Politics of doubt gnaw at black voters in S.C.; Obama: "I don't believe that I can't."

Boston Globe: Politics of doubt gnaw at black voters in S.C.
Many feel whites won't back Obama
By Scott Helman
Globe Staff / November 9, 2007

SUMTER, S.C. - History whispers to black voters here in South Carolina not to get their hopes up when Senator Barack Obama comes to town and says he can win the presidency. Sure, the Illinois Democrat may be the most viable African-American candidate ever, they say. But decades of dreams dashed in this deeply race-conscious state make them doubt that white voters around the country will ever put a black man in charge.

"Personally, I don't think he has a chance in hell," said Leah Josey, a 20-year-old English major at Morris College, a Baptist school in Sumter. "All those white people? Come on."

Such sentiments are prevalent among black South Carolinians, who are expected to make up nearly half of voters in the Democratic primary in January. Nearly a third of black voters surveyed in a statewide poll in September said white Americans would not vote for a black presidential candidate.

That has flipped the issue of electability on its head in the Democratic primary race, in which Senator Hillary Clinton's rivals have suggested she is too polarizing to win. Here, some blacks see the New York Democrat as a safer choice than Obama, believing she has a better chance of recapturing the presidency for the party - a desire that polls and interviews suggest is more urgent to African-American voters than to Democrats overall....

Obama took on the doubters himself in appearances last weekend, pleading with mostly black audiences not to write him off. In front of a courthouse in Manning, S.C., where one of the original school desegregation cases was filed, he urged the crowd to have the courage to swallow their fears, as civil rights pioneers had before them....

"Don't go around telling me I can't do something," Obama said, nearly yelling now. "Because if you're telling me I can't do something, that means you're telling your child they can't do something. That means you're telling yourself you can't do something. I don't believe that I can't."...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/09/politics_of_doubt_gnaw_at_black_voters_in_sc/?page=full

I don't fear his nomination, but, while I believe that an Obama national campaign could overcome racism, I also understand that fear. I also absolutely agree that getting a Democrat in the WH is vastly more important than getting an African-American president THIS time (I'm black). If this weren't such a critical election, I wouldn't feel so strongly. Maybe that's why I haven't picked a candidate at all. To me, whoever is the nominee will get all my energy and what money I can give, and without a blink my vote, and that includes Obama.

I'm a woman. But Obama is my man.

thought to myself... just maybe he has a chance. Since then I'm back to being doubtful, because it seems the media and bloggers are so quick to tear him apart over every little thing. Above all, I want a Democrat to win next fall. I like Kucinich the best, but voting for him carries that same "fear of a wasted vote" feeling.

I must ask the age old question, " if not now, when."

Back in the "pre-historic" 50's & 60's when we were trying to secure the right to vote, many people that were supposedly our "friends" as well as many in our own community urged us to "go slow," don't try to get equality overnight, you'll just make lots of people more angry and resistant.

Well, 50 years later, I still get a lump of pride when I see or hear Obama. It justifies all the pain and suffering many of us experienced to get us to this point. Please note that, I voted for Jesse Jackson in 84, knowing full well it was merely symbolic. But it was an opportunity to say, " maybe not this guy, and maybe not this time, but there Will come a time and a person that will bring our people and this country full circle.

Barack, said it better than I can, " what message are you sending to your children...to yourself, and to the rest of the world if you make a decision based on what others may or may not do? " One must live and vote by their principles & core values. If this man appeals to you, if his message resonates for you then you should cast aside fear and doubt and do the right thing.

And before you or others think this is about voting for someone just because of their race or gender, I'd never vote for Alan Keyes or Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas or even Colin Powell, just to name a few. Their skin looks like mine, and we all share a mutual American background but that's where we..they and most African Americans part ways. At this point in my life I have vowed to never again cast a vote for someone because of party affiliation, race, gender or any other lesser of two evils type thinking ( Sen Clinton will not be getting my vote should she win the nomination for that reason)

You are right about this being a critical time in America's history. The person that gets the job of President will have a huge task place on them from day one. IMO the best person to get this country turned around would be a person like Al Gore. In my wildest of dreams, I see him partnering w/ Obama to offer this country the hope and inspiration we will need to dig ourselves out of the mess that's been created over the past 27 years. But barring that....the jr Sen from Illinois is well qualified and has what it takes to win and get the job done.

I resisted Bull Conner and his "real" dogs in 1963 and will resist the dogs of pessimism in the 21st century, and I hope you will too.

I am. In May '04, while he was still running for Senate, I printed out a photo of he and his family and showed my Mom, and said, Mom, one day THIS guy is going to run for president, mark my words, people are saying it already, and he's not even in the Senate yet! And to me, Keyes and Thomas, most especially, are an embarrassment. And what a blow for Rice to be such a waste. And no, I'd never vote for them either. I'm less harsh on Powell, even though the mark against him - his UN presentation - was by far the most greivous, because of the tragic consequences. Maybe because he was the most capable of them, he was able to do the most damage.

