Former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro raised eyebrows when she noted that Barack Obama would not be where he is today if not for his race. Ferraro argued that such “fads” were common in politics, citing her own candidacy as proof. She maintained this was simply the year in which the idea of a black candidate had caught fire.

Candidate Clinton stirred controversy more recently herself by noting that in both North Carolina and Indiana, Obama continued to have a problem attracting “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” Harkening back to her pervious wins in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton concluded, ““There’s a pattern emerging here.”

I do not believe Clinton was attempting to be divisive by that comment and I certainly do not think she was being racist. In fact, she probably put forward an important truth about Obama’s candidacy that his critics ought to mull over more thoughtfully than many have to date.

For those who see Obama as getting “all the breaks” from a friendly media and mindless rock-star adulation from supporters, it is easy and probably partially correct to assume that prevailing mores of political correctness have given his candidacy a jump-start. However, just as Clinton’s gender has both helped and hurt her, so too Obama has been at a disadvantage from lingering racism within this country.

Those disbelieving racism could still play any significantly negative role in a Presidential campaign should read the story in today’s Washington Post about the experiences of some of Obama’s foot soldiers. While most say their experiences campaigning on his behalf have been largely positive, they also each have their share of voter reactions to relate that reflect outright racial hostility and bigotry.

“I'll never vote for a black person.”

“White people [should] look out for white people.”

“Hamas votes BHO!”

“He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?”

“Hang that darky from a tree!”

People have taunted Obama campaign workers, both black and white, with racial slurs and other derogatory comments. Several Obama campaign headquarters have received bomb threats. At least one was vandalized – scrawled with hate graffiti, its windows smashed, and an American flag stolen. Others have collected and burned Obama campaign signs.

Everyone understands that political campaigning can be rough and I do not doubt Clinton foot soldiers have their share of horror stories to tell of outright sexism and misogyny. Still, the racist quotes and acts documented by the Post did not occur in the Deep South. Instead, they happened in places like Scranton Pennsylvania, Muncie Indiana, Susquehana County Pennsylvania, Kokomo Indiana, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, and Vincennes Indiana. You know, so-called Clinton territory.

We keep hearing about how Clinton has the poor, uneducated, older white blue-collar vote wrapped up. Yet it seems clear that some degree of racism is at play here and her popularity is as much hostility against Obama as support of her. That strikes me as interesting, given all the talk about Clinton and Obama combining to form a “dream team.” Were Clinton to head that ticket, placing Obama in the V.P. slot would probably hurt her with voters in what her campaign argues are these crucial types of swing states.

That may be a moot point at this juncture in the campaign. Since North Carolina and Indiana, the trickle of super delegates pledging to Obama has become a steady stream if not necessarily a flood.

Tomorrow, voters go to the polls in West Virginia. Once again, the demographics fit Clinton and she expects to win there by thirty points, forty points, or more. The Clinton spin machine is in full force already. Clinton has called it a “crucial turning point” in her campaign and is “reminding everybody” that no Democrat has won the White House without West Virginia since 1916.

If she wins there and again in Kentucky by expected large margins and no pickup in superdelegates occurs for her and/or she fails to stem Obama’s flow, then Obama will almost certainly have the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination by June 3. With compromises still being furiously negotiated to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, that means he and not Hillary will be at the top of the Democratic ticket.

And now back to the “dream team” scenario. Lots of people on this board are staunch Obama foes. Not one of them opposes Obama on the basis of race to my knowledge. This is not suprising, since posters, by virtue of writing and defending their views on a regular basis, usually have developed and nuanced perspectives. Sadly, many voters will base their selection on little more than hearsay, innuendo, and uninformed “gut feel.” Some will do so based upon or at least influenced by racial prejudice and bias.

So to my fellow Fray posters I have some questions. If you strongly dislike Obama, such that you are unlikely to vote for him in the general election, would him naming Clinton to the V.P. slot be enough to overcome your dislike and vote for him? In addition, are there any other Vice-Presiential candidates Obama could name that would change your mind about him?

Finally, if some racism does exist against Obama among uneducated, older, poorer white blue-collar voters in swing states, do you think the addition of Clinton to the ticket will be enough to overcome that racism?

Lord, I can’t go back there. Well, the truth is I spent one of the hardest periods of my life in Indiana. Young (25) and engaged to an opera singer at IU I moved there—fortunately things didn’t work out.

What I learned while there and commuting from Indianapolis to Bloomington was the nature of the towns in between. For many years the KKK was headquartered in places like Martinsville and I didn’t understand what that meant until I began living (briefly) in these places and heard the comments and noted the difference when looking at apartments with my friends (some black from the University) and noted the difference in the way I was treated and what was shown. Indiana is more ‘southern’ than you may realize (not in today’s modern sense but in the former sense we associate with say the ‘southern strategy’).

