lorraine Motel this year he said that he voted against the King Holiday because he didn't fully understand the significance of Dr. King. He was a POW in 1967. That is after Selma, Birmingham, the March on Washington, ans the voting rights act of 1964. Michel, the point is, he was a grown man during all of this. What do you mean "you didn't know"? Did you really NOT KNOW or was your opinion more...combative at that time than compassionate and you don't want to fess up?
Call him on it "Ms. Radliffe" (and I say that with envious admiration, not sarcasm).

Sent by JR | 9:56 PM | 4-24-2008

Thanks for the comments about race and the media coverage of the presidential campaign. it is not an easy thing to talk about, even though we do it all the time..Glen wanted to know why I did not challenge Connie when she said it's Hillary's "turn." two answers --one, I was really listening so hard it did not occur to me to say anything because I was just so...interested..and secondly..we were kinda running out of time..I actually had to laugh because in our previous conversation with Connie she ended by saying,..." but I had a lot more to say." I know the feeling!..also I think you made an interesting point about what a turnoff it is to some voters when we keep focusing on one group, like white voters..I actually struggled with that myself..but my dilemma is, we talk so freely about "minorities" how can we NOT talk about white voters..the other interesting tidbit is how many white voters I've interviewed over the yeas who really do not much like being singled out as "white." their attitude is, enough already. But, again, how do you talk about it if you don't talk about it?

Sent by Michel, host | 12:06 AM | 4-25-2008

The racial break down in this political race is fair to a point. I think the talking heads on TV prefer to discuss simple minded politics rather than dig into any details about policy. A troubling metric for me is that Clinton wins among white voters that don't have a college degree. I don't want to stereotype here but DAMN!!
The notion of it being anyones turn in politics implies that competency is secondary. The double standard being applied here, across the board, is troubling. The "News Media" is feeding negative depictions of Obama by using different descriptions for the same behavior of the candidates. For example...Clinton is considered assertive, Obama is considered aggressive. Clinton is considered a fighter, Obama is accused of dirty politics. Clinton reached out to the working class, Obama had to come down to the working class level. White women vote for Clinton because they are proud of her, while Black voters vote for Obama only because he is black. The list goes on and on. Are Black voters not proud of Obama? I think that any working person of color understands what I'm talking about here. If Obama is elected President the discussion of race will be non-stop. IMHO, white America fears that if a black man is elected President he would not be fair. They believe this because they see the inequities visited upon people of color by their own. At time the "News Media" does not mitigate the racial discussion only worsens its. Another question is how do we engage in a fair and level discussion on race?

Sent by Glenn | 12:07 PM | 4-25-2008

Michel your comment reminds me of what I think is more of the 2 ton elephant in the room, race aside, and that is class. Some white voters might not want to talk about their "race" but I bet they'd love to talk about the ways in which class is configured. The Dems seem to believe that their empathies are evident and the Reb. cry "class war" whenever the subject of the disenfranchisement of the poor comes up. So the voice of the poor is silenced. Even in his in artful way Sen Obama was addressing the question I've wondered about for years. Why is it that poor white voters north and south seem to vote against their own economic interests. I think a great deal of common ground lay just below the surface, taking us beyond the void created around questions of racial identity politics.

Sent by raul | 10:27 AM | 4-26-2008

Your guest commented that Rev Wright stated that "chickens coming home to roost" . I would just remind people that conservative voices from the church blamed homosexuals and immorality for 911. We all ask "why did this happen?" That is human nature and why religion was invented.

Sent by Afton | 10:32 AM | 4-30-2008