July 17, 2008

7/17: Race To The White House

A prominently featured New York Times story entitled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race" caused an uproar in the blogosphere on 7/16, as well as a swift response from the Obama camp. Criticism of Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee focused on their interpretation of polling data and the following conclusion:

"...Obama's candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations."

OBAMA: Rorschach Testing His Patience

Many conservative bloggers saw the story as proof that Obama is not the racial unifier he claims to be. Commentary's Jennifer Rubin's: "I think it's bad news for the Obama campaign: less than a third of whites have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama. And the campaign's efforts at pushback demonstrate that they are aware of the badness of this news. ... Obama gets support of 37% of whites vs. 89% of blacks. That was the polarization which the [Hillary] Clinton team, first indirectly and then directly, harped on. And there is good reason why the Obama camp is so sensitive. After Reverend Wright, Trinity United, and Father Pfleger the mystique of a post-racial candidate evaporated. And they don't want further erosion, or the perception to take hold that Obama isn't a candidate with wide appeal."

However, the majority of bloggers pushed back against such claims by closely scrutinizing the reporters' methodology.

• The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "[Nagourney and Thee] write that Americans are 'sharply divided by race' with 'more than 80 percent of black voters' holding a favorable opinion of Obama compared to the '30 percent of white voters' who do. ... The Obama campaign response points to 'multiple and significant pieces of data that actually indicate a trend much different from that which the story suggests' and suggests that Nagourney and Thee were duped by a fallacy of inductive reasoning. For example: although Obama's favorability rating is 31% among whites, it's only a few points off McCain's -- 34%."
• Huffington Post's Jeff Chang: "So many race polls, so little insight. Today's sober NY Times poll ... comes to the very same conclusions that the wacky Washington Post poll -- which turned into a game of 'White People: So You Think You're Not Racist?' -- found last month: Blacks really love Obama and whites kinda like McCain. Good work, fellas! The Obama campaign hit back hard this morning, saying basically, 'Hey! A lot of whites other than his grandma actually like him. And Michelle, too.' White liberals like Bill Scher back them up. Scher notes that although Obama trails McCain by 9 points, he is running much better among whites than John Kerry did in 2004, especially among working-class whites."
• Time's Karen Tumulty: "Regular Swampland readers are familiar with the insights of Jackson Dykman, our datameister here at TIME. ... Here's part of what Jackson had to say: 'I too was really struck by the NYT's characterization of its own poll. ... I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based. Aside from point C in the Obama response (which is true and basically negates the story), the premise of the story is, well, utter nonsense. Are we really supposed to think that because a black man has become the Democratic nominee in recent weeks that he somehow should have cured (or markedly improved) race relations in this country?"
• Brad DeLong: "The Obama campaign is righteously p.o.'ed.... I must admit that my breath is stopped by the idea of saying anything about Black-white opinion differences based on a poll with only 300 Blacks in it. That is bizarre statistical malpractice of a high order. ... Nagourney and Thee say that 40% of Blacks and 20% of whites say that there has been 'no progress.' That's not what the question asked. The question reads: 'Some people say that since the 1960s there has been a lot of real progress in getting rid of racial discrimination against blacks. Others say that there hasn't been much real progress." If you think that there has been some -- but not much -- real progress in getting rid of discrimination but a lot of progress in reducing discrimination, then you say 'no.' I could go on. But what would be the point?"

Protein Wisdom's Karl "obviously agree[s]" with the Obama camp's assessment, but he criticizes Obama for overreacting to the article. Karl: "[T]he fact that the Obama campaign is going after the paper for it is a little telling. After all, the slant of the paper's analysis seems to be trying to advance either the notion that whites should feel guilty that they are not supporting Obama even more strongly, or laying the foundation for blaming his lagging support -- even a possible loss -- on white racism. Accordingly, Camp Obama's whining here is of a piece with their complaint about the satriric New Yorker cover. The campaign's desire to control Obama's image is now overweening, extending to attacking its natural allies in the establishment media for publishing things they likely believe will help Obama. ... There is a point where the desire to control image and message can become counter-productive."

