Why is race continually been mentioned in this campaign?

Before Barack it was never mentioned, but since we have a front runner who is different in appearance than what has been the norm. It should not matter what color a person is if they are the best choice to lead.

This article in the NY Times is what prompted me to ask the question.

Op-Ed Columnist
Racism and the Race

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: August 8, 2008

This is supposed to be the Democrats’ year of destiny. Bush is hobbling out of office, the economy is in the toilet, voters are sick of the war and the party’s wunderkind candidate is raking in money hand over fist.


Whites, Race and the Election So why is the presidential race a statistical dead heat? The pundits have offered a host of reasons, but one in particular deserves more exploration: racism.

Barack Obama’s candidacy has shed some light on the extremes of racism in America — how much has dissipated (especially among younger people) and how much remains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/opinion/09blow.html?em

for the first time without race benig an issue, no?

I mean, I think the question would be how could race NOT be an issue.

I think you're spot on. Race shouldn't matter. But, obviously, we're not in a perfect world, and when you're talking about American presidential politics, you move from less-then-perfect world to, say, fifth circle of hell or so.

on their approach to race.

They decided to trumpet it as often as possible, and to make it as much of a liability as they can get away with instead of treating it simply as melanin.

That's one of the things I will never forgive the media for; because they have a choice on the tenor of the conversation on this topic. Somehow, they can inject race just about anywhere they want, but Obama is not able to mention how it is being used.....ever.

Racism does exist in this country, institutional racism is a HUGE problem in this country, and so race IS an issue, which means the media can and should cover it when the country sees its first black presidential nominee.

and I still say that the way that they have covered race up to now stinks like shit.

Making a category called hard working Whites just for these election kind of tell one all one needs to know.

Let's just say, journalism has had finer moments when it comes to providing information.

and the media reported on it. As for echoing the worst among us, I think the media should certainly be reporting on what "the worst among us" are doing, and they do that without becoming them; it is, after all, their job. I will say I don't like the constant horse-race style coverage -- I wish there was more meat in a lot of media coverage of the race, particularly on cable TV (you'd think that with a 24-hour news cycle, they'd actually be able to do that.) -- but I don't think you can castigate the media for picking up on a very real trend toward the latter half of the Democratic primary. Where they failed was in assuming that the trend would continue into the general -- that "hard working whites" who voted for Clinton would go McCain over Obama, which has not happened in any significant numbers. I think that's less a signifier of racism on the part of the media than it is simple ignorance of their story subjects -- and that goes back to what I was saying, that a lot of the cable TV folks don't really know their subject matter. Oh, they know politics, certainly, but they don't know at all how people in Appalachia actually think or vote. ... probably do to, you know, a lack of time spent in Appalachia. But I guess that's neither here nor there.

Cause the media that I see knows damn well what it is doing, and why.

We didn't end up with Bush as a President, or going to Iraq based on media ignorance or as an accident. There was and is always an agenda. We ended up with what we got because the specific propaganda that they used was more than most could overlook.

By now, more Americans than ever before, understandthe media and the power that it has, and that often it is not meant to benefit us, the people.

All I can say is Thank God for the Internet.

That's why they report on rapes, murders, wars (sometimes), and not happy babies watching butterflies in fields of puppies and kitties.

They report on the effects of racism on this campaign because racism is affecting this campaign. I agree that the way they report on it often furthers it, but that's bad reporting, more than inappropriate subject selection. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and reporting it, even badly, might even help. It's not popular to be racist anymore, so if the media points out that certain attitudes are racist, maybe some people will shy away from those attitudes, realizing them for what they are.

So, summary: the media should cover racism as a factor, but they still suck at the way they do it. IMHO.

the fact that an AMerican got stabbed to death in Beijing by a nutcase who then threw himself off a building IS.

Unfortunately, in the aggregate, this tends to make people think that:
a) the world is full of nutters who want to play stabby-stab

and/or

b) the media just LOVES it when somebody gets unnecessary, uninvited exploratory surgery.

even if they have made that their quest.

And political reporting ain't supposed to be about gaffes, scandals and smears.

We can't have a Black Man as president. Blacks should just stay in their place, and continue
to excel in sports and the entertainment field but keep the UPPITY ones out of government office
where leadership of the entire country is at stake. He might actually be a good president and we
can't have him making white guys look bad.

If Barack goes on the attached he will be labeled the angry black man. The undertones have his hands completely tied. That's why he needs us to help expose this bullshit and educate the voters on his issues vs. McSame

Not for a second

it's actually far from close.

