The Awkward Truth

I heard a liberal Obama skeptic remark a couple of months ago that it would be a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question "who's the most electable" was "the black guy." I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones. At the end of the day, I do think "the black guy" is the more electable of the two, because "Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife" is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal at a time when George W. Bush has brought the GOP into discredit. But in a primary election, where Clinton has formidable strength, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone other than "the black guy" to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition.

Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment. Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point, sooner or later the party is going to need to start nominating more women and non-white in competitive races or else they'll be shutting themselves off from too much of the available talent (see, e.g., Obama's formidable speech-giving skills) so it's probably just as well to spend a year with good fundamentals taking a chance and breaking down some barriers.

Comments

It's probably not as bad as all that. Yes, Obama's race may end up costing him votes, but it also seems to be bringing in people who wouldn't otherwise have voted, and there are a bunch of other negatives for McCain that balance that out.

The same would no doubt be the case for any woman; Clinton's negatives seem to have as much to do with her and her campaign as her gender.

(The attacks have been riddled with sexist nonsense a lot of the time, particularly from Republicans, but they're for traits that they would have attacked in any Dem. They just would have chosen different words and phrases.)

Posted by Demosthenes | March 28, 2008 12:27 PM

Race does not matter. Whats the point of this posting?????

Posted by Sharon Wilkes | March 28, 2008 12:31 PM

While we can't overlook the remainders of racism (esp among the older generation) in this country, I think the key factor here is *charisma*. It's been a long time since we have had a Dem candidate with this much charisma. Even Bill in his heyday had the sleaze factor that detracted. Huge crowds of all ages and all races screaming in excitement, "rock star" appeal--easy for media and cynics to deride, but huge, huge, huge for our party.

Posted by Ruth | March 28, 2008 12:32 PM

...so it's probably just as well to spend a year with good fundamentals taking a chance and breaking down some barriers...

I just can NOT believe that Matt is really stupid enough to believe this! Does "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" have any meaning, or are *yesterdays* postings already vanished down the memory hole?

Frankly, the Democrats are just a bunch of total idiots for not having nominated John Edwards both on policy grounds AND on electability grounds. Just hope they don't drag the whole country (and world) down with them.

Ideas have consequences. So does sheer stupidity...

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 12:32 PM

it would be a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question "who's the most electable" was "the black guy."

Not so much, maybe. Remember Colin Powell? What is the case (pace Dave Chappelle) is that it's "a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question 'who's the most electable' was" a black guy who does not make Wayne Brady look like Malcolm X by comparison.

Also:

Given the extreme strong underlying pro-Democrat fundamentals, it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment.

is not quite right. Politics does not equal logic where "Y is true for any (generic) element of set X" => "Y is true for x in set X". It's one thing for people to say "yeah, the GOP's screwed up, so I'm gonna vote for a Dem" but it's another thing entirely for that same person to say (after the GOP noise machine has gone through a spin cycle or two) "I'll vote for Dem Candidate X" ... after all, that same person who would vote for a "generic Democratic white dude" also may very well say about said dude, once he gets a name, "I can't vote for X, he's a dirty hippy who reeks of patchouli".

If anything, Obama, by not being "generic" might have some advantages here. The GOP's gonna have to get creative to criticize him, and after a while the dissonance between "Obama's a Muslim" and "Obama belongs to some weird Christian church" might start sinking in and reveal what little the GOP has on the guy (even if for now, people are willing to not distinguish between "Christian different than the First Springfield Presbylutheran Church" and "foreign religion like Muslim").

Posted by DAS | March 28, 2008 12:38 PM

Not that it really matters to me, but white men are a "tiny slice" of the Democratic vote? Huh?

Posted by Glenn | March 28, 2008 12:39 PM

it would have been extremely difficult for anyone other than "the black guy" to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition.

So, if Jesse Jackson had won, he would have been able to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition?

I guess what he means is that if Obama hmself weren't black, he would not have been able to build a viable coalition. Probably...but...

I think there could have been another personality with the right-mix of this-and-that who could have successfully launched an anti-Clinton coalition, given her high negative numbers.

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 12:42 PM

Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point,

Sure, if, by "pretty tiny slice," you mean the second largest piece of the coalition after white women, and about six million people larger than the next big block (non-white women, IIRC).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 28, 2008 12:43 PM

I'm with Glenn. White male voters made up about a quarter of Kerry's vote in 2004. I wouldn't call that "tiny."

Posted by arbitrista | March 28, 2008 12:44 PM

No, sheer stupidity is thinking Edwards- who I supported for his populist stands on the issues, but who disappointed me with his underachieving campaign- is somehow more electable than Obama, a far more gifted politician who has run a far better campaign.

News flash- most of the dead-end racist vote would have gone to McCain in any case. The remnant that might have been winnable by a white Democrat may actually be MORE than canceled out by the previously disengaged people who have been and will continue to be energized by the Obama campaign. Have you noticed that in almost every primary state, the guy's support increased dramatically over the pre-campaign polls once voters started seeing him in action? This guy is good- nearly Bill Clinton good, without the sleaze.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 28, 2008 12:44 PM

I think that is a huge part of the enthusiasm. Clinton is identified with the establishment, and so it is Obama's candidacy that really seems to be a chance to actually do something new.

To do something we can you know, be proud of doing as a country--I think that has energized a lot of cynics and apathetics.

Posted by MNPundit | March 28, 2008 12:45 PM

Gosh, RKU, maybe all us simple folk don't understand Edwards' appeal. I though Edwards was a bit too stylish to be giving "cross of gold" speeches, but clearly we are not visionary like you.

Posted by z_adura | March 28, 2008 12:48 PM

"Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point, sooner or later the party is going to need to start nominating more women and non-white in competitive races or else they'll be shutting themselves off from too much of the available talent (see, e.g., Obama's formidable speech-giving skills)."

The reason that Democrats are going to have to start nominating more women and non-whites isn't because there's some untapped reservoir of Obama-caliber orators hidden in the ghettos of Detroit, the barrios of Los Angeles, or other 'vibrant' Democratic strongholds -- there isn't. The reason is that women and non-whites comprise the majority of Democratic voters, and since the Democratic Party is built on identity politics, Democratic voters will increasingly demand candidates who look like them.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 12:51 PM

Obama has so much more than charisma.

He is a deep thinker. And he can communicate those thoughts in a clear, concise way.

How can anyone watch his speech on race and continue to believe he's all 'rock star' and no substance?

