Wednesday, August 13, 2008

“race cuts both ways in this election”

Irwin Stelzer in the Telegraph today lays out reasons why Sen. Obama should be leading Sen. McCain.

He continues:

But the polls suggest that the candidates are in a dead heat.

Some put this down to race. But race cuts both ways in this election.

Ignore the fact that only five per cent of Americans say they would not vote for a black presidential candidate. More important is the 19 per cent who say that most of the people they know - not including themselves, of course - would not vote for such a candidate.

On the other side of the ledger is the massive increase in registration and participation of black and pro-Obama Hispanic voters, white voters eager to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by voting for a black candidate, and folks who believe that the mere fact that Obama is black means that the world will think better of America if its electorate relocates Obama from the Senate to the Oval Office.
In sum, it is difficult to tell just how much race might be affecting the polls, or would affect them if respondents felt unembarrassed to tell the truth, and in which direction. …
What Stelzer says about race as an election factor is reasonable right now, but there are a few things I'd add.

I'd put emphasis on “now.” We may very well hear statements and witness events before November which will heighten race as a campaign factor.

Something else: most MSM are more gah-gah for the Dem presidential candidate than usual and less inclined than usual to ask him tough questions.

I think Obama’s race explains that.

It’s been 5 months since Obama was forced to make his Philadelphia speech which Team Obama billed as “on race.”

In fact, the speech was a so far largely successful effort to: 1) fog over Obama’s 20 year close relationship with the racist, America-bashing Rev. Jeremiah Wright; and 2) avoid answering tough questions about it.

Obama’s “I didn’t hear any of that stuff” excuse should have lead MSM to ask: Well then, didn’t Michelle ever tell you? Didn’t anyone else in the congregation tell you? How could anyone, Sen. Obama, belong to a church for 20 years and not know its pastor said and believed things like “KKK –America?”

But those questions haven’t been asked and reported by MSM.

However, as we get closer to the election the pressure will build for MSM to ask them and for the Obama’s to answer them.

As that happens it’s likely race will grow in importance as a campaign factor, if only because decent people who are rightfully concerned about the Obama’s failure to satisfactorily answer those questions will be slimed by many Dems and their MSM flacks as racists.

It’s a long way to November.

Stelzer’s entire column’s here.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

John -

I would like to think that the Edwards scandal showed that the MSM is a spent force. The MSM tried to bottle it up but the Internet opened up the bottle and let the genie out. Comparably, questions about Obama will continue flooding the Internet all during the presidential race, and that will probably drown out the sounds of silence of the MSM.

Jack in Silver Spring

Danvers said...

Hi John,

Slightly off topic, but one South African newspaper is reporting OBAMA has U-turned on Oil:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-08-13-obamas-uturn-on-oil.

Not suprisingly I have not seen any reference to this in the US papers/media I follow.

I thought it was an excellent article - especially the lead paragraph which is very much to the point!!

"Barack Obama reversed his position over petrol prices last week in the face of polls showing it has emerged as the dominant issue of the presidential election."

Anonymous said...

Dittoes to Jack in Silver Spring. When the issue of race is brought up in the campaign, too many so-called pundits attempt to make it appear that anyone who votes for other than St. Barack is ipso facto a racist. I have pointed out several times that is simply a means of avoiding the core issue: is St. Barack fit to be elected to the highest office no matter what color he is? This strategem has been employed for years by the race exploiters in the NAACP and the ACLU and other alphabet soup groups. There are a number of Blacks who are fully qualified to be president--Michael Steel and Condoleeza Rice prominent among them--and I would not hesitate for a second to vote for either of them. St. Barack, on the other hand, is not qualified in any sense of the word, and I could not in good conscience give him my vote. Pollsters like to play around with divisive questions such as this; maybe it makes them feel they are performing some kind of public service.
Another part of the St. Barack question is also evaded cleverly by the Obama partisans: the questionalble associations of St. Barack over the years. His supporters argue that anyone who questions the close relationship between the candidate and Pastor Wright, Father Pfleger, William Ayers, and Bernardine Rae Dohrn is unfairly making St. Barack "guilty by association." A man who cultivates people of that stripe as friends and advisors displays atrocious judgement and should not be considered eligible for a public trust no matter if he's white, black or purple. Let's not hear anything more about race, and concentrate solely on qualifications.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

Sorry Hawkeye, it ain't gonna happen. I agree with you 100% but as you yourself mention, "this strategem has been employed for years by the race exploiters" ---- the race exploiters will continue to exploit. It is how they make their living. Although there are so many really important issues to discuss and consider, race will become the predominant one as Omama himself continues to inject it. Steve in New Mexico

Anonymous said...

Barack Obama is going to beat the hell out of McCain.

Even the Republican Party faithful can't seem to muster much enthusiasm this time around.

The Pub convention is going to be a cricket fest.

Hehehehe

Anonymous said...

Always remember 1:06 - "He who laughs last ---------"!