In the2004 Texas Democratic Primary election, voter turnout was:

839,231

In the 2004 Texas Republican Primary election, voter turnout was:

687,615

In the 2008 Texas Democratic Primary election, voter turnout was:

2,874,986

In the 2008 Texas Republican Primary election, voter turnout was:

1,362,322

In the 2008, Texas Republican Primary, John McCain received only 51.21%. Mike Huckabee got 38.02%.

Texas is going to shock the shit out of the nation and our 34 Electoral votes will go to Barack Obama.

MARK. MY. WORDS.

It's going to get very ugly before November and race will become a major issue for some.

if race is a major issue, how can we tell the media not to cover it?


(Mind you, as a member of the media, my opinions here may be just a bit biased.)

I feel that the media can choose what they highlight. Take McCain for instance they pick and choose what they report on. If the media reports on the issue of race in this campaign they need to use it to educate and not use it they way it has.

and some of those choices are simply evil. No way around it.

just lazy and pressured for ratings. There's no dark current under it. They just want good ratings and don't want to have to work too hard at it. Simple as that. So you get the horserace and salacious but not-very-bright reports on race in the campaign.


For the record, I did not come from broadcast. I'm in print. You're right, in that much -- broadcasters are evil. :)


(Except Top Cat, of course!)

got my degree in Mass Communications (even though I work as an Accountant).....and I will tell you that I clearly see the agenda.

It wouldn't be so obvious perhaps if GE didn't own NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, partnered with Newsweek which is owned by Washington Post stockholders, and now partnered with the New York times....which is why Newsweek and WAPO writers are just about the only reporters that you see being interviewed on MSNBC and NBC. Same goes for the other corporate circle where Time-Warner owns CNN, Time Magazine, partnered with ABC, and so on and so forth.

To actually work in the media and not believe that there is a circle jerk relationship in how the media determines what's what is more than just a little bit unbelievable.

Certainly there is independent media who isn't part of the big 5 corporate owners of 80% of media, and perhaps they are lazy and simple piggyback off the national big 5.

and a zillion other voices I could name at those institutions fit into this agenda? Useful counterpoints in some attempt to disprove the conspiracy, I assume? And if that's the case, what does it take to prove there isn't some Illuminati-style cabal ruling over everything we know?

I'm the first one to agree that media consolidation is a problem -- it clearly is -- but I think you're mistaken if you think there's some overarching narative that all news organizations are pushing us toward out of some desire to appease corporate masters (slightly off topic: and who are these "Washington Post stockholders," anyway? Doesn't that account for about a million people or so?). If they thought they would get better ratings pushing something else -- and if they had the imagination to think of it -- then they'd do it. And when they got more eyes on the page or the screen, meaning more advertising dollars, the corporate masters would certainly not be complaining, with a very few rare exceptions who put politics ahead of profits to some extent.

I remember Wes Clark talking about his experience on CNN and Fox. He said that there are certain agendas to be pushed, and that is what is done....and each person understands that. He recalls when possible war with Iran was being pushed when he was Fox. And sure enough, every talking head would talk about it.....the talking points were damn near identical. he also said that it isn't everyone that carries the mantle, but more than enough of them did.

I don't know what media you are with, but KO also stated what Clark stated.

Newsweek is an American weekly newsmagazine published in New York City. It is distributed throughout the United States and internationally. It is the second largest news weekly magazine in the U.S., having trailed Time in circulation and advertising revenue for most of its existence, although both are much larger than the third of America's prominent weeklies, U.S. News & World Report. Newsweek is published in four English language editions and 12 global editions written in the language of the circulation region.

The magazine was purchased by the Washington Post Company in 1961.<2> Newsweek is generally considered the most liberal of the three major newsweeklies, an assertion supported in a recent UCLA study on media point of view.<3> For example in the past decades the magazine's editorial staff was often critical of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek


The Washington Post Company (NYSE:WPO) is an American education and media company, best known for owning the newspaper it is named after, The Washington Post.

The Company also owns Kaplan, Inc., a leading international provider of educational and career services for individuals, schools and businesses.