Shocking, isn't it, that Senator Clinton's campaign nixed that particular narrative right around the time that he gave one of the most important speeches on race in modern history.

Yeah, shocking.

Posted by John | March 28, 2008 12:52 PM

Where does the notion that John Edwards is electable come from? He couldn't deliver his own state as veep, and in fact backed away from running for a second Senate term because probably would have been defeated.

I like the guy, and would love to see him as part of an Obama Cabinet, but c'mon.

Posted by Woody Bombay | March 28, 2008 12:54 PM

Gee, thanks, for your condescending dispensation!

Posted by Miande | March 28, 2008 12:55 PM

I'm with Glenn. White male voters made up about a quarter of Kerry's vote in 2004. I wouldn't call that "tiny."

It's tiny compared to the proportion of prominent Democratic elected officials and candidates who are white men. Especially those who are considered "presidential material."

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 12:55 PM

If history has taught us anything, it's that there's no such thing as a "generic" Democrat or Republican. Hard wringing about why didn't just nominate some blank-faced yoyo with the word Democrat on his forehead so we could have a sure win is just stupid.

I like Chris Dodd. Had he managed to catch fire, I would have been happy to cast my vote for him, but he's no generic Democrat. Had he gone on to win the nomination we'd have heard plenty of nonsense about why he's not the right choice, all of his problems and issues and why did we have to nominate him instead of somebody "safe" like Joe Biden.

Posted by Chuchundra | March 28, 2008 12:55 PM

Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point...

And as several commenters have already pointed out, Matt's casual statement of this "fact" (which is presumably the universal conventional wisdom in his personal DC/NYC circles) easily explains why he decided to take down the old "Reality-Based Community" heading on his blogsite.

I guess Harvard Philosophy classes aren't too much into all that boring "reality" stuff these days...

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 12:55 PM

Gee, Matthew, thanks, for your condescending dispensation!

Posted by Miande | March 28, 2008 12:56 PM

I think MY's concern is more national and is less troublesome when looked at by region or state. I fully expect that some normally Democratic voters in the mid-west and mid-atlantic will vote McCain if Obama is the nominee, but I can't see that it will be enough to make a difference and the voters will probably stay Dem on other races on the ballot.

The real change will be in states like the brightest of bright red states I inhabit. Many potential Dem voters don't even bother to vote anymore because the choices are so underwhelming. Obama could completely change the dynamic this election pulling people out to vote who normally stay home. If I was running as a Dem in some down-ballot race like county commission or state house, I would be praying every night for Obama to win the nomination. He will not win here, but he could tip numerous other tight races to the Dems.

Just consider taking a chance on "the Black guy" to be a part of the fifty state project. We need something to excite us.

Posted by Th | March 28, 2008 12:57 PM

I thought Edwards was the 'white dude who could run well as the anti-Hillary'.

I think it is a fairer question to ask why did Edwards not catch on with the populace?

Afterall, he not Hillary came in second in IA.

I think that has to do with the fundraising strategy of Obama's camp. Obama out campaigned Edwards to become the anti-Hillary candidate in terms of having the money to fund his campaign.

Had Edwards had the same amount of money backing him he too would have been viable. The problem for Edwards is that he was competing for the same pool of dollars as Hillary, Biden, Dodd and Richardson.

That was the original reason Hillary was considered inevitable, she and Bill had the big money donors and the party fat cats tied up.

Obama upset the entire way campaigns are financed and special interests have had a stranglehold on the democratic process.

None of that has to do with Obama being black it has everything to do with him being a brillant grassroot strategist with a vision. None of which is race has an exclusivity on.

I think we need to give Obama credit for the phenomenal campaign he has run in addition to his superb political skills. But let's face it, had he not had a well thought out strategy no amount of speech making would have brought him this far and being black would have stopped him in IA.

History and the stories have yet been written about this watershed moment in political campaigning.

Posted by vicissitudes | March 28, 2008 12:59 PM

Fred,

The Republican party also bases itself on identity politics but in opposition to women's rights, gay rights and civil rights.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 1:00 PM

Fred,

The Republican party also bases itself on identity politics but in opposition to women's rights, gay rights and civil rights.

Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 1:01 PM

Fred: The reason is that women and non-whites comprise the majority of Democratic voters, and since the Democratic Party is built on identity politics, Democratic voters will increasingly demand candidates who look like them.

The fact that the Republicans - the party of rich, white, Protestant men - has been nominating rich, white, Protestant men since basically forever passes Fred by, as does so much.

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 1:01 PM

Sure, Obama will lose the racist vote; we knew that all along. But he's an exceptional candidate with a solid chance at winning this thing.

Stop with the buyer's remorse. None of our generic white guys would have been shoe-ins either. John "Breck Girl"/populist-come-lately-with-the-$400-haircuts Edwards? I really wanted him for VP in 2004, but he did NOTHING for the ticket. Mo Dowd would be relentless with him up against McCain. You know it, I know it.

Or, John swift-boat/"I voted for the war before I voted against it"/windsurfing Kerry? Come on.

Chris Dodd?? Who?? What did he get? 0.5% in one of the whitest states in America?

Come on!

Obama is a great candidate. He's winning the nomination because he is and was the best Dem candidate in the field. Buck up.

Posted by Lynn | March 28, 2008 1:03 PM

If history has taught us anything, it's that there's no such thing as a "generic" Democrat or Republican. Hard wringing about why didn't just nominate some blank-faced yoyo with the word Democrat on his forehead so we could have a sure win is just stupid.

I like Chris Dodd. Had he managed to catch fire, I would have been happy to cast my vote for him, but he's no generic Democrat. Had he gone on to win the nomination we'd have heard plenty of nonsense about why he's not the right choice, all of his problems and issues and why did we have to nominate him instead of somebody "safe" like Joe Biden.

Posted by Chuchundra | March 28, 2008 1:04 PM

Not to overstate the point Ferraro-style, but for all we know Obama's race is a net positive.

The thing liberals like Matt sometimes forget is that a very important part of the self-image of many moderate Republicans and independents is that they deems themselves "color blind" and purely meritocratic (by the way, Stephen Colbert gets this, and incorporates it in his shtick). Now, there is a fair argument to be made that being "color blind" and purely meritocratic in our society actually means failing to give due regard to persistent racial inequalities, but in this context, the important point is that these people are going to be committed to the idea of being willing to vote for a black guy if he is otherwise well-qualified.

