Stat of the Day: Black Vote in Presidential Elections

I was thinking about how everyone complained during the election that blacks were being racist by voting for Obama. I decided to look at the previous Democratic nominees, who, surprise, surprise, were white, and see how their share of the black vote compared. What I found was that Obama did perform better than them, but not by much. Democrat's also managed to win more than half of the Latino vote in the past three presidential elections, with Obama gaining a higer percentage than either Gore of Kerry.

source: CNN.com

So, based on this, I have to conclude that African Americans, and to a lesser extend Latinos, just like voting for Democrats. Did the race of the candidate play a factor in the past election? Likely it did for many voters, but there were so many other factors (the quality of campaigning, the state of the economy, and the approval rating of the sitting president, among them) that to call minorities who voted for Obama racism would be inappropriate.

It could also be pointed out that McCain won 55% of the white vote. I wouldn't call all whites who voted for McCain racist.

Speak For Yourself III: More McCain/Palin Rally Insanity

This time, McCain-Palin supporters at a rally in Ohio express their views.

Again, one must ask, what is it about these rallies that attracts this element? Why would people who think like this also support John McCain? What does that say about McCain and Palin? What does it say that these people support McCain's policies?

Apparently, I Will be a Deadbeat Dad

That's right, according to Bill Cunningham, if I should father any children, I will promptly abandon them, on account of my blackness, because "that's what black fathers do." Yeah, it sounded unbelievable to me, too, until I played the Media Matters audio clip, and heard it for myself.

Oh, and since I made it to age 18 without being abandoned by my father (thanks, Dad!) I guess that means my dad isn't black. WOW! And all these years, he thought he was a brotha. Maybe one day Mr. Cunningham will come out with some theory that my mom is an alien from Jupiter.

By the way, this is the same Bill Cunningham that was given the privilege (if you can call it that) of introducing John McCain before one of his rallies. He took this opportunity as a prime moment to repeatedly, and in a malicious way, mention and disparage Barack Obama's middle name (in case you didn't know, that name - Hussein - has been in Obama's family for a long time, probably since before Saddam Hussein was born in a country far away from Obama's family). Here's the obligatory video clip:

One more thing on Mr. Cunningham. He was gracious enough to warn us that black people, regardless of the result of the election, will create mischief and mayhem in the streets.

Now, aside from the fact that he attributed comments to police chiefs that no police chiefs ever made, this is just racist. Yes, hateful fear-mongers like Cunningham should be afraid of what will happen if this election is stolen, because we will make our voices heard, just as we did in the 1960s when our right to vote was being compromised. This issue may come up again, because this idiotic mess probably deserves its own, more detailed post.

Speak for Yourself II: Obama the Father and Baby Killer?

Because, as Rachel Maddow points out in this clip, being a father of two and wanting to see infants run over by a train aren't exactly congruent characteristics, this right-wing mailing is just insane.

Is this racism? Maybe. But it's probably more just bitter partisan hatred mixed in with a healthy dose of hopeless stupidity.

Apparently, I hate Real Americans

Yes, it was revealed at a John McCain rally that liberals, like me "hate real Americans that work hard and achieve and believe in God." This is in spite of the fact that I am a real American that works hard and achieves and believes in God. I guess this makes me a self-hater.

You can read about my self hatred here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/20/hayes-liberals-hate/

I have go to class, more righteous indignation to come.

Palin's Low Blow on Michelle Obama

Unless they do something so deplorable that they raise reasonable doubt about the judgment of the candidate, the candidate's spouse should be off-limits in political contests. Apparently, Sarah Palin doesn't abide by this standard.

This was a clear and direct attack on Michelle Obama's much noted comments about not being proud of being an American. For Palin to take such a shot during the Vice Presidential debate showed a complete lack of integrity on her part, and a lack of respect for the Obama family. How would she like it if Barack Obama or Joe Biden took cheap shots at her husband?

But, beyone violating rules of politeness and respecfulness, Palin showed a complete lack of consideration for the black experience. Her remark suggest that black do not have a reason to be disapointed in the United States. How is it that black are wrong for criticizing the United States? And what, exactly, is it that we ought to be proud for? Many of the good things about this country that are supposed to stir patriotism don't apply to whites the same as they do to blacks. Let's look at a few:

Democracy & Voting - While African American men were given the right to vote soon after the Civil War, many blacks did not actually get to vote for 100 years, due to racist state laws, acts of violence and intimidation, barrires to registration, and a lack of intervention by the federal government. Today, black and other minorities are still subjected to underhanded attempts to rob them of their votes. Names are unjustly removed from voter rolls, illegal "caging" practicies abound, and intimidation still occurs. Depending on who controlls the White House, the Justice Department may show little if any interest in investigating such injustices.

