Obama has gotten away with running the most
racially charged campaign I have seen in my
lifetime.

He had the HRC supporters exterminated from all
of the high profile, interactive democratic blogs.

You'd better believe we are angry, dude.

As generous as Clinton was to blacks like Jesse Jackson,
and Donna Brazile. Giving them unprecedented high
profile positions. And they turn on the Clinton's in
a flash.

Calling Clinton racist. He only raised millions to help
get rid of Aids in Africa, has HIS OFFICE IN HARLEM - which
has helped development bigtime.

SICK SICK SICK of this crap Obama is pullling.

Note the non-absence of reverse-racism talk. We're not immune, here. And it is infuriating to hear people equate white racism, with its history of lynching and similar, with black separatist or self-help liberation churches. The former meant slavery and killing, the latter means self-esteem.

The above poster missed the news that blacks did not immediately flock to Obama until he showed real contender status. He also doesn't get the obvious, that saying she is more popular with whites is not a way to win friends among other groups. Slumlord, alias "Present", is unfortunately not a solitary phenomenon.

Enjoyed your piece in The Nation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm

Sorry to keep pasting these same percentages in every thread on this subject, but here is how the African-American presidential vote split through the years between the Democratic and the Republican candidates:

1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%

As other commenters have noted, Obama did not start pulling massive AA support until he had proven he was a viable crossover candidate. And after Iowa, c'mon, please give me a break, we ALL became fairly sure he was gonna ultimately win this thing after beating the biggest name in Democratic politics ...

Anyway, I think the percentages from previous races are pretty clear ... black folks are paid-up members of the Democratic coalition in good standing, and shame on anyone who dares suggest otherwise. What did Josh call it the other day? 'Subprime'? Exactly. Some folks are treating years and years of party loyalty as something to take for granted. If Obama wasn't winning this thing, you dissenters might have at least some kind of argument, but he is, and you don't.

Mr. Coates,

I have been voting for white men, white women, black men, black women and the common denominator is that they were the best candidate for the job. I listened to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama with an open ear after John Edwards dropped out. I was prepared to vote for former Sen. Edwards.

In past presidential elections, I clearly voted for John Kerry, Bill Clinton twice and Michael Dukakis. I could have stayed home and let each persons race or gender stop me from voting; but I know better.

If I had a chance to vote for Alan Keyes, Condelezza Rice or Ken Blackwell, I would surely decline.

Because he was a Black candidate who could win. NOT because they liked his health care plan or his energy plan or thought that nominating a candidate with less experience than anyone either party had nominated in over 50 years was in principle a good idea.

How does one explain Ken Blackwell's loss to Ted Strickland in Ohio?

I'm very disappointed in you. The attitudes expressed in your article are divisive and will not help Obama among the people who are on the fence. Your implicit suggestion that racism is a one-way street is absurd. And you failed to spot the obvious when you asked, "What do we take from the idea that Obama lost the white vote in Pennsylvania but won it Virginia?" The obvious answer is that the Virginia primary was on February 12th, and Jeremiah Wright's emergence in March raised doubts among white voters about Obama's racial attitudes and judgment. His comments about his "typical white person" grandmother did not help either. Nor the fact that he refused to disavow his self-described "important mentor" until eventually forced to do so for political reasons. Obama himself called Wright a legitimate political topic, and white voters should not be judged for having justifiable doubts. You also overlooked the impact of Obama's use of Hillary's LBJ comment as a bogus wedge issue.

Feel free to respond to my post. Since you are new I will let you know that I don't read the comments because I am not into back and forth arguing on the blogs.

Could it be that white folks vote differently on Obama in Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina mean that we actually do look at who we are voting for rather then simply a gut reaction to skin color? I'd like to think so.

"As generous as Clinton was to blacks like Jesse Jackson,and Donna Brazile. Giving them unprecedented high profile positions. And they turn on the Clinton's in a flash."

Wow, Present. Why don't you just come right out and say it. Those uppity blacks really don't know their place, do they? Did it occur to you that maybe, just perhaps, the Clinton's didn't "give" them anything, that they weren't being "generous". Maybe, just maybe, Jesse Jackson and Donna Brazile worked hard and earned those positions? Hmmm? Possibly?

I take it the author hasn't looked at any primary exit polls recently.

Apparently even to discuss the race of a candidate and the voting preferences of the African-American population is itself a racist act.

That's what I get out of the above discussion.