And the thing about Obama is that despite Clinton's (and Ferraro's) protests to the contrary, he is actually well-qualified, and indeed has pretty much put himself in this position on the basis of merit. So, at a minimum I think these people aren't going to have a problem voting for Obama, and at the margins, I don't think it is implausible they will be a little more likely to vote for him as opposed to some generic Democrat precisely in order to reinforce their self-image as color-blind meritocrats. And that marginal benefit could add up to more votes than whatever racists would have voted for a Kerry-type but not Obama (and keep in mind, not a lot of racist-types would vote for a Kerry-type in the first place).

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 1:05 PM

Obama upset the entire way campaigns are financed and special interests have had a stranglehold on the democratic process.

This is the REALLY historic thing about Obama's candidacy (though it was briefly foreshadowed by Dean's campaign in 2004). While I do not consider Obama himself to be a real progressive (though I think he can and will respond positively to pressure from the progressive community- and keeping up that pressure after he's elected will be very important), he has provided proof-of-principle of the way to build a future Democratic majority that is truly progressive.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 28, 2008 1:06 PM

MY, your analysis ignores the fact that Barack Obama is half white man.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 1:06 PM

Also, just to rip the other half of Duh? Said Fred's post:
The reason that Democrats are going to have to start nominating more women and non-whites isn't because there's some untapped reservoir of Obama-caliber orators hidden in the ghettos of Detroit, the barrios of Los Angeles, or other 'vibrant' Democratic strongholds -- there isn't.

"The ghettos of Detroit"? Obama's from Hawaii by way of the ghettos of Harvard and Columbia Law School, for heaven's sake.

And are we to assume that women are also confined to "ghettos and barrios"?

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 1:08 PM

I'd like to associate myself with what Demosthenes said.

Also, I think you and your liberal skeptic friend have to allow for the difference between "the black guy" and Jackie Robinson, so to speak. Obama is by all accounts a tremendously talented politician, capable of giving a barn-burner of a speech, raising gobs of money, and building a highly effective campaign (one that has frequently bested the existing Democratic machine this season).

Jackie Robinson couldn't have played for the Dodgers if he wasn't fly, and Barack Obama couldn't win the presidency if he was just "the black guy."

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 1:10 PM

Not to hold up everything Yglesias says as the ultimate truth or any thing, but most of the comments here criticizing his post just sound pretty, well, dumb. White men do make up just a slice of the Democratic Party. And to people who say, "well how do you explain voter turn out?" First off, white male voter turn out still only makes up a slice of Democratic voters (every vote counts), they are not the most energized slice (and energy is contagious in elections), and many Americans regardless of their party affiliations don't vote. Though the chances of these folks voting increases if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 1:12 PM

"But in a primary election, where Clinton has formidable strength, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone other than "the black guy" to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition."

Imagine Barack Obama, with all the same policy positions, background as Iraq war opponent, and rhetorical ability, but white and named Barry O'Neill. You don't think he could have beaten Clinton more easily than Obama has? That seems myopic to me.

Posted by Blake Emerson | March 28, 2008 1:14 PM

You write:

"I heard a liberal Obama skeptic remark a couple of months ago that it would be a strange day in America when the correct answer to the question "who's the most electable" was "the black guy." I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones. At the end of the day, I do think "the black guy" is the more electable of the two..."

Ugh. Double ugh. Triple ugh.

What's sad, Matt, is that if you were writing about sports, the above post would make you little more than Jimmy the Greek or Al Campanis, but since you are a beltway "wonk" writing about Democratic politics, we're supposed to take this crap seriously.

Quadruple ugh.

Posted by kid oakland | March 28, 2008 1:14 PM

The real awkward truth is that there are plenty of racist Democrats. They tend to be older, blue collar Northeasterners. Some of them are in my extended family up in Boston. We all know they exist.

This is not to say that anyone who doesn't support Obama is one of them. Some people support Clinton simply because they like her more for various reasons. But it is simply a fact that a certain segment of the "liberal" base would vote for Bush's third term before they voted for a black guy. It is also simply a fact that Hillary has been trying to appeal to this group by blowing various dog whistles.

Posted by jim | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM

Not to hold up everything Yglesias says as the ultimate truth or any thing, but most of the comments here criticizing his post just sound pretty, well, dumb. White men do make up just a slice of the Democratic Party. And to people who say, "well how do you explain voter turn out?" First off, white male voter turn out still only makes up a slice of Democratic voters (every vote counts), they are not the most energized slice (and energy is contagious in elections), and many Americans regardless of their party affiliations don't vote. Though the chances of these folks voting increases if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Redemption for Geraldine Ferraro!

Matt agrees that Obama is where he is because he's "the black guy".

Posted by Undecided | March 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Not to hold up everything Yglesias says as the ultimate truth or any thing, but most of the comments here criticizing his post just sound pretty, well, dumb. White men do make up just a slice of the Democratic Party. And to people who say, "well how do you explain voter turn out?" First off, white male voter turn out still only makes up a slice of Democratic voters (every vote counts), they are not the most energized slice (and energy is contagious in elections), and many Americans regardless of their party affiliations don't vote. Though the chances of these folks voting increases if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 1:22 PM

The electorate is Democratic-leaning, yet Republicans keep winning elections. Yes Republican Party is more radioactive than usual but the difference is modest in degree, not different in kind, from most of recent periods.

"Generic Democrat" always leads every national race (except 2002). Generic Democrat is always ahead in Congressional polls, always ahead in presidential polls. Once the party chooses a candidate, in a purple state Senate race, purple district Congressional race, or the presidential race, the Mighty Wurlitzer (or the tiny local wurlitzers in congressional races) define the Democrat not as "too Democratic" (obviously that wouldn't work with a Democratic-leaning electorate), but rather as too liberal too inexperienced too old too young too rich too French too mendacious too smart too pretty too ugly too Senatorial too pretentious too self-loving too self-critical too uncool too wussy too whatever.
I doubt that Dodd or Kerry could have built and sustained a significant lead over McCain. Even Edwards had the vulnerability of having worked for a hedge-fund and voted for freetrade with China and being...TOO PRETTY! Ha! These "weaknesses" would have quickly become Edwards dominant features in media coverage, despite the country's fervent desire for the policies he's advocated since 2003.
We'll take our shot with "the Black guy."

Posted by byron | March 28, 2008 1:22 PM

And yet, look at how much more excitement there is for Obama than there was for Kerry.

And he's not even running against Bush!

Posted by patrick | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM

Right on, Byron!