Economic Opportunity & Social Mobility - Again, this nation has a long history of denying equal economic opportunity to blacks. This can be traced back to slavery. Even after slavery, the premature end of Reconstruction left many blacks in an economic position as close to slavery as one could be without being a slave. Piled on to this disadvantage was the fact that many African Americans were barred from participating in labor unions, and many would argue that labor unions are still hotile to minorities. Research even shows that a black man with no criminal record is less likely to get a job than a white man with a criminal record. We also know that, no matter who you blame, black and brown children just don't get the same quality education as whites. While there are some exceptions to this rule, I can make this broad generalization because our public schools are growing more and more segregated by the day.

We Live in a Land of Justice - Let me remind you of the "Jena 6" incident, in which 6 African American boys were charged with second degree murder for a school fight. While the were wrong and deserved some form of punishment, the excessivly harsh charge was issued by a District Attorney who showed an inability to take any action when African Americans were the victim. He even went as far as to threaten blacks who protested the haning of a nuse on school property - an act that qualifies, by law, as a hate crime. During the fallout from this incident, the U.S. Department of Justice did nothing. This is just one example of the people who's salary we pay through taxes to protect us - police, district attornies, justice departments, and judges - have become the enemy of the black community.

We're the Melting Pot - Often time, that melting pot ask African Americans to forsake their own culture in order to take up the cloak of Eurocentric culture. Our music, speech, clothing, family structure, religious practice, and other aspects of our culture are deemed as inferior.

I could go on with this, but I think you get the point. While I'm glad to live in this country, I and other persons of my hue have some legitimate complaints. We are taught as small children about how wonderful this country is, but as we grow older, we encounter a very different world. We learn that all the great features of this country don't always apply to us. For the Sarah Palins of the world to ignore thsee very real and legitimate feelings shows an utter disregard for the experiences of the African American community, and provides chilling insight on they way a Palin (or McCain-Palin) administration would impact blacks and other minorities.

Here We Go

Finally, we've reached the beginning of the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, and this beginning is marked by a new line of attack from John McCain and his campaign. Finally, they are beginning to unleash the below-the-belt, outlandish and baseless attacks that many feared would come at some point in the election

With McCain's numbers slipping both nationally and in key battleground states, and Sarah Palin's not harmful but also not overwhelmingly great debate performance, the desperation within the McCain camp is so thick you could cut it with a knife. So, they've decided to attack Barack Obama by linking him with William Ayers, a man who has been labeled as a domestic terrorist for actions he participated in back in the 1960s - when Obama was a whopping eight years old! Just as there is no real substantive link between Obama and Franklin Rains (the sinister looking black former Freddy Mac executive) the Obama-Ayers connection doesn't extend beyond living in the same neighborhood and serving on a charitable board together.

Way back during the primary election factcheck.com pointed out that there is no substantive link between Obama and Ayers. I expect that they will be ripping this new McCain line of attack to shreds in the coming days.

Of course, in this morally deficiant society of ours, lies have become par for the course in high stakes elections. However, this particular lie reeks of an attempt to paint Senator Obama as a terrorist himself. It conjures up those nasty e-mail smears that are going around, spewing some hate-filled version of: "Barack Obama is a secret Islamic terrorist who is infiltrating the country by running for president so that he can destroy it from the inside out." This is code language, a dog whistle intended to appeal to the worst aspects of American society by sending the message that "he's not one of us, be scared of him."

Expect McCain campaign surrogates and Conservative commentators to began questioning Senator Obama's Christian faith within the next few days. This will probably be followed by a renewed bashing of his former mega-church Christian pastor. And if Obama tries to respond with that annoying little thing we know as the truth, expect the right-wing fanatics to accuse him of playing the race card.

Those of us who actually pay attention to the world around us, watch with a critical eye, and aren't fooled by such shenanigans know exactly what this is. We know that Republicans couldn't get away with this against a white candidate (although the fact that Obama is a Democrat and that Democrats are often portrayed by Republicans as weak does help some). We recognize this as an attempt to paint Obama as one of those crazy, unpatriotic, radical, angry black people who we must all fear and hate because he has the nerve to speak up when our nation does something wrong.

We must also know that there is more to come. It remains to be seen how close the Republicans will come to using overt racism to scrape together votes. The more desperate the become, the more likely it is. As their poll numbers slip, they will have less to loose by using race as a tool to create fear of an Obama administration. We should expect to see more ads that depict Obama as a sinister black man, soft on crime, wanting to give handouts to lazy welfare queens, and willing to sacrifice the safety of the nation to meet his own personal ambitions. Expect that the Republicans to be reckless in their lies (as they already have been). Be prepared for the possibility that [publicly] independent organizations will be overtly racist, especially in ad campaigns targeted as specific media markets.

