The Race Is On

Remember just a short time ago, before the Iowa democratic caucus, when the word race was used only as a sports metaphor to describe the competition between candidates. Well, that's all changed. What had given a sense of reprieve from those insidious calculations we as humans often near mindlessly make has been replaced with a feeling of naivety. The thought that a predominantly white State like Iowa would largely ignore race in selecting a candidate was indeed inspiring. And while obviously beneficial to people who have been treated unfairly, through no fault of their own, this also represented a distinct advancement or transformation that bodes well in real ways for all Americans. In other words it was a sign that we are wising up as a civilization.
So why did it all end so quickly? I don't think there is any real question that the fire was stoked by statements made by Clinton surrogates like Former Senator Bob Kerrey, (I included his complete statement in an earlier entry on 12/18/07) William Shaheen, ( Obama's drug use and mocked up drug sales) Rep. Charles Rangel, (Martin Luther Kings role in civil rights legislation) and Robert Johnson. (reference to what Obama was "doing in the neighborhood") Why do we know that their statements were out of line? The fact that each of them apologized directly to Senator Obama is a good indication. The one that was on the payroll resigned.
Former President Clinton attributed his wife's loss to an implied inevitability in black voter preference. Astoundingly he casually asserted Jesse Jacksons success in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988 to make his case.
Why was all this necessary? The absence of race from this contest was not to be because the Clinton political machinery is missing one critical piece. That being a candidate who has equal or better skills than Senator Obama and can win head to head with him. Without this their only hope is to abandon ethics in the pursuit of their goal.
Now that the Hispanic vote has become critical, what will happen next? Well, to some degree there already exists an assumption that Hispanic voters are not inclined to vote for a black candidate. How do I know this? Because the people I acquaint with have told me so. Since these are not Hispanics I was curious where this opinion comes from so I asked the question. In my small sampling of white males the most substantive opinions seemed to be based on such dubious sources as a friend of a friend or prison life television shows or news accounts usually involving criminality. In reports about Prison riots and gang activity they do seem to depict ethnic groups as mortal enemies but isn't that really about protection and safety in numbers and the vilifying of the other side for power and group viability and all that stuff. And anyway, are these the Hispanics who are voting? So I'm left without a source of accurate information but the matter-of-fact imput I did receive makes me believe that the seeds are sown on this issue.
There also seems to be a logic that by including minority groups as racists you defuses charges seen as unfairly levied against the majority. Maybe a different form of safety in numbers.
So for these and other reasons you have people who are predisposed to notions about Hispanic voter preferences. Now all you need is a catalyst. The news media will happily oblige their services if you can give them something to run with. Guess what, it turns out a few weeks ago a Clinton pollster and so-called Latino expert carried out his orders and launched the assault by saying, "the Hispanic voter-and I want to say this very carefully-has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Now you know why he wanted to say it so carefully.