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 1:27 PM

"The fact that the Republicans - the party of rich, white, Protestant men - has been nominating rich, white, Protestant men since basically forever passes Fred by, as does so much."

The Republicans nominated black Senate candidates in Ohio and Maryland in 2006, appointed the first two black Secretaries of State in this country's history (along with its first Chicano Attorney General), elected the first Indian-American governor in Louisiana last year, and would have been happy to vote for Colin Powell in 1996 had he chose to run. Republicans have no problem voting for candidates who don't look like them, as long as they agree with those candidates' policy priorities.

"The ghettos of Detroit"? Obama's from Hawaii by way of the ghettos of Harvard and Columbia Law School, for heaven's sake."

Thanks for letting me know about Obama's background. I've been on Mars for the last two years, so I hadn't heard anything about him being from Hawaii and having attended Columbia and Harvard. The point is that there is no untapped reservoir of Obama-caliber orators anywhere; the ghettos of Detroit and the barrios of Los Angeles are just two of the many places where there is no such untapped reservoir.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 1:29 PM

Right on, Byron!

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | March 28, 2008 1:32 PM

I think what's being missed is Matt's point that "the black guy" is more electable than "Bill Clinton's uncharismatic wife"; that's an indictment against Hillary, I think, and not a plus for Obama. I guess it's all relative; if you're a Hillary supporter, the fact that he's black is a "plus", even though him being black has nothing to do with her being Hillary Clinton. If he was John Edwards, it'd be that he was a white male, or attractive, or whatever.

Yglesias should have stated it as "the likeable half-black guy", because Jesse Jackson had a long history as an irritant, deserved or not. Obama's the guy your grandma wouldn't be happy to find out married your sister, but she'd at least chat him up in the produce aisle.

I guess I fall more in like with the "anybody but Hillary" train of thought. Maybe Matt's point is that if you're going to be "anybody but Hillary", you might as well be a black guy while you're at it.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 1:33 PM

It's still not easy to be black or be a woman in America. This is a fundamental fact of life that Sec. Rice herself pointed out just today. So in that sense, I completely understand and to a point agree with the skeptical liberal Matt's quoting.

But the fact remains: the black guy is the one who has created a new and innovative fundraising structure, the black guy is the one who out organized the Clinton machine, and the black guy is the one poised to win the nomination and STILL has strong support against John McCain.

I too don't trust that race may end up doing Obama in also. But I also have to acknowledge that he out performed Edwards: who if ever had a state tailor made for him it was Iowa. He has out performed BOTH Clintons by sheer strategic effort and better political skills. He has created a deep and abiding hold on a large part of the democratic party as evidenced by how the Wright thing has not fundamentally damaged him.

I go into every election day so far thinking the worst and ending up pleasantly surprised.

I don't know if Obama will pull it off against John McCain. I DO know, however, that he has proven to be a stronger candidate than both Edwards and Clinton. And he's surprised me too.

So, yeah, I have a lot of hope for 2008.

Posted by Rhoda | March 28, 2008 1:36 PM

Fred,
The Republican party also bases itself on identity politics but in opposition to women's rights, gay rights and civil rights.
Posted by Micheline | March 28, 2008 1:01 PM

Bingo. Bullseye. You won the stuffed Animal.
Remember when Huckabee pandered to GOP identity politics talking about squirrel and noble battle flags...

Fred is as insightful as a Pharisee.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Normally, I'd almost never do a *third* rapid comment on a thread like this, but Matt's post---and the DC/NYC Democratic appartachik mindset it presumably represents---has REALLY ticked me off.

(BTW, regarding the responses of the other commenters, I certainly never felt that John Edwards was all that great a candidate either on policy OR on electability grounds, just that he was probably the least bad of the major candidates running).

But let's give a little more thought to Matt's "factual" claim:

Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point..

I haven't bothered checking, but offhand I'd expect that in 2000 Al Gore probably got at least 50% more votes from "white men" as from blacks, male and female combined, perhaps even closer to 100% more. If so, then "white men" are a really tiny slice indeed. (Anyone who wants to bother checking these numbers can prove I'm an idiot and laugh at me).

Maybe if Matt and all his DC political friends always act on the assumption that "white men" are such a tiny and unimportant slice of the national Democratic vote, they'll get their wish and it will BECOME true.

A few days ago with regard to healthcare policy, Petey suggested that Matt was just a "rich kid" having fun with politics and indulging his whims and fancies, since none of his positions actually had any direct, personal consequences in his own life. Matt seems to be working awfully hard to prove Petey correct.

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 1:37 PM

The point is that there is no untapped reservoir of Obama-caliber orators anywhere; the ghettos of Detroit and the barrios of Los Angeles are just two of the many places where there is no such untapped reservoir.

How charmingly racist and false.

Those communities do tend to produce powerful orators, generally through the institution of the church. Say what you will about the views of Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Right, its pretty much undeniable that they can give a compelling public address.

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 1:38 PM

"Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife" is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal.

This made my day. And yes, time to break some barriers if only to shut up the people next cycle who want to gaily chirp about "Nu is qualified, but there's no way the country will vote for a(n) Asian/woman/Episcopalian/lacrosse player/other."

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 1:38 PM

The point is that there is no untapped reservoir of Obama-caliber orators anywhere; the ghettos of Detroit and the barrios of Los Angeles are just two of the many places where there is no such untapped reservoir.

How charmingly racist and false.

Those communities do tend to produce powerful orators, generally through the institution of the church. Say what you will about the views of Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Right, its pretty much undeniable that they can give a compelling public address.

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 1:42 PM

"Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife" is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal.

This made my day. And yes, time to break some barriers if only to shut up the people next cycle who want to gaily chirp about "Nu is qualified, but there's no way the country will vote for a(n) Asian/woman/Episcopalian/lacrosse player/other."

ETA: To everyone knocking Matt for mentioning race, I heard countless commentaries back in the day (December) from people who felt happy calling themselves democrats, who swore they weren't racists, but merrily wrote off "the black guy" as unelectable on that basis alone. "Just being honest, telling it like it is," they'd smirk. In one of my favorite examples of the genre, the McCain guy then took him down: "It's not something you don't like to say, it's something you shouldn't say. Our country is better than you."

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 1:45 PM

By the way, the only truth to the idea that Obama's race is helping him win the nomination contest is that Clinton was undoubtedly counting on high support from the black community. But there was more than one way for a hypothetical candidate to cut into Clinton's base. For example, if Obama had instead been a white woman, that would have cut into a different part of Clinton's base. The same would be true if he had been Latino, or from the South, or from Appalachia, or from the Northeast Corridor, or older than Clinton, or so on.