This is the test of America's morality that we all knew would come if we nominated a black man. Now it's time for us to see if we pass the test, and to respond appropriately to the results. The next 30+ days are not for the faint of heart.

Is John McCain Racist?

It's been about a week that I've been debating doing this post. Throughout this entire presidential campaign, I've maintained that I don't think John McCain is racist, and I think it's a just wrong to accuse him of being so without any type of proof. So, one can imagine the internal conflict I felt when I found reason to believe that John McCain's views of other races are less than acceptable.

I've decided to simply present the information that I have found. Before I do, let me say that I am not fully convinced concerning the credibility of the source. Personally, I think it's likely true, but this evidence is in no way definitive. That's why this post is titled "Is John McCain Racist?" and not "John McCain is Racist!"

At http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/10086 you will find a list of questionable actions by Senator McCain. These are mostly first hand accounts from Doug Thompson, a former Capitol Hill staffer who interacted with McCain over the years. Here is one of the less vulgar comments that Thompson reports:

Question: Why does Mexican beer have two "X's" on the label?
Answer: Because wetbacks always need a co-signer.

Thompson also adds,

McCain loved to tell jokes about lesbians, blacks, Hispanics and the Vietnamese community that occupied a large section of Arlington County, Virginia, just south of the District of Columbia.

Of course, McCain didn't use polite language in the jokes: He used names like "fags" or "queers" or "dykes" or "niggers" or "spics" or "wetbacks" or "gooks."

and,

McCain's collection of off-color jokes are riddled with racist words and sentiments. Advisors have toned down the raunchy rhetoric of his early years in Congress but close aides say his attitudes have not changed.

McCain opposed making the birthday of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King a national holiday. During his 2000 campaign for President, he told reporters on his "Straight Talk Express: "I hated the gooks (North Vietnamese). I will hate them as long as I live."

Finally, I want to point out one more of Thompson's many disturbing claims. He sites the book Gook: John McCain's Racism, written by Irwin A. Tank, stating that McCain once endorsed a frequent speaker at white supremacist rallies, and that "in answering a question about divorced fathers and child support, McCain called the children 'tar babies.'"

If these claims are true (and McCain's opposition to the MLK holiday and his use of the anti-Asian slur "gook" are known to be true) it should be quite alarming to all Americans. We must be concerned and ask ourselves if a person who believes and behaves in this way is the best choice to lead our nation.

Philly Inquirer Articles Raise Key Question

After reading two very good pieces of commentary from the Philadelphia Inquirer, both criticizing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, I found myself asking this question: could a liberal black man get away with nearly as much as she does?

First, Mark Bowden took Palin to task for criticizing Barack Obama for wanting to treat humans as humans:

But it was in that much-heralded speech at the Republican convention that Palin tossed off a line I found more disturbing than anything unearthed about her since. It got a predictably enthusiastic response from the keyed-up partisan crowd.

"Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America," said Palin, and then, referring to Barack Obama, quipped: "He's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Quite apart from the cheap distortion of Obama's position, typical of most campaign rhetoric, this is a classic lynch-mob line. It is the taunt of the drunken lout in the cowboy movie who confronts a sheriff barring the prison door - He wants to give 'im a trial? It is the precise sentiment that Atticus Finch so memorably sets himself against in Harper Lee's masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird, when he agrees to defend a supposedly indefensible black man charged with rape (falsely, as it turns out).

Now, the question I have is, why does the line of attack Palin is using here work? It's not surprising that Republicans would think it good strategy to attack a black candidate as soft on crime - or in this case soft on the worst kind of criminals: terrorst. Sure, his personality and his political affiliation also add to the attractiveness of this strategy. But let's be real, this works in part because he's black and black people have long been associated with violence and with letting people get away with violence.

But let's flip the tables. What if it were Obama attacking a white politician on such grounds? What if Palin and Obama switched roles? We would then see Obama attacked for not respecting the Constituation. He would be cast as unpatriotic and not "one of us." When will we realize that such a line of attack is not dependent on one's actual positons? These attacks will have roughly the same rate of success no matter what, because they are based on the color of the attacked person's skin, and not on any other political or otherwise substantive variables.

The next article I read was by Dick Poleman. He writes:

She stated on ABC News that Alaska produces "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." The accurate energy statistic, according to the federal government, is 3.5 percent. She subsequently amended her boast, claiming during a stump speech that Alaska produces "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." Wrong again. The accurate oil and gas statistic, according to the feds, is 7.4 percent.