My point is that there is a strong discriminatory effect in place.—more pronounced in some places than others—that a fusion ticket won’t overcome, but a fusion ticket WILL overcome some of the demographic challenges. Let me also say that there will always be a racist and sexist element to these two campaigns that no amount of compromise will remedy. Appealing to that vote is a diminishing return and not a viable strategy. Nothing will overcome that sort of bigotry once rooted and it’s no surprise that such ignorance on both sides is implacable.

The demographics that can be addressed by a fused ticket include Latinos, Blue Collar workers, Older voters and Catholics beginning to vote as a viable block for the first time in decades. Hillary as VP addresses several of these groups. The candidate in the general election that wins two of the four and splits a third wins.

McCain has an issue among Catholics (Hagee and Parsley related) but does well with the Hispanic votes based on his immigration position (a smart long term move that he took some heat for in the Republican primaries). Assuming that racists and sexists are unlikely to be won over that means the crossover appeal to moderate blue collar and Catholic voters—a pool that might have once been considered Rockefeller Republicans or Reagan Democrats.

Of the possible VP candidates Hillary would be (in my estimation) more likely to stand a chance of appealing to the key demographic groups and delivering a party win.

There’s little to be done about the gut feel and or racist/sexist slant, but you can disarm some of the other objections and pull on the gut feel of other committed supporters.

...who would vote against Obama because of his race would be swayed by any VP candidate.

anecdotal catalogue of racist woes is itself woefully short on corroboration. "According to Obama Worker X....", and "Obama Worker Y recalled....", just doesn't cut it, especially when the events as described should have been able to engender some additional ear and eye witnesses or electronic recordation. The article's lone substantiated quote, from a public official in Pennsylvania, is perfectly accurate concerning Obama's Muslim relations, the unknowns in Obama's upbringing and later bio, and Reverend Wright. The question, perfectly arguable from both sides, is whether these issues are salient or maliciously irrelevant, and thus tantamount to racism. Nonetheless, immediately following the PA mayor's quote, the WaPo writer refers to systematic "lies" about Obama, as if the mayor had uttered one.

All of that is a long, long way from "Hang that darky from a tree", which just has that art-into-life feel to it, along with the racist graffitti and vandalism. It's certainly possible that present-day white bigots could be so enraged that they'd risk prison time and national ignominy---though the law and societal norms, unlike in the KKK's heyday, is actively against them---but it's at least equally possible that these Obama campaign workers have been schooled in the Columbia University Professor Madonna "Noose is Loose" Constantine method of achieving racial justice, wherein the ends most phrarasaically justify the means. Look for the return of the Noose during the general election campaign, perhaps with a Tawana Brawley or Jena Six-style performance artist at the helm.

To your own words here: "Sadly, many voters will base their selection on little more than hearsay, innuendo, and uninformed "gut feel". Some will do so based upon or at least influenced by racial prejudice and bias". With this statement I fully agree, and it well-describes Obama's own African-American voting base and their guilt-as-piety white progressive enablers. Hmmm, sad to say, despite the best efforts of Obama, his campaign, and his friends in the mainstream press, to make this election "Not About Race", it may become a central issue after all as we move to the general election.

the fact that the examples you cited came from northern states. The idea of racism as a southern disease is and has been nonsense for quite some time now - northern blue-collar neighborhoods and rural areas have always been culture media for racism that manages to stay beneath the headlines due to the relative segregation of the races compared to the South. I suspect that there is also an aspect of class tension superimposed, not unlike the historically uneasy relations between blacks and Latinos - theoretically (not sure how one would prove this) as a function of blue-collar whites fearing that blacks would take from their slice of the economic pie.

As far as VP candidates go, I second the opinion above that those who are voting against Obama overtly or subconsciously based on race are unlikely to change their minds based on a VP - the visual of a white taking orders from an African-American probably makes it worse, if anything. Clinton might indeed be able to swing some influence over that blue-collar vote, but I suspect that the two demographics have some pretty heavy overlap. The choice might even be a net loss for Obama, as I don't doubt that some of his supporters would recoil from the symbol of politics-as-usual being second-in-command.

The one exception I can think of is a Latino VP candidate, a la Bill Richardson. He's qualified enough to perhaps perform a Cheneyesque function (in the originally-intended sense) for Obama, lending the feeling of a bit more experience to the ticket. His presence might also be enough of a push to nudge a Latino population that was already backing away from the Republican Party further into the Democratic column.

Inkberrow:

To your own words here: "Sadly, many voters will base their selection on little more than hearsay, innuendo, and uninformed "gut feel". Some will do so based upon or at least influenced by racial prejudice and bias". With this statement I fully agree, and it well-describes Obama's own African-American voting base and their guilt-as-piety white progressive enablers.

fairly good description of your understanding of black liberation theology too.