Has anyone noticed that Hillary has run a severely flawed campaign, while Obama has run one that has been almost flawless? Except for her vote on the invasion of Iraq, Hillary was the candidate to beat. Obama has taken that one chink in her armor, built on it, and run a campaign that will be discussed for decades. Compare this article in Time on Obama's management style with Karen Tumulty's article on Hillary's mistakes. Ignore for the moment that Time seems to have decided to take sides and recognize that there is a lot of truth in both articles. Obama has performed very well while Hillary seems to have chosen to trust Penn and other like him and let the internal conflicts mess her campaign up.

Then let's ask if it is unreasonable for Democrats to choose to vote for the person who they think most likely will understand their positions and represent them - African-Americans for Obama and older White Women for Hillary. Of course it is reasonable - when the vote is for the nomination. But put either candidate up against the aged Imperialist who never saw a war he didn't love or a bribe he wouldn't take under the table (starting with Keating who bribed his wife to get him) and who are those Democratic voters going to vote for?

I don't think it is racist for a white older woman to vote for Hillary rather than Obama, nor is it racist for an African-American to feel that Obama would be more likely to better represent him or her.

But now that issue is past. Now it is Obama vs. McCain. How many of your remember in January saying that we Democrats had two extremely capable candidates running. (I said three, and I'm still disappointed at Edwards dropping out.)

With Obama in the running there will ALWAYS be a question of race. That's because we Americans are sensitized to race as an issue whenever we see a dark-skinned person of African heritage. If we do not consider selves racist extremists we still flinch at what we expect the extremists to do and try to avoid the issue.

I consider that flinch to also be a racist reaction. And this whole damned thread has been one long "flinch" brought about just by trying to discuss the issue of race as we see it playing out in front of us. It will remain thus until we can start discussing the issue without the strong emotions, a condition we will never reach without discussing the issue with the strong emotions.

I'd guess that most of us writing here are White, or at least not African American. Some of the reactions above are highly emotional. If you don't think that those emotional reactions flow over into the way American Blacks are treated in the country then you really don't understand people very well. The African American reaction to such high emotions merely caused by their presence or the discussion of race will cause defensive reactions. It has to.

And for right now all we can do is recognize the problem and continue to confront it instead of ignore it. When Obama is elected President we are going to have a lot of chances to confront the issue. Which is why, I'd guess, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote the article in the first place.

Obama has gotten away with running the most
racially charged campaign I have seen in my
lifetime.

How deep is denial anyway?

This is another example of HRC pursuing a particular tack, and then one of her supporters making a bald-faced accusation that Obama is doing

We've seen this time and time again. HRC's tactics are excused, because her supporters will accuse Obama of the same behavior, but that he's being even more egregious in his (imagined) violations. Even though, the accusation is completely false.

I don't think I have ever seen such balls out hypocrisy and slander, and baseless accusations as they have been tossed about on this board by Gotalife and "Present". I can't determine if they are merely trolling for replies or else mentally ill. I suspect the former is a troll, but I'm worried about the latter. The rage he expresses in "SICK SICK SICK of this crap Obama is pullling." is very worrisome indeed.

He's taking Hillary's tactics and a classic case of transference, he's attributing all of these hateful tactics to the person that is being targeted with them.

I would say that this is disgusting, reprobate behavior, but they are obviously coming from a very troubled mind.

The racists are not the future as long as we have people that fight for justice for all! All of you, and you know who you are, please keep it up!

Mr Coates,

Thank you very much for your contribution to this site. I believe your conclusion is correct, that racism can be shown to have a generational component, and will therefore diminish in the future.

It is an odd coincidence that I first read your website only yesterday, following a thread on Michelle Obama. I very much admired your expert demolition of the arguments of Christopher Hitchens in his Slate article. At that time I had no idea you were black - based on your name, I thought you might be a woman. Maybe it is a basic lack of sophistication on my part, but I found your arguments compelling and frankly overly considerate of Hitchens, but nothing you said gave me an inkling that you were fostering any racial or feminist agenda.

Thank you for your common sense.

The racists aren't the future. We are.

Indeed. Each new generation seems, on balance, more tolerant than its predecessor. We're now 20 years past 1988 when Lee Atwater made Willie Horton a household name.

Certainly some voters are racist, and would refuse to vote for an African-American because of it, just as some voters are sexist, and would refuse to vote for a woman. But the numbers of both are slowly dwindling with each passing generation.

And I'd add that we have our own prejudices that our children and grandchildren will sweep away when they come of voting age. But the trend is in the right direction. That was the takeaway I took from Obama's Philadelphia speech: we are not now, nor will we ever be, perfect, but we've improved ourselves throughout our history, and we will continue to do so.