Yet none of that matters to McCain, and why should it?

In America these days, we award everyone for merit, from the brilliant to the mediocre. Just as in Little League, everyone gets a trophy. It's the ultimate in populist democratization. Which is why McCain insists, despite all empirical evidence to the contrary, that Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anybody in the United States of America."

Now, would Barack Obama (or Duval Patrick or Harold Ford or any other black politicain) be able to get away with someting like this? NO! In fact, when we do better than this and succeed, we are dismissed as some affirmative action stunt. It's amazing that right-wing empty suits can talk about how qualified Palin is out of one side of their mouth and criticize Senator Obama for being unexperienced out of the other. Obama (and Joe Biden, and other Democratic candidates at all levels around the country) proves his preparedness for office by not sounding like a moron every time he opens his mouth. However, this doesn't matter, because 45 years after Dr. King's much heralded but rarely heeded I Have a Dream speech, the same white media and priviledged white electorate refuse to evaluate a person by the content of his or her character and not the color of his or her skin.

Will Racists Cost Obama the Election?

Over the past few moths, I've heard many people complain that Barack Obama may lose the presidential election, not because of a lack of experience or good ideas, but because of racial prejudice. On the other hand, others have argued that this is an inappropriate complaint. Such individuals insist that the fact that Obama has gotten this far, with the help of white primary voters, is proof that if he looses, it will be the fault of the candidate, and not his skin.

As you can guess, I personally fall into the first category. This is because I believe that race is still a powerful force in our society, wielding an influence greater than most Americans are willing to admit. However, I have another, stronger, less abstract reason for felling this way: the facts.

The facts are as follows:

• Barack Obama is running against John McCain. McCain is a Republican, the same party as George Bush, one of the least popular presidents in U.S. History.
• John McCain also has a history as a senator of voting in line with Bush's policies.
• Most Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Obama wants to pull troops out of Iraq, and has a plan to do so in a timely manner. McCain is more committed to long-term occupation of Iraq. He feels that leaving in equivalent to loosing (loosing what, I'm not sure).
• Our economy is in the toilet. I mean a disgusting, unwashed, public toilet. Most Americans, especially in times like these, would support an Obama economic plan. Lower taxes for the middle class. Reward companies for keeping jobs in the U.S. Create more jobs. Regulate big business. You know, things that actually make sense.

I could go on all day, but I'll sum it up like this: on the issues, most Americans overwhelmingly agree with Obama, not McCain.

Yet, each and every poll shows a big gap between agreeing with Obama on the issues and actual support for Obama. In other words, people want a president who will do what Obama will do, they just don't want Obama.

This leaves one to question, what is it about Barack Obama that makes him so difficult for people to vote for? Well, what's the most obviously unique thing about him? What makes him different than any one who has ever held the office of President of the United States? HE'S BLACK! (actually he's brown. or some shade thereof, ask Crayola)

Of course, no one wants to attribute Obama's lack of a larger lead in the polls to race; that would be like saying Americans are racist. But, when one looks at the facts, one will find that we kind of are. No, not all of us, not even most of us, just enough of us.

I'm not making this up. Actual polling data shows that many Americans harbor negative opinions of blacks, and this could very well be a deciding factor in the election. Consider the following excerpts from this AP article appearing in Newsweek:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about 2.5 percentage points.

What does this mean? It means that 33.33333....% of white DEMOCRATS think that black people are bad things. No wonder he's having trouble “closing ranks.” Thats one in every three, folks. That can turn an election. Here's more:

Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

Wondering where the lead that Obama should have is? Well, there you have it. Get rid of prejudice, he's up 6 points (OK, its an estimate, but it's an educated estimate based on real, scientifically derived numbers).

What does this all mean? It means that this election is what I knew it would be from the moment it began: a gut-check for America. If we really value the content of a person's character rather than the color of his or her skin, than when a capable black leader comes along who reflects our view of the way a country should be run – the way a leader should act and the policy initiatives that leader should pursue – than that person should be elected. Right now, we stand at the threshold of failing that test.

I'll leave you with some more results of the poll. They should make voters' inability to value character over color less shocking.

Adjectives associated with blacks:

"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

The plight of black America is black America's fault:

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Independents:

Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."

Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."

Voting for Clinton because Obama's black:

Just 59 percent of her [Senator Hillary Clinton's] white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

McCain's New Low - The Sex Ed Lie

This presidential campaign has gone to a whole new low level that I think few could have predicted it would have. Over the past few months we've endured lies, distortions, smears, and an abandonment of the issues that I'm sure would turn anyone's stomach. We though, “Well, this is real bad. I guess this is what the campaign is going to be like.”

