Will Black Voters Desert Obama?

Hillary Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, despite having been written off, has led not to sober reflection on the media's part, but to a whirling dervish of speculation. A key narrative to emerge before New Hampshire was that Barack Obama's victory in Iowa was to somehow give black voters the confidence to vote for Obama. The logic was that large numbers of black voters were withholding their support for Obama until he proved he could pull enough white voters to win.

With Clinton's victory in New Hampshire, many wonder if the opposite will now be true. I don't buy the logic in either scenario. Polling on black support for Obama has been inconsistent, but the notion that a schism among black voters is not based on substantive issues is a little offensive. In Iowa, white people gave black voters permission to vote for Obama, but in New Hampshire, they took it back? I don't think so.

Barack may have a bigger problem, though. Strong, anti-Obama opinion pieces on Black Agenda Report immediately following the NH primary could be an early indicator of where black opinion is headed. But are they being entirely fair to Senator Obama? Black Agenda Report Executive Editor Glen Ford assesses Obama as a panderer and a political twin to Hillary, deconstructs the "myth" of his anti-war stance, and offers this summation:

And now we are left only with the politics of "Change" - which is anything the various audiences want it to be. Through relentless pandering to white desires for an end to Black agitation and reminders of enduring institutional racism, Obama has proven his ability to amass huge white support. As a result, much of Black America may become convinced the last hurdle to putting a Black Face in the Highest Place has been overcome, and shift overwhelmingly to Hillary's estranged Black political twin. Corporate America, never threatened by either candidate, has long been comfortable with the outcome of this race, whichever way it goes - that's why they put their money on both Barack and Hillary.

BAR editor Margaret Kimberley offers a stinging rebuke of Senator Obama as an accommodationist who is deaf to black issues, and an interesting explanation for his success with white voters:

Barack Obama flies high on white dreams of never again having to confront the realities of race in America. The likes of professional right-winger Bill Bennett sing Obama's praises as a "breakthrough" candidate who "never plays the race card." Hallelejah! Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be consigned to the dustbin, never again to interrupt the mythical American narrative with their impudent accusations. Obama's Promised Land is a place of absolution for white crimes past, present and future. Like Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas, Obama proves the unprovable - that race is no longer "a factor in public policy issues."

I think the tone of the piece is best exemplified by this assessment of Barack Obama's Iraq rhetoric:

"Careful" and "responsible" are code words for maintaining the status quo and negotiations can go on forever. President Obama will not be bringing troops home, but he knows that mouthing anti-war sentiments will bring in votes from Democrats tired of being dismissed by party leaders.

I agree with the premise that some white voters see, in Barack, a chance to atone for past sins, perhaps an easy absolution. However, I also think that premise defeats some of the logic of the rest of the piece.

To state the obvious, I am not black, and I can never know what it's like to be black in America. All I can do is try. I believe that, all other things being equal, there's nothing wrong with tilting your vote toward someone with whom you share a unique bond, whether it's women for Hillary, blacks for Obama, or slackers with Fred Thompson. I would very much like to see a black president. However, if you advance the premise that the only way for a black man to gain the presidency is to keep his "blackness" below the radar, how do you then criticize the candidate for doing so?

It is a bit of a "Catch 22", but which is better: electing a black president and hoping he's responsive to you when he gets into power, or continuing the status quo? Kimberley tries to defeat the "wait 'til he gets there" argument by invoking Clarence Thomas. This is a horrible comparison. I don't know of anybody who doubted Thomas' conservative bona fides prior to his confirmation.

This is not a rehash of Fox News' "Is Barack Black Enough?" false narrative. This is more like the difference between repairing racial inequities and simply "moving past race." What the writer doesn't seem to credit is the fact that, given white America's discomfort with race, what candidate could get elected on a strongly identified "black platform?"