But as to "if not now, when?" I didn't say "not now." I said I understand the fear, and that I'll back him if he gets the nomination, even though I don't believe he's "ready" yet, as a candidate. I think he'll be a much better candidate in 2012 or 2016 - he's certainly young enough for that time not to hurt him. And I'm not saying "2012" or "2016" because we're not ready for a black president, but because he, personally, can be so much better. The mistakes he's making are "rookie" mistakes, ones he'll learn from. And we agree on another thing: my dream ticket is Gore/Obama. And I'll certainly take that NOW... but again, my priority is winning. I don't know if a Obama/? ticket would win... but I'm absolutely fearlessly certain that a Gore/Obama ticket would. :)

:hi:

55 year old white lady who has voted for Bush in the past. Obama can win. He has a better chance than Hillary for the mere fact more white men will consider him than will consider her.

Everything else has been used to try to discourage us Obama supporters. I think you're running out of ammunition.

I think it's important for both supporters and detractors of all candidates to see what's out there in the press. I post almost always without comment.

And I thought Obama's eloquent statements on this were certainly worth sharing.

It's quite true that thoughtful people have wondered if voters will actually vote for a black guy, a Jew, or a female, once they have that ballot in front of them. Perhaps I'm too cynical, perhaps I've just seen and heard too much over the years, but I wonder that too. Is that a reason to *not support* a black man, or a Jew, or a woman? Not at all. It's all the more reason *to support* them, by my lights.

His divisiveness, on the other hand....

It was of course unenforceable after 1967. But even in 1998 about 2/5 of the electorate opposed removing the ban. http://www.state.sc.us/cgi-bin/scsec/98/ret981

So it seems likely to me that there may be quite a few troglodytes in SC still obsessing about non-issues

I can see how it will be an issue with some less enlightened types.


I'm an atheist lesbian, among other things. I spend a great deal of time being told my concerns are "non-issues". So I know all about those, and how they can screw things up.

because of their race. Blacks do.

You're losing me here cuke. :)

And there is a history of discrimination against various ethnic groups in the white population in this country. My Irish ancestors could tell you a tale to two. :)

Depending on the circumstances, oppressed minorities SHOULD vote as a bloc. Are you suggesting it is irrational for blacks to vote as a bloc for Dems? More than 90% of all black voters voted for Kerry. Were they wrong?

And the Irish weren't exploited because they were white. In fact, your Irish ancestors could tell you how they were considered a race apart from the white race

on edit: and I'm not saying that they should vote for Obama because he is black. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with black voters, as a bloc, deciding which candidate will best represent them and their interests and vote for them based on what that candidate will do for them

There is no argument for AAs to vote as a bloc in Dem primaries unless there is a disparity of black self-interest in the primry choices as great as that between a Dem and a pug. And that is never the case.

If AA should vote as a bloc due to group self-interest then one can argue that they *should* vote as a bloc in the primaries for whoever they think is most electable, since Black Americans tend to have much more to lose in the general election.

But in practice, I see no reason why AA voters should be expected to vote the same in the primries. (And Clinton, Edwards and Obama will probably all get roughly the same level of black support in the general.)

That's why I said "It depends". However, similar concepts apply during the primary even if the differences aren't quite as clear. Of course, if the differences are muted or almost non-existent, then the possibility of a bloc forming decrease significantly. That's why I said "It depends".

wrt the 2nd paragraph, yes, of course electability is a valid concern. As for the 3rd, in this primary, I don't see any great difference between the candidates on substantive issues of concern to the black community.

a particular skin color or gender is foolish in my view.

My Irish ancestors were discriminated against because they were "poor white" which still happens in part of this country today.

Your "on edit" comment is where we agree.

There are good reasons to vote as a bloc (the candidate is the one who best represents us and our concerns) and there are bad reasons (the candidate is the same race as I) to vote as a bloc.

And around the turn of the century, the Irish were considered a different race than white. There were many "scientists" (ex eugenicists, phrenologists) devoted to detailing the racial differences.

All voters make these calculations.

I agree with Kucinich on a lot of issues. I don't think he is electable, in large measure because he DOES agree with me on a lot of issues.

AA Voters are as smart and practical as anyone else, and have the same right to separate the idealistic and the practical without being psychoanalyzed for it.

If a 60 year old woman told me that based on her life experience, she doesn't think a woman can be elected I might disagree with her analysis, but I would concede that she has a useful perspective on the question I lack.

'nuf said.

... because they are worried he will not be accepted because of his race and, worse, they believe not voting for him will protect him from being 'taken out.'

I think this reflects just how beaten down the AA community feels after Katrina and 200 +/- years of American history.

Obama offers what they so desperately need ... hope.

what a beautiful photo!