Then it got worse. Much worse.

Yesterday, I returned home from a long day and learned of a new ad being run by the McCain campaign. It attacked Senator Barack Obama on his education record. I won't do McCain the favor of posting the entire ad here, but I do want to highlight the most vile and disgusting part of it. The announce in the ad claims that Obama supported teaching “'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners,” and then goes on to state, “Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.”
Well that's a lie. The bill that the ad is referring to didn't teach five-year-olds how to have sex, as McCain would have you to believe. Instead, it was aimed at preventing the sexual assault of minors. The bill allowed for schools to teach kindergartners what to do when inappropriately touched or otherwise interacted with by an adult.

For his part, Obama's campaign responded as follows:

It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls -- a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.

I agree with Obama's response wholeheartedly. It shows an utter lack of moral integrity that McCain would attack Obama for supporting a bill aimed at protecting young children. The fact that McCain would take such a worthwhile bill and dishonestly warp its meaning to suggest that Obama, a father of two, supports measures that would teach children about sex in inappropriate ways shows that McCain has little, if anything, to offer our nation on education or anything else that matters.

This comes on the same day in which the McCain camp called Obama sexist for saying (in reference to the similarities between McCain's policies and those of President Bush) “you can ... put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.” This is a comment that was directed at John McCain, and the pig in the analogy was McCain's/Bush's policies, not any actually human being. Yet, somehow, McCain found it sexist and demanded an apology.

The worst part of all of this is that the American people are falling for it. National polls show McCain doing much better than he has in the past. The media is choosing to cover these stories and not the issues. They fail to acknowledge McCain's actions for what they are – lies – and even when they do criticize McCain, it seems they always have a way to make it Obama's fault.

That brings me back to what I believe is an enduring question in this race: If Obama wasn't black, would this be happening? Would Republicans be able to get away with doing this to a white candidate? Would they be so confident in their lies? Would they be able to base their campaign on falsehoods with confidence that any changes in the polls that result will be changes in their favor? Is it clear that the entire Republican campaign strategy is made possible by Obama's skin?

Chris Matthews Calls GOP on Racial Tactics

It seems that finally someone in the mainstream media is almost as fed up as me with the racial/cultural tactics being employed by the Republican party and their blatantly hypocritical promotion of their empty-suit vice presidential nominee and their "change you can't believe in" presidential nominee.

Today on Hardball, Chris Matthews (who may have decided to just let loose and be open after being booted from special event election coverage) ripped into Republicans, stating the obvious:

1. The Republicans have no desire to campaign on the issues
2. Their selection of a rural female for VP was an appeal not to America's brains, but to it's hate and fear of "the other"
3. The selection of Palin, the mocking of the term "community organizer," and other ridiculous actions are really attempts to use "dog whistles" to racialize the election - and it's working.

Here's the clip:

The Oppression Sweepstakes

Well, here we go again. During the Democratic Presidential Primary, lots of people got caught up in what came to be known as the “Oppression Sweepstakes,” a fight over which was more historically significant and barrier-breaking: the nomination of an African American or a woman. The nomination of Sara Palin by the GOP for vice president is sure to revive this debate.

Personally, I am not comfortable with the way such a conversation usually goes.

First, the totality of the people involved is often ignored. When people talk about the hurdles a Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin have had to jump and compare them to Barack Obama, they make a woman-man comparison. Such a comparison overlooks the fact that the women involved are not just women, but white women, and the man involved is not just a man, but a black man. So, conservatively speaking (little-c conservative), for all the struggles that Clinton or Palin face as women, they also enjoy many advantages as white women. Some would argue, logically so, that for all the struggles Obama faces as an African American, he enjoys many advantages as a man.

However, I would argue that while the latter claim is true to some extent, Obama's blackness prevents him from fully partaking in male-privilege. From what I can tell, all men enjoy some aspects of male privilege, but they way we typically think about such privilege really only applies to white men. Furthermore, we often overlook the fact that the combination of Obama's blackness and his maleness leads to unique set of challenges. African American men are perhaps the most vilified subset of the population in our nation's history. It doesn't help that he's running against at ticket that contains a white female. Black male-white female combinations don't usually go well in American history (what comes immediately to mind: any slave and his master's wife, the Scottsboro Boys, Emmett Till, O.J. Simpson, Terrel Owens, miscegenation laws, segregated proms, I think you get the point).