In addition, the Company owns Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive (WPNI), the online publishing subsidiary whose flagship products include washingtonpost.com, Newsweek.com, Slate, BudgetTravel.com and Sprig.com; Express; El Tiempo Latino; The Gazette and Southern Maryland newspapers; The Herald (Everett, WA); Newsweek magazine; Post-Newsweek Stations (Detroit, Houston, Miami, Orlando, San Antonio and Jacksonville); Cable ONE, serving subscribers in midwestern, western and southern states; and CourseAdvisor, an online lead generation provider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post_Company

when they have tried to use race to educate, it's been via these ridiculous, overwrought, hand-wringing, laughably PC specials on race, hosted by some reporter with a deeply empathetic tone and useful demographic background, like Soledad O'Brien. I'd like to think we can talk legitimately about race without being coddled.

I mean, melanin and how much one has got to be a giant topic of importance, because we all know that it mean absolutely nothing in a long run other than some can sit in the sun for longer than others.

But go on.

Union workers. I think it's going to be a real problem and may cost the election.

And if it does, than White people will deserve everything that comes to them, and I'll just sit back and shake my head.

I so remember during the Primaries, how some would say......we need John Edwards cause he's a White Male from the South. Hope some who expressed that sentiment understand that melanin doesn't mean anything unless they decide that it should....and if they do, they will pay for being that ignorant that they would vote based on the color of a man skin, i.e., melanin content.

I hear it far too often for my liking.

If all these white people want a white President, then all they have to do is continue to discuss Obama's skin color.

And use links to make it look legit.

Because that is what the media is for, to give people articles to link to, in order to discuss bullshit matters like this.

"Oh, look at what they said in Murdoch's Wall Street Journal today about Obama!"
"Oh, look at what they said on Murdoch's Faux Snooze today about Obama."
"Oh, look at what they said at the Washington Post today about Obama."

This election is not about Obama, it's about whether we have a 3rd term of Bush's or not.
Clearly the country is not happy with the way the first 2 Bush terms went.
So, I don't think they want "more of the same".

Obama has to use the terms "status quo" to describe Bush more often the way Edwards did when he talked about change while he was still in the campaign.

but considering the sucky responses that I read in this thread...........that racist agenda works, even on those who don't realize that it is doing its duty.

Because the American people are so smart and sophisticated and have demonstrated that intelligence and wisdom so well in the past 2 Presidential elections. You have more faith in people than I do, no doubt about that.

and call it a day.

Better find John Edwards, cause I guess he is the only "electable one".

That the candidate of those who objected to Obama's race and Clinton's gender wanted, would have been sunk before the convention due to a stupid sex scandal.

We all should have just voted for the Kooch.

whole are neither smart nor sophisticated and some even take pride in their stupidity. It's an embarrassment. Here are a couple of gems I witnessed while on vacation recently.

At the Tower of London I heard a man telling one of the guards that the reason he was having problems with his camera was that he was from Virginia. WTF?

In St. Petersburg, Russia, some dumbass American on the tour bus asked the guide if elevators exist in Russia. Another asked if Nazis still occupy the city.

These people, and millions like them, will be casting ballots in November, and I have a suspicion they won't be making their choice based on careful consideration of the issues and sound judgment. Certainly not all voters are racists or will make a choice based on race, but when it comes right down to the white guy or the black guy, I have a feeling millions will stay right in their narrow comfort zone - even though they (without realizing it) will be voting directly against their own self interest.

So where is John Edwards when you need him......that's what I want to know?

It appears that 4 DU members have spoken, and 72 year old McCain will be President.
Hell, we don't even need Fox news spewing hate cause Americans were already hatin'.

As a Black person, I am embarrassed at this conversation; the one where it is assumed that most
White Americans are racists to the core. It is indeed a very sad conversation.....one full of cynicism and devoid of any and all hope. Thank God I don't think that way.....or else, I might as well kill myself. Better yet, those who marched for equal rights should have just sat their asses down......50 years ago. And Gay folks, you might as well hang it up as well......cause y'all ain't got not chance at ever gettin' much of anything. Women, just stay your asses in the kitchen. Progress ain't coming to these shores anytime soon, if ever.

I never suggested that Obama can't or won't win, and I don't appreciate your making this personal.

All I'm suggesting in my posts here is that McCain's race works to his advantage among older white voters in particular.

America isn't very smart or sophisticated. If this election was going to be decided on the issues alone, it would be a blowout. Obama would win in a landslide. Unfortunately, Americans don't always decide based on the issues. Other factors come into play, and in this election year, race is going to be one of them.

I think the election will be very close, and I intend to work my butt off for Obama.

white voters - can set aside their prejudices when they cast their ballots - will (IMO) determine the outcome of the election.

And I'm not for putting my money on the "enlightenment" of my fellows.

will not vote for a person due to his/her race....right?

Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy. Because if there enough people like you out there, than we are truly fucked, and this country is doomed and perhaps deserves it.

Till then, I'm going to believe that there are more good people out there than bad....and yes, not voting for someone due to their race is evil and nothing more.

Finally, if nothing else, the world will be able to confirm what America is truly about and ignore the Rethoric, and when American gives excuses, it will be laughed about out loud.

We will see what decision Americans as a whole make....because the stark contrast between the candidates will leave no room for excuses. The choice is clear; either America is a farce and destined for failure, or the Great American experiment will strive and live on. Game is on.

I just know what I hear and see in Philadelphia and it's not good if I'm hearing this shit here. Philly is bluest of blue usually.

Guess you are hanging out in a circle full of total ignorance....because that is what it sounds like to me. If that is what America is about, then so be it......till then, there is work for all of us to do. I discuss the elections with Republicans constantly....and you know what, I've converted many of 'em....but perhaps its because I care so much.

And believe me, I'm trying as hard as anyone to get these fuckers to think, I care as much as you do. Oddly enough, I have had more success with the few Republicans I know than with my hardhat and lunch-pail brethren who are stuck in this "us vs. them" mentality. A lot of times I just don't want to waste my breath. How do you argue with someone who's brilliant political philosophy consists of "If the nigger gets in then the niggers will take over."? You just can't, it's pointless. I've tried. My friend ended up in a fistfight with some jackass last week because of this sort of ignorance. The worst part is that they know the Republicans are not a friend of labor, they know they've been a disaster from day one and yet "just can't bring themselves to vote for a black man." It's frustrating, you just want to strangle these people.

And it was the same thing with Hillary lest anyone get the idea that it would have been any better with her. The comments were twice as bad before the primary because there were two targets. These guys wouldn't have voted for her either.

It isn't everyone but it's enough that we have to depend on the new registrations and general apathy of Republicans toward their nominee to counteract a block of voters whose willful ignorance will trump their sense of self preservation.

I'm not trying to accentuate the negative, I'm thinking that we should realize we don't live in utopia and there are a lot of people out there that are backwards regardless of what they might say to a pollster. We need to be extra vigilant and not take this thing for granted. We have to work like we're 10 points down. Obama can absolutely win this election but it's going to be close.

I'm sorry there are those on DU who are so quick to shoot the messenger because they don't want to face the blunt truth. Your characterization of one segment of white voters is extremely accurate. I hear the exact same crap here in So California. Anyone who thinks race won't be front and center in some people's decision-making process come November is living in a dream world.

McSame is fucking toast!

Screw the fascist corporate media and their bullshit polls! :thumbsdown:

"Alzheimers" will be the new "race". For now we just ride it out until the debates. It will turn on a dime.

Kind of like how sex was always brought up with Hillary being the first viable woman candidate for the office.

It's historical fact.

I feel that the pundits are not talking about it enough. When they look at the numbers they are implying that Barack is doing something wrong, when in fact he is doing everything right.

Barack is a black man with a muslim name with an identifiable black wife running against a white war hero and he is leading. My God he is LEADING!!!!!

The pundits need to not look at Barack, but at these people who are still claiming they don't know him. Hell they don't know mcsame either. If they did, Barack would be leading by double digits. These people are using the unknown factor as a clutch for their reason for not voting for Barack. They don't want to know him, when the only thing they need to know is that he is BLACK!!!

As bill said, "Give me a break!!"

Race matters. A black male running for president with a legitimate shot shakes up the status quo, galvanizes the disenfranchised, teaches the young and hopeless that not only are times a changing, but they can be active change agents.

I'm a white woman and I never want to be so selfishly short-sighted to ignore that I live in a country where whiteness "Is the unmarked category against which differences is constructed, whiteness never has to speak it's name, never has to acknowledge its role as on organizing principle in social and cultural relations" ((From the Possessive Investment in Whiteness by George Lipsitz--The book is called "The Meaning of Difference) or that I can tsk tsk and shake my head at mentions of race.

According to Micheal Schudoson, as quoted by George Lipsitz, "Since the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960's whiteness dares not speak it's name, cannot speak in its own behalf, but rather advances through a color-blind language radically at odds with the distinctly racialized distribution of resources and life chances in U.S. society.

Race matters. Racism is a insidious social disease that is far from being cured. Hiding ones' political head in the sand and thinking race is not a factor is to me, at the very best, naive.

Getting better but still racist. Race is going to be used. Everyone is prepared and many are disgusted by it. But it still is a big factor.