Hi, Demos. I know southern Indiana quite well, actually. It is both whiter and more rural than southwestern Ohio (where I live) or northern Kentucky. It's a lovely area -- lots of farms and little towns right out of a Norman Rockwell Americana painting. Like you, I have observed people there saying and doing things discriminatory toward blacks and other minorities.

I used these examples primarily to reinforce the idea that racism is still out there and, to that extent, is a factor in Obama's candidacy, just as sexism is a factor for Clinton. When Obama was just considering his run a couple years ago, my first post on the matter was whether Americans really would vote for a black candidate. Most who responded felt we were past the point where a black candidate could not get a fair shake. I was skeptical until Obama won Iowa.

As you suggested in your own excellent post the other week, PC strictures regarding race relations can lead people to say one thing to their friends and pollsters and then mark their ballots differently in the privacy of the voting booth. I have been amazed by the certainty of some of the Obama critics on this board that racism is an absolute non-factor in this race; that it only helps Obama and never hurts him. I think you got a taste of that in some of your responses. This is primarily what I wanted to address in what I wrote today.

As for a fusion ticket, I suspect if it works that nobody will be more miserable as a result of it than Obama and the Clintons over the next four to eight years but I agree with you it would provide demographic balance and it may be the only viable option given how evenly Democrats are obviously split between these two.

I'm curious, however, if you can think of anybody else who might sit in the number two spot, besides Clinton, who could bring some of that demographic balance without raising the same possible post-election friction in the West Wing?

Thanks as always for your reply.

Hi, Archaeopteryx. That is pretty much my thinking on the matter too. It seem like the "dream team" might only be viable if something drastic happens that leaves Clinton with more DNC-sanctioned delegates and popular vote when all is said and done. If Obama stays ahead, then I think it fall out more all one or the other rather than a fusion. And since the superdelegates have so far shown no stomach to overthrow the preferences of pledged delegates/popular vote, that pretty much leaves Obama still looking for a VP. Of course, if she really thinks it is the only way to save the Party and the election, I can easily see Clinton doing all she can to push herself onto the ticket.

I dunno—I can see a few. Bill Richardson siphons some of the Latino vote off of McCain. Robert Rubin or Reich would address the economic woes head on and refute the knock against Obama that he lacks experience to address the financial woes we’re in—that would also have the appeal of both attacking the number one worry most Americans have and simultaneously evoking the Clinton economic team (getting some of Hillary’s appeal without Hillary). Edwards would do it too—southern cross over and blue collar workers, but I doubt he’d take it.

Wesley Clark would be a powerful inducement for many Hillary supporters and would pull a significant Catholic voting block. But, boy, somebody would have to be thinking very strategically and pulling some serious pattern recognition to recognize that of the key demographics—Latinos, Blue Collar workers, Older voters and Catholics the one you can have the most impact (in terms of delivering turn out in a general election) with are Catholic voters because they cross all demographics. Are politicians that smart?

Hi, Inkberrow. I'm more inclined to take the staffers at their word than chalk it up to some conspiratorial effort to play the race card. The individuals quoted were usually all identified by name. The incidents -- how and when they occured -- would not be ones where I would expect documented evidence to be gathered (i.e. I wouldn't expect the volunteers being insulted by drivers to write down license plates). These people weren't demanding justice; they were just conveying what happened to them. Indeed, many seemed to have formerly held the view that "racism no longer exists in America," given their surprise at what happened.

I agree the quote by the Mayor was NOT racist, although I found it distressingly stupid for a public figure and leader. The fact one's father was a radical Muslim and from Africa does NOT imply that this must have "rubbed off" sufficiently to make a person Muslim and anti-American.

I would agree that anybody voting for Obama only because he is black is no better than those voting against him on the same single criteria. Of course, if African-Americans vote for Obama in the general election in the same proportions, then that will mean about 80% to 90% of them backed the Democratic candidate and how is that different from virtually every other Presidential election since the New Deal? If Clinton was somehow to prevail, some blacks might feel sufficiently disgruntled to sit out the process but I doubt 25% or more would cross lines and vote for McCain.

Thanks for replying with some interesting counterpoints.

Hi, Sawbones. Richardson came to my mind too but I wonder if he wouldn't be a turn-off to the very Clinton supporters that Obama needs to woo. This is the man, after all, that James Carville dubbed "Judas" for endorsing Obama after the Clintons assumed his support for them was "in the bag."

As for remaining vestiges of racism remaining in the North, we agree completely.

Thanks for replying.

but I'm going to address the questions anyway.