It's also important to remember that racism and sexism aren't parallels. They don't operate in the same way, and you can't compare them in a 1:1 relationship. Racism and sexism don't manifest themselves in the same way. One very visible sign of sexism during the Democratic Primary was seen at Hillary Clinton rallies, where attendees would show up with shirts and bearing “iron my shirt” and other sexist and objectionable comments. Now, does this mean that if there were no racist signs at Obama rallies that there was also no racism during the race? Certainly not. It just means that racism manifested itself in quieter but equally – if not more – pervasive and destructive ways.

Yet, in the wake of Palin's nomination and inappropriate reactions to it, the media has shown a knack for pointing out instances of sexism, while at they same time marginalizing or even ignoring the impact of race on the election. It seams that the mainstream media has selective amnesia, forgetting the many smears (he's a Muslim, he's socialist, he's a terrorist, he's trying to infiltrate America, he's the anti-Christ) and threats of violence that have been hurled at Obama, and choosing to ignore the role that race has played in making these smears and Republican lies possible.

Personally, I don't understand how the media can take it as it's journalistic duty to hold Obama and Joe Biden accountable for criticism, issues-based or otherwise, of Governor Palin in the name of stopping sexism, while at the same time they stand silently while Palin and other extreme right-wing lunatics mock Obama, distort his record, and lie about him with a smile on their faces.

Listen, both white privilege and male privilege are topics that are in play in this election and deserve more serious discussion. However, it is clear to me that the term “oppression sweepstakes” is a misnomer, because with the current behavior of the media there's no contest.

It's Okay to Lie About Black People

If there's one thing that can be learned from this year's presidential election, it's that, in spite of the great progress our nation has made over the past century in terms of race relations, it's still socially acceptable to lie about black people. In fact, you can tell a bold-faced lie about a public black figure and get away with it. Even when your lie is exposed, you won't be called to account for what you have done. You won't suffer any consequences. People will still believe what you said. If you don't believe me, then just look at the case of John McCain and the GOP, who are now realizing that they can say just about anything, true or false, about Barack Obama and get away with it.

Example #1: McCain, Obama, and Taxes
Senator McCain and his team are quite fond of claiming that an Obama administration would raise taxes on the average American family. This is just not true. Now, of course, in a presidential election we expect both sides to do a little (OK, a lot) of truth bending to make themselves look really good and the opposition look really bad. However, what McCain has done consistently is nothing more than a straight-up lie. According to Factcheck.org, an independent fact checking organization, McCain has shown a “pattern of deceit,” in ads that are “plain wrong about higher taxes on working families.” And when they say ads, they mean multiple ads in multiple languages.

Here's more from Factcheck.org:

Overall... Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

and,

Under Obama's plan... people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes. Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

However, there seems to be no stomach in the mainstream media for calling McCain's attacks what they are – a lie. You can imagine, my senses were heightened to this in an environment that has already seen Senator Obama smeared as a radical Muslim, a hater of white people, a terrorist, and the Antichrist.

Example #2: Change About Nothing
Voices from the right have repeatedly claimed that Obama speaks about “change” and “hope” without ever speaking about what specifically that change would be. However, Obama does talk in specifics about what he would do as president. And if what he gives you in speeches isn't enough, he's got a whole website with sections devoted to policy detail.

But, of course, calling him long or words and short on detail fits into a longstanding stereotype of blacks as being stylistically gifted but substantively lacking, so the lie stands.

Example #3: Obama vs. Palin on Experience
John McCain had the audacity to go on FOX “News” Sunday and claim that his new VP pick, Sara Palin of Alaska, has more executive experience than Obama, pointing out that “When she was in government, he was a community organizer.” Only that's not true. McCain LIED! The Associated Press points out that when Obama was a community organizer, Palin was a news anchor. Now, let me ask you, which job gives more executive experience? He also stated that she “has had enormous responsibilities, none of which Senator Obama had.” Sure, because being a city council member, a mayor, and a governor in a remote, isolated, underpopulated corner of the globe is the same as being a community organizer, state legislator and U.S. Senator from the third largest city in the nation. The AP article also notes that McCain brought up the issue of Obama's “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature, which, while not a lie, were quite misleading.

What is my point here? I'm sure that if the Democrats had nominated someone else, someone less black, for president (oh, let's say Joe Biden for fun) there would be some truth bending and even some lying going on. However, it's the response that's disturbing. McCain would never get away with doing this to some 72-year old white male war hero. Yet, today, McCain's inability to tell the truth about his opponent still is not a major headline. I still don't hear reporters asking him why he has told so many untruths, or if he would like to withdraw the statements he has made that have been reported to be untrue. In fact, even when I hear these falsehoods reported on, there seems to be no will to call them what they are: lies. But that just means that now, as has been for the entire history of our nation, it's OK to lie about black people.