Where Karl sees white racism in the polling data, Commentary's Linda Chavez sees black victimization. Chavez: "What the poll reveals is not a nation in which race dictates political behavior, at least not for whites. But the poll does suggest continued racial grievance on the part of blacks, with almost 40% saying they think there has been little or no progress in eliminating discrimination since the 1960's and only 29% rating race relations in the U.S. as generally good. Yet, Hispanics have virtually identical views on the progress of race relations as whites, with 52% saying race relations are generally good compared to 55% if whites -- this despite Hispanics' perception that they are sometimes targets of discrimination. Maybe the Times ought to begin asking why, despite obvious and real improvement in race relations and eliminating discrimination over the years, blacks remain so pessimistic in their outlook."

On the other hand, Ta-Nehisi Coates chastises any effort to draw broad conclusions from the story. Coates: "Sorry, but this article is pretty stupid and well critiqued by the Obama campaign. The older I get the more I think that journalism -- daily journalism, especially -- is simply incapable of dealing with something as nuanced as the black-white relations in this country. They just aren't capable, nor despite their claims of objectivity, are they unbias. Take it from a journalist -- good journalism needs conflict. No conflict, no story. But while the artisan searches for the natural conflict inherent in life itself, the hack has some polling firm call a bunch of people, and then writes a headline overstating the results."

Biased or not, most bloggers thought the Times story was problematic for Obama. However, several bloggers thought the polling data actually reflected well on his candidacy.

• TNR's Noam Scheiber: "As I've mentioned before, one of the problems black candidates often have is that white voters assume they'll use their position to help black voters at the expense of whites -- a perception white opponents sometimes try to subtly reinforce. That only 16 percent of whites believe this about Obama (or at least admit it to pollsters), and 79 percent think Obama will treat members of both races equally, seems like a real achievement."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Note that if we restrict our attention to white people, views are pretty similar -- 31 percent like Obama, 35 percent like McCain. The main difference is that black people are really enthusiastic about Barack Obama. ... A plurality of Americans say they plan to vote for him for president and though Obama's coalition includes the vast majority of black Americans, whites outnumber blacks within it. I can't think of other examples of a comparable number of white people supporting a black candidate. Given the country's history, it's all pretty impressive if you ask me."

Finally, many bloggers lampooned the very premise that Obama could influence deep-seated race relations, at least this early in his political career.

• Open Left's tremayne: "Obama, despite having an African father, a white American mother and a winning smile has failed to bring the country together. For some reason, black Americans are still more likely to see racial problems in everyday life than white Americans. Clearly, this is Obama's fault. In other news, men and women, as revealed during the Democratic primaries, sometimes perceive things differently. And who is to blame for this persistent divide? That's right, Hillary Clinton. Despite her femaleness (and positions sometimes perceived as manly) people of different genders still see things differently."
• TNR's Josh Patashnik: "Next thing you know, someone's going to find evidence that Obama's candidacy isn't helping to lower divorce rates, fight the obesity epidemic, or improve the National League's performance in All-Star Games. Some messiah this is!"

Ambinder posted a response from Nagourney:

"[W]e are comfortable that our story accurately captured the results on the questions that most struck us. ... We make our polls public in the spirit of transparency and so that others can take a look and draw their own conclusions. ... [But] I do think there is room for discussion about the headline –- 'Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn't Closing Divide on Race'. ... [And I] should have included, in saying that 20 percent of white voters had a favorable view of Michelle Obama, the fact that 72 percent either have no opinion about Mrs. Obama or hadn't heard enough about her...."

McCain: Barack W. Obama?

On 7/16, TPM's Eric Kleefeld reported a new line of attack from the McCain camp. Kleefeld: "On a conference call just now with reporters, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann compared Barack Obama's insistence on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq to [Pres.] Bush's insistence that we were winning even as things went badly for years":

"I think the American people have had enough of inflexibility and stubbornness in national security policy."

"When asked later by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein whether the campaign was disparaging President Bush, Scheunemann dug in":

"We cannot afford to replace one administration that refused for too long to acknowledge failure in Iraq with a candidate that refuses to acknowledge success in Iraq."

"The McCain campaign is taking their effort to distance their candidate from the unpopular President Bush to a whole new level: McCain's advisers are now openly attacking Bush on Iraq -- and not only that, they're also saying that Barack Obama is the one who is like Bush on the war!"