Putting Clinton on the ticket might net Obama a few votes in November he wouldn't otherwise get. I mean, with or without her, you think women, eg, are going to vote for, or passively enable the election of, a guy who wants to appoint Justices that will overtturn Roe v Wade?

On the other hand, putting Clinton on the ticket would guarantee Obama four years of distraction and misery dealing with Bill and Hilary.

The Cost/Benefit is not favorable to a Obama/Clinton ticket.

If Obama wants to bring in some white working class, while defusing the "Foreign Policy Inexperience" issue the same way Bush did with Cheney, then his obvious choice would be

Jim Webb

Hi Bell,

Your line about people voting for Obama only because he is black reminded me of today's Bob Somerby blog post, which pertains to this...and a little more:

MANY PEOPLE’S PARENTS: For good and for ill, race has played a fascinating role in the ongoing Dem nomination campaign. In our view, the Washington Post’s Darryl Fears has written two of the campaign’s most interesting news reports about this subject.

Shortly after South Carolina, Fears wrote a report intended to summarize the anger aimed at the Clinton campaign for allegedly playing the race card. Frankly, we thought he had to struggle a bit to work up a list of examples (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/28/08). On Saturday, Fears wrote an intriguing companion piece in the Post (“Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama”). In it, he detailed the reaction to some prominent people when members of the black community felt that they weren’t supporting Obama enough, or being sufficiently respectful.

Once again, we felt that Fears had to struggle a bit to explain some complaints. Check, for example, the attempt to explain the problem with Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment. For ourselves, we thought Clinton’s case was weak that day, but it wasn’t non-existent—and most of his (unwise) anger was directed at the press corps. We thought it was hard to make this a racial offense—and in last weekend’s report, Fears didn’t push his complaining witness to do so. Too bad: This would have been a more valuable piece if he’d made her explain in more detail.

But we thought Fears produced an important moment when he interviewed Indiana University’s Valerie Grim, who spoke about her parents. “I have parents who are still living,” she said. This is a nugget to dream on:

FEARS (5/10/08): “I have parents who are still living who are very enthusiastic about Obama," said Valerie Grim, the chair of Indiana University's Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies. "They live in Mississippi. For a time, my parents couldn't vote, and when they could, their only choice was a white person.

“This means more than just saying there's a black person on the ticket. It represents the things they had been denied. It's being able to see the unbelievable, that the impossible might be possible. It represents for them a new day, a new opportunity to see that black people can contribute, on the ultimate level, to the social order."

For our money, Fears and Grim produced a memorable moment there. (Of course, it all comes back to the decency of Grim’s parents—and of so many like them.) As we noted a few months ago: Tim Russert’s Irish Catholic family stood in line, thrilled by the opportunity to vote for Dear Jack in 1960. (He described this deeply human episode in his book, Big Russ & Me.) Now, Grim’s parents are in that line too. Of course, African Americans have waited much longer, in much more difficult circumstances.

That was a darn good moment from Fears. That said, we also thought that Katherine Seelye captured a moment in yesterday’s Times. Seelye watched Clinton in West Virginia—on Mother’s Day, no less. When we read this passage, we thought of what Fears had written just one day before. This is Clinton on the trail, campaigning with her daughter:

SEELYE (5/12/08): [Chelsea] Clinton and her mother embraced, perhaps more intensely and for a moment longer than usual, before Mrs. Clinton began a sweeping paean to women, from the suffragists and Harriet Tubman to Sally Ride.

Mrs. Clinton mentioned her own desire to be an astronaut, foiled because she was a girl. She admitted, however, that she probably would have been disqualified anyway for bad eyesight and her “very, very modest” athletic ability, an admission that brought a shared chuckle from the audience.

Her few references to her presidential campaign were mostly indirect, but the audience spotted them and cheered them wildly.

“I’ve come to believe that hard work, determination and resiliency are encoded in our DNA,” she said of women. “We know that we have the ‘worry’ gene. We know we have the ‘put your coat on because it’s cold outside’ gene. But we also have the ‘stand up and fight for what you believe in’ gene.” This brought thunderous applause.

We’re glad that Grim’s parents will get the chance to stand in that line and cast that vote. But we’re glad that those women got to cheer too. Obama has made a core suggestion—and we think it’s very good one. He has suggested that we should learn to see ourselves in others.

Excellent point,TheBell. Goes to your good analytical skills. I am sure that it wouldn't make HRC supporters feel like Obama is more attractive as a candidate if he chose Bill Richardson when many HRC supporters and were disappointed by his endorsing BO.

I think Richardson is out as A VP choice for that reason.

. ;-)

(though not certain) that you have no data whatsoever concerning my knowledge of BLT (or lack thereof). If I'm mistaken in one way or another, can you also describe my understanding of the Tao Te Ching and earwax removal methods (in that order)?