So, Matt is just wrong that only "the black guy" could beat Clinton. Rather, she could have been beaten a lot of different ways, and this just happens to be the way Obama in particular has beaten her.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 2:01 PM

the ghettos of Detroit, the barrios of Los Angeles

What southpaw said. Excellent racism, Fred.

I guess this is how word-association games go with conservatives. I say 'black people', you say 'ghettoes!' I say 'Hispanic', you say 'barrios!' It reveals a lot.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 2:03 PM

"Say what you will about the views of Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Right, its pretty much undeniable that they can give a compelling public address."

Ah, don't be so obtuse. Reverend "Right" and Sharpton aren't Obama-caliber orators. Both are plenty talented at riling up black church audiences, but they come across as lunatics and hucksters to white audiences. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with Sharpton's ill-fated election campaigns.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 2:08 PM

DTM: "So, Matt is just wrong that only "the black guy" could beat Clinton. Rather, she could have been beaten a lot of different ways, and this just happens to be the way Obama in particular has beaten her."

Probably not, actually. Hillary Clinton was one of the most formidable frontrunners ever in an open presidential primary. A Latino, another woman, whatever, would simply have had no chance against the Clinton coalition. Only a black candidate could have dismantled that coalition--and even then it was a real long shot, made possible only by Barack Obama's unique political skills.

Posted by Korha | March 28, 2008 2:15 PM

But in a primary election, where Clinton has formidable strength, it would have been extremely difficult for anyone other than "the black guy" to build a viable anti-Clinton coalition.

Matt Santos could have beaten Hillary.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 2:18 PM

See that's just the thing. Clinton would have cleaned Matt Santos' clock, no question.

Posted by Korha | March 28, 2008 2:21 PM

If history has taught us anything, it's that there's no such thing as a "generic" Democrat

Jimmy Carter.

or Republican.

Gerald Ford.

Neither of whom went on to excite the electorate much, of course.

Posted by phil | March 28, 2008 2:26 PM

Obama's great strength is his calm. He's simply comfortable doing whatever it is he's doing. Clinton's great weakness is that nothing she says sounds authentic. She could be screaming "Fire" from an 8th floor walk-up and it would sound mechanical and/or calculating. Most politicians sound inauthentic. It's their metier. Obama's demeanor, not his blackness, is what helped him overcome Clinton.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 28, 2008 2:27 PM

Steve,

I think that many people do not get the enormity of what Obama has done and how this is going to make it possible for Americans to actually take back their government that we lost with the Reagan Democrat/southern strategy.

I think this excerpt from a 1991 piece by Edsall capsulizes the situation and it is 18 years old so what he says is much more profound and magnified withing the party today. It in fact is the fundamental reason those donors were able to write that letter to Pelosi and it underscores the fundamental change Obama envisions for our democracy. If more ppl understood this, perhaps we would see greater margins of victory in the Obama races.

Edsall wrote:

As recently as the mid-1970s the Democratic Party was able to portray itself as the party of political reform battling a Republican Party dominated by moneyed interests. Now Democrats in the House of Representatives are more dependent on institutionalized special-interest groups than are their Republican adversaries. In 1990 the majority--52.6 percent--of the campaign contributions received by Democratic incumbent House members running for re-election came from political-action committees, while the percentage of support from individual donors represented a steady decline, from 44.8 percent in 1984 to 38.0 percent in 1990. Republican House incumbents, in contrast, received 50.9 percent of their financial support from individuals in 1988, and 41.1 percent from PACs, in a pattern virtually the mirror image of the Democrats'. In 1988 not only did labor PACs follow tradition by giving far more to Democratic House incumbents ($16.7 million) than to Republican incumbents ($1.9 million), but corporate PACs--the contemporary version of "moneyed interests"--gave more money to Democratic House incumbents ($15.7 million) than to their Republican counterparts ($13.5 million). While helpful to incumbents in the short term, this kind of contribution pattern weakens any claim the Democratic Party may make to provide popular representation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/race/edsall.htm

Obama's campaign needs to adopt the slogan:

It's the money stupid.

that fits not just the economy but our foundamental democractic change his campaign is working for

Posted by vicissitude | March 28, 2008 2:27 PM

She could be screaming "Fire" from an 8th floor walk-up and it would sound mechanical and/or calculating.

You know, some people would say, you know, where there's smoke, you know, there's fire. And I'm just, you know, pointing that out.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 2:37 PM

She could be screaming "Fire" from an 8th floor walk-up and it would sound mechanical and/or calculating.

You know, some people would say, you know, where there's smoke, you know, there's fire. And I'm just, you know, pointing that out.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 28, 2008 2:39 PM

why in the hell would Obama's being "the black guy" matter? he is by far the best candidate in either party, all of the rest of whom (barring 1) were "white guys". does the vote of people racist enough to not vote for "the black guy" really amount to a large percentage of possible Democratic voters?

this posting is inane, and Yglesias should probably apologize for it. not for it's implicit racism, but for it's stupidity.

P.S. amen, kid oakland.

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 2:39 PM

Joe Klein wrote recently about a Gore-Obama ticket. It sounds pretty promising to me, moreso than an Obama ticket vulnerable to Wright-themed attack ads or the shrinking chance of a Hillary led ticket. And it could happen if Obama doesn't wrap things up pretty quickly.

Posted by otherScott | March 28, 2008 2:40 PM

"Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife"

Seriously? She's a sitting Senator (elected twice), a former first lady, a lawyer, etc., and this is how you refer to her? And then you claim that she is an almost uniquely poor choice to try to expand the Democratic Party's appeal. The record turnout so far for Democrats is constantly attributed only to Obama's candidacy, but if that were the case, he would have wrapped things up awhile ago (and no, he hasn't yet). They both have worked hard to turn out voters, and people have finally figured out that these Presidential races are something worth paying attention to.

You don't like her - we get it. Your dismissive tone towards her career accomplishments and the historic nature of her candidacy make it clear, at least in part, why. Silly women.

This post doesn't make any sense - are they weak candidates? Or formidably strong? The party is strong and women and people of color are making more of an impact, so that makes it easier for the generic white guy to win? Wha-?

Posted by CP in DC | March 28, 2008 2:40 PM

Korha,

I am, of course, assuming we keep everything else about Obama (his political skills, fund-raising, etc.) the same.