In similar dismay, under a snarky post entitled "McCain Campaign Finally Makes Obvious Link Between Obama And Bush," Wonkette: "So Barack Obama is now a flip-flopper and a stubborn ideologue at the same time, meaning he is twice as bad as George W. Bush, who is actually the same person as Barack Obama?"

TPM's David Kurtz: "This takes some real cojones."

Liberal bloggers were so aghast at the apparent cognitive dissonance of the McCain camp's swipe that most didn't bother to elaborate. But several did:

• Stein: "The charge, of course, is not related to policy (on which Obama and Bush drastically differ) but rather ideological rigidity. But the suggestion that Obama is too stubborn to change his position on Iraq is a bit ironic coming from a McCain campaign that, as recently as one week ago, jumped all over the Senator for saying he would 'refine' his position."
• Steve Benen: "Let's take this one step at a time. First, it's probably safe to assume the McCain campaign's internal polls show McCain getting hammered on the 'Bush's third term' line of criticism. They're so desperate, McCain's aides are now trying to argue that Obama is just like Bush. This is just so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for the McCain campaign. Second, it's fascinating to hear the McCain team triangulate off of Bush's refusal 'to acknowledge failure in Iraq.' Um, guys? McCain was the one cheering Bush on while he was 'failing,' telling Americans we had to 'stay the course.' But perhaps most importantly, I can't help but laugh at the notion that McCain is supposed to be the sensible, flexible one in this equation. Is McCain open to a withdrawal timeline? No. Is he open to a phased redeployment? No. ... The entire McCain operation is just a joke."
• The Seminal's Chris Edelson: "During the primaries, when Hillary Clinton tried to paint herself as the agent of change, you knew Obama had won at least half the battle. It is similarly revealing when McCain tries to argue, he not Obama, is the real agent of change -- even worse when McCain's campaign bizarrely tries to argue that Obama is the Bush clone."

OBAMA II:

The now-infamous New Yorker cartoon cover continues to shine a spotlight on the role of humor (or lack thereof) surrounding the Obama candidacy. A New York Times article on 7/15 explored the difficulty comedians have with mocking Obama, which then sparked Maureen Dowd to pen a 7/16 column asking, "May We Mock, Barack?"

"At first blush, it would seem to be a positive for Obama that he is hard to mock. But on second thought, is it another sign that he's trying so hard to be perfect that it's stultifying? ... Certainly, as the potential first black president, and as a contender with tender experience, Obama must feel under strain to be serious. But he does not want the 'take' on him to become that he's so tightly wrapped, overcalculated and circumspect that he can't even allow anyone to make jokes about him...? [I]f the dominant perception of him is that you can't make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor."

Indeed it has, namely by Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz, who crafted a fake Obama news release offering pre-approved jokes for comedians to use against him. (And now bloggers from across the political spectrum are running with the meme.)

Dowd's column triggered a lot of commentary in the blogosphere. Conservatives gave her rare praise. NRO's Mark Hemingway: "[H]ell must have turned finally into a skating rink for disadvantaged youth, because I thoroughly enjoyed [her column]."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, chided Dowd for portraying Obama as humorless and elitist. Time's Joe Klein: "Maureen Dowd Has Nothing to Mock. This is a really, really serious problem. I mean, if Obama is elected, she might have to start writing about ... universal health insurance or alternative energy sources."

But other liberals saw some substance to her argument. TNR's Noam Scheiber: "[She raises] points about the problem that arises if people aren't comfortable making fun of Obama, then does her best to fashion a comic leitmotif for him. ... Her suggestion: Obama-the-buzz-killer. ... There may be something to this. No question Obama -- and, for that matter, the entire campaign -- can be a little self-serious at times. On the other hand, Obama actually has a pretty good sense of humor, and, more importantly, he can be amusingly self-deprecating. If this becomes the frame for him (comic or otherwise), he shouldn't have trouble subverting it. ... Depressingly, though, I expect it'll be the elitist charge rather than the overly-earnest charge that carries the day when comics finally get around to mocking him. It's probably easier to illustrate (even if the examples turn out to be bogus). And, if nothing else, it's the one the GOP has traditionally favored."