UPDATE (@ about 3:36 pm):
First Read's Mark Murray points out that McCain has also been very misleading in his claim that Obama has given tax breaks to oil companies. According to independent fact checking, the very bill that McCain is referring to resulted in a net tax INCREASE on oil companies. More lies.

Wow, sexism sucks

First of all, many apologies for the long absence. Between switching operating systems and preparing to teach this summer I haven't had much time to write.

However, I felt it important to post a video that a friend sent me that addresses the issue of sexism in the media. For those of you who think it doesn't exist, trust me, it does.

I felt it important to share this because in previous posts I have complained about cries of sexism in the presidential elections that seem to, in a very offensive way, ignore the historical and present significance of race and racism. I will continue to make that argument. However, after watching this video, I felt it inappropriate to make such an argument without also displaying the way that sexism has infiltrated our national duologue. I am convinced that sexism and run-away gender socialization permeate our collective psyche below the level of the superficial in a way that is quite detrimental to our society. Although I believe that racism and sexism operate in different ways and intersect in ways that are complex and quite uncomfortable for many to discuss, these are issues that we must confront. So, here's the video, thanks Will:

White, Working Class, Less Educated Voters: What's it All Mean?

It's gotten to the point that we don't even need to watch the post-primary election analysis that seems to happen every-other Tuesday anymore. We already know what will dominate at least the early discussions: “Why can't Barack Obama seem to win the white, working-class, less-than-a-college-education vote?”

It's as if this is all that matters in the election. OK, we get it already, Obama has had problems winning whites in certain states.

As a side note, MSNBC / NBC News points out that he does much better in states with almost no black population or very high black population, but just can't seem to win over white voters in states “in the middle.”

My question is this: when is the media going to move off of simply reporting these statistical facts or asking "What can Obama do to win over / connect with / convince these voters?" and move on to some real analysis? When are we going to really discuss what these numbers mean and what they say about American voters?

Yesterday I had an opportunity to see a clip from meet the press from a few weeks ago (usually I'm in church when it's on, and no TiVo for me). There was a round-table discussion going, and Gwen Ifill raised an interesting point. She noted that in this election, there has been a lot of talk about race but little talk about racism. (For the Hill-heads out there, I'm willing to concede that there's been a lot of talk about gender but less talk of sexism, but, still, the gulf is not as wide as in the case of race and racism.) Instead of trying to use Senator Obama's candidacy as way of claiming that a “glass ceiling” has been broken, or that we've finally moved into a “post-race society” lead by a new generation of wonderfully “colorblind” voters, we should acknowledge the ways in which his meteoric rise to the top of the Democratic party has exposed just how pervasive racism is in the American psyche.

Now, let me pause here to say that I'm not claiming that most American's are racist. I don't want to come off as saying that only racist people won't vote for Senator Obama. There are lot's of good reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton (or earlier on Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Bidden, even Kucinich), and I suppose there are good reasons to vote for John McCain as well, although I've not yet been introduced to them. But, we must ask, what does it mean that so many white individuals, and particular groups of white individuals are reluctant to vote for the African American male that is all but officially the party's nominee? Look at the split within the white community (probably the most generalizing term ever): old vs. young; rural vs. urban; those who live in states with sizable black populations vs. those who don't; those without college education vs. those with college degrees; “Regan Democrats” vs. “liberals.” In each of these comparisons, Clinton does better with whites in the first category, Obama with those in the second category. Why?

Why won't the media go there? Why don't the ask the uncomfortable questions? Why, for example, don't they ask if less educated whites are simply less willing to vote for a black man? Last night I heard Chris Matthews (who I like overall but who still annoys me often) reference voters with more “traditional” views on race. What? What a load of crap? Call a horse a horse, call racism racism. To me, if you won't vote for someone because they're black, or are reluctant to vote for them because they're black, that's racism (except for those special cases in which people won't vote for a black person because they don't want him or her to be assassinated; that's not racism, that's fear). Everyone's quick to say that demographics may keep Obama out the White House. When is someone going to get some courage and admit that RACISM might keep him out the White House?*

And then, as I referenced in the earlier post, there's the racism we can't see. Think about how much easier it is to paint a black man as a crazy, black-power-obsessed radical Muslim super-spy. Lots of people won't vote for Obama because they fear his “Muslim past” and don't want a president with the middle name Hussein. This is not limited to this election. Remember how a little more than a year ago everyone was freaking out over Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) for being a Muslim. You don't think his blackness made it easier to paint him as “the enemy”?

But enough of my babbling. Do you think the media is letting the American electorate off the hook too easy? Leave a comment and let me know that you're out there, your reading, and you have an opinion.