Amazing what one finds under the rocks.

Fun to think about Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan as President. What could either possibly do to damage the interests of the white majority? Make them serve the same sentences if convicted of cocaine posession?

And can we please not hear about the oxymoronic "reverse racism"? Even "reverse discrimination" is a stretch, since any programs to aid minorities is ameliorative of past crimes.

Good article and very provocative and sometimes substantive discussion. Thank you.

One quibble: I don't think it was Obama's viability that caused so many AAs, particularly women, to switch their initial alliegence from Hillary to Obama. The critical fact was the racebaiting in SC by Bill. At first people thought they must be misunderstanding, for the Clintons, though imperfect, were good, sometimes great people, and long-time friends of the Black community.

Once many Blacks(and white educated liberals spanning the economic spectrum) realized that they were essentially being used in a degrading way to for "the Clintons" to wedge some white votes for Hillary, the shift was massive. Hillary could have had something closer to half the Black vote.

The Clintons got frightened by Iowa and decided that they had to do anything, anything to win, no matter how hurtful to others. If she had built "her coalition" out from her base without playing the race card, she would have been the nominee.

Otto F

I took the liberty to respond to some of your comments ...

*** "Jeremiah Wright's emergence in March raised doubts among white voters about Obama's racial attitudes and judgment. "

Not necessarily -- it did not did raise doubts about his racial attitudes, instead it raised doubts (for some) about his patriotism ... and because he does not wear a stupid flag lapel pin. The pundits tied the two together and played endless loops of Rev Wright infamous 3 words. And questions (actually by the media and of course HRC's talking points whisper campaign) about whether he agreed with his pastor's words "the chickens came home to roost" on 911. Well they did come home to roost-- the CIA called it blowback. Every action has a reaction. And what America does overseas has consequences.

*** "His comments about his "typical white person" grandmother did not help either."

His grandmother grew up in a different era. And typical white people do say certain things and hold certain beliefs. This is what Ta-Nehisi Coates is talking about.

Older people tend to have a different attitude toward people of colour -- no matter if Latino, African American, Asian, etc. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Obama's statement; it is true. Granted how it was said ... some took offense, but they misinterpreted it. I say "some" because each person uniquely interprets the world based on his/her perceived reality. Remember reality is always subjective and can become easily distorted by outside influences.

Take for instance the media's influence on people who were

1) forming opinions based on comments taken out of context

2) forming opinions without considering the historical context -- the conventional mind-set at that time was different.

3) Double-standards... Why is Obama being held to higher standards than the other candidates?

If you believe in guilt by association How do you feel about McCain getting endorsements from tele-evangelist Hagee and others who spew hatred against gays, make public anti-Semitic statements, and suggest killing all Islamists? Or is it okay because they are white preachers and Wright is an African American? And there is the matter of Clinton's "secret Bible Group" with allegedly cult-like leaders.

Double-standards are equivalent to bias. Generally speaking, most of us (myself included) often overlook our own biases. It is easier to see it in others. As individuals and as a collective we can overcome our shortcomings thru tolerance and acceptance. Put yourself in another person's shoes -- imagine what it is like to see from his/her point of view. By doing so we become better people and a better society.

Every one of us, at one time or another, have said something before thinking. We say things without realizing our words could be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. How would you feel if your words were played ad naseum on the airwaves and given a different meaning than what you were trying to convey. Sure Obama could have said some things differently or better, but after all he is human, too.

*** "... he refused to disavow his self-described "important mentor" until eventually forced to do so for political reasons. Obama himself called Wright a legitimate political topic, and white voters should not be judged for having justifiable doubts."

Okay but what else can he do? He denounced Wright's words, rejected his pastor's words, and told us he does not hold the same views. His speech on race was beautiful. What other hoops must he jump thru to satisfy you? Have you even listened to what Wright said -- the entire sermon -- or any of his sermons? Have you done any research on Wright? What he has accomplished during his lifetime? There is a wealth of information on YouTube.

The media's propaganda keeps people from thinking ... for themselves.

Judge Obama on his merits rather than trivial issues blown out of proportion by MSN.

One thing that's been ignored is that Edwards never saw any opposition from the African American community, and actually received a large portion of the African American vote if I remember correctly. The reason for this is that he, unlike Clinton, never made any racist statements and supported positions advantageous to the socioeconomic profile the largest portion of African Americans.

Also, do the descendants of white South Africans count as African Americans?