If you do that, I don't see why these other versions of Obama can't beat Clinton. The bottomline is that she just isn't particularly good at politics, but was relying on money and residual affection for Bill to overwhelm any potential challenger. But it turns out that large sections of the country weren't even tempted to vote for Clinton once they had a credible alternative, and Obama more than matched her money.

So, she was really a bit of a paper tiger, again due to her lack of political ability. And although the path would have looked different, I think the end result would have been the same. For example, instead of the South, Latino Obama would have run up the score in the Southwest (incuding California), and Clinton would have been arguing how Georgia should count but not Texas. But Latino Obama would still have beat her.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 2:48 PM

The bottomline is that she just isn't particularly good at politics, but was relying on money and residual affection for Bill to overwhelm any potential challenger

Depends on what you mean.

She is VERY good at working with and for a political machine. She is a good bureaucrat who knows how to game the rules. She is not good at "politics" when it comes to moving and inspiring people or being very likable.

Posted by libarbarian | March 28, 2008 2:59 PM

Am I the only person in the blogosphere who caught Halperin on Fox saying Hillary Clinton believed Obama couldn't win in November--because he's black?

Apparently I am the only liberal who watches Fox, which is why they think they can get away with saying these "not in polite company" things (Halperin's phrase)over there.

Posted by KathyF | March 28, 2008 3:13 PM

Seriously? She's a sitting Senator (elected twice), a former first lady, a lawyer, etc., and this is how you refer to her?

I don't think that's how Yglesias thinks of her; it's a reflection of the perception people have of her.

Her detractors (myself included) don't see her as a US Senator elected on her own merits. She has the reputation of a carpet-bagger. It's perceived that she got the Senate seat as a result of her other title, former First Lady.

Surely she's proven herself to be a very vigorous campaigner and competent politician, but the unanswered question is "How much of that is attributable to the Hillary part of her, and how much is the result of the Clinton part of her?"

My biases aside, I think Yglesias is right that people perceive her moreso as "Bill Clinton's less-charismatic wife" than "twice-elected US Senator from New York".

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 3:18 PM

white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point

I think you're exaggerating by just a wee tad, Matt: the 2004 exits say white guys represented about 28.3% of people who voted for John Kerry, versus 38.3% white women and 33.3% nonwhites of both sexes and a variety of ethnicities.

Yeah, we white guys are the smallest of the three groups, but 28% is hardly 'tiny.'

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 28, 2008 3:24 PM

There are definitely older racists in the Democratic party. We all knew it, and Pew proves it.

Posted by Z | March 28, 2008 3:32 PM

I think you're exaggerating by just a wee tad, Matt: the 2004 exits say white guys represented about 28.3% of people who voted for John Kerry, versus 38.3% white women and 33.3% nonwhites of both sexes and a variety of ethnicities.

Isn't "reality" a useful thing to know for people doing politics in DC?...

I'd guess that something over half of Gore's nonwhite vote was black, so it looks like I was about right that Gore's white male vote was around 50% bigger than his male+female black vote. Really, really, "tiny slice" indeed!

Remember also, that the black vote in 2000 was unexpectedly large, which was one of the reasons Gore unexpectedly won the popular vote. Also, Gore did extremely badly among white males that year, which helped cost him the presidency.

I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic candidates who actually WIN the presidency haven't usually gotten a "white male" vote almost TWICE the size of their male+female black vote.

I guess I now better understand why Matt feels so good about Obama's chances. He's just living in an alternate universe with very different demographics than my own...

Posted by RKU | March 28, 2008 4:01 PM

libarbarian,

I am not actually sure she is very good at being a bureaucrat either, with Exhibit 1 being the health care fiasco from Bill's first term. Generally, I think the most one could point to as far as political success is that she worked pretty well to get bills passed that benefited New York as a Senator, but that is not exactly an extraordinary thing to accomplish in the Senate.

In any event, I did in fact mean in the sense of getting people to want to support her.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 4:02 PM

"...it's very hard for me to imagine how a 'generic Democratic white dude' like Chris Dodd or John Edwards...would lose in this environment."

And yet, they did. Almost immediately. To the black guy. In one of the whitest states in the nation.

I really don't get this post and agree with the other commenters that Obama's strengths against Clinton have had a lot more to do with how he's campaigned (and how he's lived, given that so far no serious dirt on him has emerged) than his skin color.

Posted by moff | March 28, 2008 4:35 PM

This is one of the things I blame the Clintons for. Two years ago, they started chasing off strong potential rivals (like Mark Warner) by not only repeating the mantra that Clinton was inevitable, but also hinting that anyone with the temerity to try to run against her would be shut out (along with his supporters) after the inevitable Clinton tidal wave. That really hurt the Democratic party's choices.

Posted by dcuser | March 28, 2008 5:18 PM

I think that's right, and it's a reminder that though the cliché is to say that Democrats are torn between two very strong candidates, in some ways we're torn between two very weak ones.

It is not particularly offensive that you call Obama "the black guy" (except if you intended it to be such) given that his blackness is a uniquely American cultural fact, where 1 drop makes you black. But that you call him "weak" is profoundly more offensive. Obama meets all the qualifications to be president and in a match up against most of the previous "white" Presidents of this generation he certainly meets or exceeds their qualifications.

And if there is someone out here who believes that Bush, even Daddy Bush, or Reagan or Ford were intellectually AND oratorically more gifted than he, I'd say you're smoking dust. Clinton and Nixon were both intellectually gifted but flawed in character. And only Clinton and Reagan even come close to Obama's oratory skills. In terms of experience we've yet to find the unique skill set that qualifies one to be a great President.

So weak by what measure of the man? On the "content of his character" (Dr's King's measure), Obama surpasses many of his "white" presidential predessors and contemporaries. Regardless of how you feel about his association with Rev. Wright, Obama's speech told us much about the content of Obama's character.

The cowardice in your words is that you don't even bother to take the time to tell us what you mean by "weak". I suspect that the racist fear is not of Obama's blackness but that in his blackness one cannot find an inherent weakness.

Obama, to his credit wants to be a man of the people which is why he has built his formidable campaign on their support. Whether or not Obama is able to achieve his goals as President will depend more on his ability to hold the attention of the people long enough to keep them engaged in the process. And for that his charisma will be a major factor. If he can shun the backroom deals and remain true to his transparency - he will be a great President who was genetically, culturally black and (because it is not mutually exclusive) a great leader.