* Now, this is different that Senator Clinton's not-so-subtle argument of a few weeks ago in that she essentially suggested that it was futile to nominate a black man for president because they country won't vote for him.Personally, I think in the right climate with the right campaigning, an African American can win. I'm simply saying that the media needs to put some pressure on the American public to really think about the fact that there is the potential for racism to determine the outcome of this election. American media, don't let us take the intellectually easy road.

The Racism You Can't See

Note: This entry is one of those original Facebook notes. It was posted on Thursday, May 15.

By now you may have read the article in the Washington Post by Kevin Merida or at least heard about it. It deals with the topic of racially motivated incidents of hate experienced by volunteers working to help elect Senator Obama. You can find the article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014_pf.html.

These are the highlights:

• Comments like: “I'll never vote for a black person”
• Doors slammed in face
• Students campaigning on a main road being called racial slurs by passers-by
• ”One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: 'Hang that darky from a tree!'”

Now, these are very specific, tangible examples of racism and racial hatred. Racism is being shown toward those who refuse to vote for Senator Obama because of the color of his skin, and to those, black and white, who are volunteering for him.

But I personally believe there is another type of racism mentioned in this article. Merdia notes that the Obama campaign has not made much fuss about these issues. Now, surely there is more than one reason for this. One tactical reason is that they do not want to discourage people from volunteering. However, there is another reason. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama has to avoid appearing as complaining about racism too much. This is a more subtle form of racism, one that few notice and even fewer are willing to admit exists.

Traditionally, the media, when it comes to racial relations, is only concerned with the first manifestation of racism: calling someone the N-word, police brutality, blatant racial discrimination in the workplace, and the like. However, the second form is much more controversial, because it strikes at the heart of racial relations and what it means to live in a racialized society such as ours. The fact of the matter is that there is a double standard. If Senator Clinton or Senator McCain decried the attacks on Obama volunteers or vandalism of his campaign office, they would be seen as noble. If Senator Obama were to do it, he'd be another complainer, another Sharpton, another Jackson. It would be seen as “race-baiting” which I'm sure some people would accuse me of just for writing this letter.

It is this double standard in the way we assign credibility when discussing race that is key evidence of the existence of white privilege in this country. For a better understanding of the very real but very controversial topic of white privilege, check out Unpacking the invisible knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. This article addresses the way in which, in this society, whites area aloud to say certain things that others just aren't allowed to say without being cast in a negative light. It is, I believe, the chief reason that Senator Obama, as well as countless silently angry black journalist (Eugene Robinson from MSNBC come to mind) have had to bite their tongue on a number of issues this election season.

You can even look at the fallout over spiritual leaders. Senator Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, claimed that, following September 11th, the U.S. needed to consider what impact being an international bully has on incurring the wrath of peoples of other nations. He's been branded as anti-American, and virtually all of the news media asked when and how – not if – Senator Obama would “denounce” him. Meanwhile, one spiritual adviser to Senator McCain, John Hagge, claimed that the Hurricane Katrina tragedy was a result of the wrath of God. He believes that God destroyed New Orleans because “homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.”(read here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/) Where are similar calls for McCain to denounce and reject Hagge? Or how about Rod Parsley, who believes that America was founded to destroy Islam? Or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who blamed “gays” and “abortionists” among others for the attacks on 9/11? Why no calls for Senator McCain to throw these men under the bus, men whom he has publicly held in high regard, being fully aware of their statements? Why only such a call for Rev. Wright? Who's take on 9/11 makes more sense, Falwell or Wright? But how gets lambasted and daemonized by the media?

But, no one wants to talk about this. To acknowledge that there is such a double standard would mean to acknowledge the existence of white privilege (for those of you who watch FOX “News” you may better know it as “reverse racism,” which is an oxymoronic concept that determines it's own lengthy note unto itself). If white privilege is real, than that means that we as a nation must re-evaluate everything, because it means that everything is in some way, shape, or form racialized. This means everything from how we choose presidents to how we choose spouses to how the cast for the Oscar Meyer commercial I just watched was chosen. It means that race is involved not only when a white police officer shoots an innocent black victim, but also if the officer was black, or if the victim was guilty of a crime. It means that race is involved in what I lean in school, who teaches it to me, and if I retain the knowledge. Essentially, it means that race is inescapable because it has been so deeply entrenched into modern American culture. Sadly, that's not a notion that many are willing to accept, despite the evidence for it, because they believe in the phone, romanticized view of America that they were taught in school, or at best they believe that we have “turned the page” and “gotten past all that.”

Race in America is like termites. If you only look at what can be seen, you'll never think anything is wrong. It's only once you peel back the layers that you realize how extensive the damage is. We have yet to peel back the layers.