Obama answers SF Chronicle reader's question: "How to Talk About Race"

San Francisco Chronicle
Reader's question: How to talk about race?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNORUHPLQ.DTL

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Readers have e-mailed questions to The Chronicle that they would like to see answered by the presidential candidate of their choosing. This question, sent in by a reader, was put to Sen. Barack Obama during his interview with The Chronicle editorial board on Thursday. Obama's answer has been slightly edited for space.

Q: What do you believe is needed to help open up public discourse about racial issues allowing people of all races to speak honestly without fear of being shut down by accusations of racism?

- Deborah Cloudwalker, 45, Oakland

Sen. Obama: Well, I'm not sure that there's going to be a single formula for doing that. I'd like to say that I've contributed positively to the racial dialogue in this country and that my candidacy has spurred some interesting reflections on race. Last week's tussle with Sen. Clinton was not particularly illuminating, because I think it was caught up in a whole bunch of tensions surrounding the fact that it's a close race ... But overall, my view is that we have made enormous progress since my youth. It is demonstrable, it is significant.

But, there is a whole lot of messy racial animosity, tension, tribal impulses that are going to have to work themselves out. And my role, as a candidate - but also as a president and as a writer - has been to try to explain the truth as I see it: Which is that we are all the same under the skin, but that our history and circumstances are very different, and that racial justice and equality in this country will have to be earned. That we have to encourage empathy; we have to encourage all of America to be able to see through each others' eyes and see a stake in each other. And that if we're going to solve many of these racial tensions, we're going to have to go at the concrete manifestations of a tragic history. We're going to have to go at poverty.

We're going to have to go at the problems of structural barriers to employment. And we can talk about those things without being accusatory. You know, people often remark, "Well, there's been some debate. What kind is Obama - black enough? Is he too black?" This, that, and the other.

I think what's puzzled pundits - because it doesn't fit into our neat categories - but hasn't puzzled the American people, as my approach has been to look very squarely, directly, realistically at the problem of race in our society and how it impacts people. But not to use a language that suggests that just one side is at fault, or that somehow the African American community or the Latino community is always a victim. But rather to look at it in a way that actually solves the problem. That's what I'm going to try to model.

San Francisco Chronicle
John Diaz
Obama's straight-ahead style
http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL

Sunday, January 20, 2008

The questions were finished, but Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was not. He had one more point to make before leaving his meeting with the Chronicle's editorial board. "Why don't we go off the record on this," Obama said as he was standing up and pulling on his suit jacket Thursday.

* snip *

Obama proceeded to challenge the premise of our questions about experience. In the process, he helped answer a question about one job requirement of the presidency: the ability to confront people in a direct way.

"One thing, when this issue of experience comes up, I always ask the editorial boards to consider: Most of you spend enormous amounts of ink complaining about how broken the politics of Washington are; how sordid and inefficient and ineffective it is. And yet, during the course of campaigns or conversations, you're looking for validation in terms of how well does this person work the system that you are constantly decrying and saying is broken and doesn't work.

"I think it is important to ask: Do we need somebody who, in fact, does not speak in the very traditions that you say do not serve the American people? Are we willing to break out of that pattern?"

It was a fair point. It also was illustrative of another quality that came through repeatedly during our meeting at the St. Francis Hotel: his skill at delivering direct, pointed messages in a thoughtful, nonabrasive manner. I wanted to share that moment with our readers. I asked Obama to allow it to be on the record. He agreed.

His look-you-in-the-eye directness was evident in other exchanges. When Editor Phil Bronstein suggested the only time leaders are held accountable is when they get caught in a scandal with a "gate" suffix, Obama countered, "I think that's too cynical." He challenged columnist Debra J. Saunders' characterization of equivocation in his opposition to the war on Iraq in a "generally generous column" about the Las Vegas debate.

He was, naturally, even more pointed in his critiques of the Clintons: from their approach to health care ("you go behind closed doors, you come up with your theory with the help of your technical experts") to Sen. Hillary Clinton's claims of management experience.

The other striking quality of the Obama meeting was his willingness to listen to and engage in the questions that were asked - rather than regarding any question as a launching pad for the campaign's talking points, a practice that has become epidemic in modern American politics. He demonstrated depth on an assortment of issues: mortgage securities, coal, California air-pollution laws. He showed political courage on the issue of Social Security by bringing up his support for raising the income cap on payroll taxes.

* snip *

One more positive impression of the Obama meeting: Even though his morning schedule kept slipping, Obama's campaign made it clear all along that he would not cut short our planned 45-minute meeting. Once he arrived, he expressed his willingness to either make opening comments or go direct to questions. Some candidates have been known to use extended opening comments as a way to exhaust time for questioning. As time ran out - and we squeezed in the trademark one more question - he was patient, against his staff's antsiness.

He set a high bar for his rivals, at least in this editorial board member's view.

He also gets extra points for refusing to back-slap or pander before, during or after the meeting. At one point, he allowed, "I don't follow your editorials on a regular basis."