Posted by Cynthia | March 28, 2008 5:33 PM

If Clinton is the "less charismatic" candidate, it's difficult to figure out why she's won more Democratic voters over, and why Obama will be blown out of the water in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana despite the voters being subjected to over 3 months of cries for Clinton to leave.

Get real. Obama is winning by delegate count only, and he's winning because he's black and....

Only a black candidate could have dismantled that coalition--and even then it was a real long shot, made possible only by Barack Obama's unique political skills.

....the "unique political skill" of being an echo-chamber liberal.

Posted by Cal | March 28, 2008 5:38 PM

Fred mentions Bobby Jindal. Say, isn't that the guy who changed his name and his religion in a way that conveniently appeals to conservative southern voters?

Yes, I've read that the name and religion change happened when he was younger, so even if that wasn't his motivation, I suspect that Louisianans would not have voted for a guy named Piyush.

Posted by nbt | March 28, 2008 5:41 PM

Cal,

Hillary has the support of many Democrats because people associate her with her husband, the last Democratic President.

I honestly don't get why people like you don't understand this. Clinton is not much of a politician when left to her own devices, but she came to this race (and her prior races in New York) with a huge starting advantage.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 6:23 PM

"Yes, I've read that the name and religion change happened when he was younger, so even if that wasn't his motivation, I suspect that Louisianans would not have voted for a guy named Piyush."

Against a Rhodes Scholar has had a more prodigious political career than Obama so far, your best opposition strategy is to attack him for being born with a funny-sounding first name?

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 7:46 PM

and he's winning because he's black

That idea is in the running for the looniest idea of the 21st Century. Really. Being black is such a leg up.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 28, 2008 8:31 PM

I like Bobby Jindal. Provided that the rumors I'm hearing about him don't turn out to be true, I think McCain should consider him for VP. Jindal would balance McCain on economic issues and age; plus he'd defuse some of the newness of Obama.

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 8:33 PM

MY - Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point, sooner or later the party is going to need to start nominating more women and non-white in competitive races or else they'll be shutting themselves off from too much of the available talent (see, e.g., Obama's formidable speech-giving skills) so it's probably just as well to spend a year with good fundamentals taking a chance and breaking down some barriers.

The Democrat Party is built on identity politics and throwing out white men is the next step. (evil oppressors except the innocent Jewish victims of historical persecution that call most of the shots in the Party at the top).

Problem is that white women were the next to feel the distain...sorry dearies..but in terms of victimhood and worthiness to be candidates you are required to give up slots to those of higher victimhood like black men and gays.

With full media enabling of the notion that the women candidate has great flaws and must be ganged up on and written about as a goner from Iowa onwards, while the Black Messiah is shielded from any negative reporting until he has the nomination all but locked up.

Posted by chris ford | March 28, 2008 8:37 PM

southpaw, are you a Republican? Because I can't imagine a Democrat liking Bobby Jindal.

Some quick hits via the internet:

"He is a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee.[33] In 2006, Jindal voted with the Republican Caucus 97 percent of the time during the 109th Congress.[34]"

"Jindal has stated that he is "100 percent against abortion, no exceptions."[24] During his 2003 run for governor he distinguished himself from Blanco, who is also anti-abortion, by stating that he supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life, health, rape, or incest."

"In 2006, Jindal sponsored the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761), a bill to eliminate the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling over the U.S. outer continental shelf, which prompted the watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection to issue him an environmental harm demerit"

"Bobby Jindal believes in teaching creationism and/or “intelligent design” in the classroom."

More here: http://tinyurl.com/ytko3z

Fuck, I'm Indian-American myself, and I would never vote for the guy.

Posted by Indian | March 28, 2008 8:48 PM

NBT,

Piyush Jindal changed his religion long before he dreamed of running for office. He came to Christ in college, as did I (I'm South Asian American as well). Why don't you accept that his conversion was in good faith? He converted because he came to believe in Christ. As for the name change, he never officially changed it, did he? I think he's still Piyush on his passport.

I don't like Jindal's politics at all, except for the abortion thing (I'm pro-life). I don't deny, however, that I enjoy having a dude that looks like me in congress.

Posted by Hector | March 28, 2008 9:02 PM

@Indian:

Nope, not a Republican, so I have somewhat lowered expectations of them. I oppose most (if not all) of Jindal's positions, and I certainly didn't mean to imply I'd ever vote for him.

That said, my main experience with Jindal was watching his reaction in the wake of Katrina and his awkward search for a middle ground on immigration. From that admittedly small sample, it seemed to me that he stood for a Republican party that is more interested in competent governance and less invested in racial politics. So while I don't want Jindal elected, I would like to see him promoted as far as possible in the power structure of the Republican party (and I kinda feel the same way about Schwarzenegger).

I could be entirely wrong about all this, of course . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 9:14 PM

The white woman vs. the black guy.

Seriously, do we have to "Jerry Springer" every topic, beat it to pulp; fiction!

Certainly from my perspective...or anyone else that I know...the choice between the two is based on dynamics so much more interesting, and important, than race. Suprise! All of us aren't shallow and petty.

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 9:20 PM

"Ah, don't be so obtuse. Reverend "Right" and Sharpton aren't Obama-caliber orators. Both are plenty talented at riling up black church audiences, but they come across as lunatics and hucksters to white audiences. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with Sharpton's ill-fated election campaigns.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 2:08 PM"

It's the content of those speeches that turn them off. You have to admit that they can both give a good, passionate speech.

"Against a Rhodes Scholar has had a more prodigious political career than Obama so far, your best opposition strategy is to attack him for being born with a funny-sounding first name?

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 7:46 PM"

Reading comprehension review time! He wasn't attacking Jindal for having had an Indian first name before Bobby. He was pointing out that white racists in Louisiana probably wouldn't have voted for a guy with an Indian first name.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 9:39 PM

southpaw:

Schwarzenegger governs California a liberal state with a Democratic Assembly. Ergo, he has pander to Democrats and appear bipartisan to get elected. Believe me, were the situation to shift, he would run hard to the right.

Schwarzenegger is GWB, west coast edition. He is propped up by powerful conversative interests. Please do not be fooled.

Posted by scythia | March 28, 2008 9:42 PM

"Fuck, I'm Indian-American myself, and I would never vote for the guy.

Posted by Indian | March 28, 2008 8:48 PM"

I second that.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 9:50 PM

"It's the content of those speeches that turn them off. You have to admit that they can both give a good, passionate speech."