Many bloggers also criticized Dowd for basing her "elitist" charge on loose evidence. Campaign Desk's Clint Hendler: "[Dowd] tries to make the case that Obama is humorless. It's a short step away from that familiar elitist meta-narrative. In service of this point, Dowd warms over quotes from herself, The Los Angeles Times, Andy Borowitz, and a New York Times colleague -- you wonder if you're reading a column or some sort of mutant clipping service -- before coming to this:"

"He's already in danger of seeming too prissy about food -- a perception heightened when The Wall Street Journal reported that the planners for Obama's convention have hired the first-ever Director of Greening, the environmental activist Andrea Robinson. She in turn hired an Official Carbon Adviser to 'measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.'"

"I think we can all agree it's a cheap shot to attribute the convention's green-focused catering decisions to Obama, especially when the host committee named its greening director in August 2007, back when Obama trailed Clinton by double digits in national polls. But Dowd, with an assist from the Journal, leaves a false impression on a matter of fact."

Contrary to Dowd's column, many bloggers find there's plenty to find funny about the Obama candidacy. Gawker: "Poor Maureen Dowd doesn't know how to make fun of Barack Obama. ... Jesus. Stop already. Obama's a godsend, because he lacks [easy cliches]. So everyone has to be more creative with their humor. Allow us to help you!

• The secret -- [Y]ou don't need to mock the man, you can mock the aura surrounding him. Barack's messianic tendencies have been greatly exaggerated.... So when The Onion put Obama on the cover of Tiger Beat, it was funny because it was an absurd exaggeration of the truth (see how that works?).
• Plus Obama's strongest supporters are showing themselves to be severely humorless, and that's funny! The gradual shift from constant outrage over matters that probably justify outrage -- the mood of the Bush years -- to this new era of outrage-for-the-sake of outrage is a scary omen for the future of liberalism in this country and also a great punchline.
• Don't: Try to cleverly call him effete. Looking at you, Maureen! The guy dresses nice, sometimes, but he doesn't actually have those effeminate signifiers that everyone seems to think other male Democratic politicians possess. ...
• Do: Call him 'elite!' It's funny because he represents an aspirational black middle class and so we have to put him and his wife back in their place! Haha no, seriously, it's funny because making fun of Harvard is funny. Don't make latte jokes though, it's not 1997.
• Don't: Make fun of his funny name. It's painful when Slate does it, yes, but even the reliable Daily Show writers fall into the trap. 'Baracknophobia' is not the level of punmanship we've come to expect from you guys. It is funny to call him 'Barry,' though.
• Do: Make fun of how people are terrified of his funny name and his foreign background. When faced with polls that suggest Americans do truly believe that Barack Obama was raised by The Iron Sheikh and spent his school years snorting the remains of 9/11 victims, all you can do is laugh and contemplate a life at sea."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Civic-Minded Parent, Or Slave Master?

The Liberaltarian: "Reflecting back on the national service plan Obama highlighted on July 4th, I found his approach to be a kind of 'parental libertarianism' -- treating children like socialists and adults like libertarians. Under his plan, middle- and high-school students are required to complete 50 hours of service a year. College students (who have more responsibility than kids but less freedom than adults) are offered a $4000 tax credit for 100 hours of service. For adults, the plan creates nearly 160K more jobs in AmeriCorps and Peace Corps. Thus, for Americans over 18, Obama would protect individual liberty but "nudge" them into serving the greater good. For dependents under 18, he would force them. The latter approach channels the attitude of a parent: "I go to work, pay the bills, and buy you a car, so the least you can do is mow the lawn every week!" So despite the high-minded critiques of conservatives like Jonah Goldberg (who compared Obama's plan to black slavery), the Obama approach seems a good compromise between the traditionalist approach of a military draft, the socialist approach of mandatory service (e.g. Germany's 9-month Zivildienst), and the Bush approach of "keep shopping, pump as much gas as you like."

LEST WE FORGET: What They Don't Teach You At J-School

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "Via the great sage of journalism, Seth Lipsky, I learned a long time ago Peter Kann's rule concerning the first-person pronoun: 'No reporter may start a story with the word 'I' unless he's been shot in the groin.' The New York Times reporter Campbell Robertson violated the rule yesterday: 'I WAS late to 'Rent.' Late to the show, and late to the city it portrays.' ... On the other hand, sitting through 'Rent' is more painful than a scrotal nick. Robertson is newly-assigned to the Baghdad bureau of the Times, which has its hardships, but I'd take Baghdad over 'Rent' most days of the week."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at July 17, 2008 12:35 PM

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.