Sharpton can be entertaining, no doubt. But he doesn't seem authentic or convincing to white audiences.

"Reading comprehension review time! He wasn't attacking Jindal for having had an Indian first name before Bobby. He was pointing out that white racists in Louisiana probably wouldn't have voted for a guy with an Indian first name."

Never blame the reader when the writer is unclear. Jindal's Indian ancestry and official first name weren't secrets, especially since Democrats made sure to refer to him by his Indian name as often as the could. Perhaps they assumed that the average Republican is as racist as Obama's pastor, or the average white Democratic union shop steward.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 10:11 PM

Get real. Obama is winning by delegate count only

Shorter Cal: the Patriots won the Super Bowl on first downs.

Yawn.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 28, 2008 10:24 PM

it's very hard for me to imagine how a "generic Democratic white dude" like Chris Dodd or John Edwards or, indeed, John Kerry would lose in this environment.

This is just silly. You don't know who's most electable and neither does anyone else.

John Kerry, the war hero, lost to a man who went AWOL during Vietnam. In 2004, Bush was already dropping into the 40's in popularity, most people had soured on the Iraq war and we'd all been startled to discover that the United States was setting up torture chambers in Iraq (torture was still considered a big deal at the time).

Kerry was chosen because he was the most electable candidate and was considered likely to win over a crippled and unpopular Bush - Pollster John Zogby even declared him the winner on the Daily Show the day before the election.

Dodd barely pulled single digits in the primary, and Edwards faded quickly.

Being "the white guy" isn't as vital as it's supposed to be.

Posted by Jinchi | March 28, 2008 11:30 PM

God Damnit this interesting.

Where it not for the fact that I am tired, hungry and (prohibitively) drunk, I would remark upon the fascinating nature of this thread.

It has something great, something profound to show us about the odd grab-bag of DLC'ers and Reaganites that happen to subscribe to Matt blog. Whenever race comes up they feel so compelled to deign us with there presence.

Posted by bend | March 29, 2008 1:05 AM

Jinchi, I agree with your overall point, but it's probably never a good idea to use Zogby to back up your point. The man has become an embarrassment as a pollster. He might as well have a margin of error of +/- 12 points. That Daily Show appearance and the election were the last straw for me.

Posted by Reality Man | March 29, 2008 3:39 AM

I think Hillary should tank it - it's the least she can do about now.

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/03/27/hillary-clinton-experience-in-watching-genocide-ignored-or-just-lying-in-wait/

Posted by traps | March 29, 2008 12:29 PM

I think Hillary should tank it - it's the least she can do about now.

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/03/27/hillary-clinton-experience-in-watching-genocide-ignored-or-just-lying-in-wait/

Posted by traps | March 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Obama’s Bible Study Class

James Meeks – an Illinois state senator, pastor of one of the largest churches in the state and a declared Spiritual Adviser for Obama – came under fire for comments rebroadcast last week calling white American mayors "slave masters" and referring to black preachers and politicians who "protect" the "white man" as "house n-ggers."

"We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," Meeks said in an August 2006 sermon broadcast on a Chicago community television channel.
Aside from his senatorial duties, Meeks is an Illinois Superdelegate pledged to Obama and also presides over Salem Baptist Church, described as the largest church in Illinois.

In 2006, Meeks informed his church during a sermon he may run for Illinois governor. He was recorded telling the mostly black congregation any "white Christian" who doesn't vote for him is a "racist."

Meeks is also notorious for his strong anti-homosexual platform, although Obama is campaigning for the "gay" vote. Meeks has routinely voted against pro-homosexual legislation and has been quoted during sermons referring to same-sex attraction "an evil sickness."

Obama told the Sun-Times that he attends Meeks' Salem Baptist Church for Wednesday night Bible Study.

According to Illinois State Board of Elections records, Rezko's businesses, Rezmar Corp. and Rezko Concession, contributed to Meeks' campaign funds.

Posted by Thomas Richards | March 30, 2008 2:02 PM

James Meeks – an Illinois state senator, pastor of one of the largest churches in the state and a declared Spiritual Adviser for Obama

James Meeks is not a spirtual adviser for Senator Obama.

Posted by AKBY | March 30, 2008 2:33 PM

Wow, pretty racist and sexist stuff there Matt.

Why is it a "strange day" when a black guy is electable? Why does the left view the world, and our country, with such bigotry?

Posted by gobloda | March 31, 2008 2:51 PM

"Now of course given that white men are a pretty tiny slice of the Democratic coalition at this point,"

It would be interesting to know how you came up with that bit of nonsense. Related perhaps to the same kind of reasoning you used to support the invasion of Iraq.

A tiny slice?

Since white men make up roughly 37% of the population even 40% of that total adds up to a pretty huge slice of voters. The 3rd largest group in the nation outnumbered only by Democratic voting white women and Republican voting white men. In other words the 2nd largest slice of the Democratic electoral coalition.

While it may seem just fine to you to regard this year as a year to take chances; for many many other people, millions in fact, the need is NOW, they don't have the luxury of winging it or giving it a go.

Your crass elitism is stunning.

Posted by cal1942 | April 1, 2008 3:54 AM

You're right, Mr. Yglesias. Despite what all the Obamatons are saying, it's true that when you take a step back and look at this whole thing in a broader context, the fact is that both Hillary and Obama are vulnerable candidates with really strong weaknesses (as does McCain...but I think bc the Republicans are supposed to lose this election, it's more glaring just how risky the Democratic candidates are). Anyway, a lot of rather dim people keep talking up how so-called purple states are going to go Obama's way should he be the nominee...and bc he's so dang charismatic, so will a few solid red states! Um, oooohhhhkkkkaaaayyyyy. It's a rather laughable notion...if anything, John McCain is running really well in a lot of those purple states and even competitive in solidly blue states. It really wouldn'tbe surprising to me if McCain carried New Jersey or Minnesota...ditto for Florida and Ohio. Obama was going to lose the hardcore racist vote, duh. But there are many more peeople who are not your stereotypical racist monster who still harbor some reservations about voting for a mostly unproven black dude who many perceive as the golden affirmative action candidate. That swath of the Democratic party, along with the majority of independents and virtually all republicans (none of whom are going to vote for Obama in the GE)serve as a cautionary reminder taht Obama doesn't have this thing wrapped up by a long shot. I just don't want all the Obama-mania people to start crying if their candidate loses in Novemeber...frankly, it's just not that hard to imagine such a scenario playing out.

Posted by Matthew | April 1, 2008 12:13 PM