Will America elect a black president? (Barf Alert)

The Daily Star ^ | February 12, 2008 | Professors Abdullah A. Dewan and Guy Downs

[2ndDivisionVet]

People worldwide -- and indeed, most Americans -- are under the impression that whichever party candidate has the most delegates at the end of the primary elections is assured the party nomination for president. And who can blame them?

In a typical year, one candidate will emerge from the primary campaign with a majority of the delegates, and he will have the nomination secured. But this year's race is unprecedented; a woman and black man, running neck to neck against each other to try and reach the magic number of 2025 delegates to lock the nomination.

There are 4,049 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention (DNC) -- 3,253 pledged delegates (to be won in the state primaries and caucuses) and 796 superdelegates (consisting of party bosses, sitting governors, former governors, big city mayors, US Senators and congressmen and former presidents). Superdelegates are free to vote for a candidate, and withdraw their votes anytime.

Of the 3,253 pledged delegates, over half are already split between Clinton (944) and Obama (1009), with Obama holding an unsteady lead of 65 delegates (as of 11:30 am EST, Feb. 9). With the race being so close, it appears impossible for either candidate to get 2025 delegates after all the primaries and caucuses are over.

This scenario empowers the superdelegates to decide on the nominee -- a doomsday spectacle of a brokered DNC in Denver, Colorado (August 25-28), reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago convention, with its violence in the streets and vitriol inside the hall. The images of a fractured, out-of-control party helped sink Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972.

Make no mistake; this spectacle could unfold at the DNC in August. Under this scenario, should the superdelegates support Clinton unfairly, they would risk alienating millions of young Americans whom Obama enthused with his message of hope and change. Should they shift their alliance and back Obama instead, it would be interpreted as a betrayal of long-term friendship with the Clintons.

The consensus solution to this dilemma would be to nominate the candidate who appears to have the best chance to beat the Republican nominee John McCain in the general election.

Pundits and latest nationwide polls tilt towards Obama when pitted against McCain (48% vs. 41%), as opposed to Clinton against McCain (46% vs. 46%). But both Obama and Clinton come with "warts."

Clinton, on her part, carries considerable baggage from her eight years as first lady, including the stigma of the Monica Lewinsky scandal that plagued her husband's presidency -- and then there's the substantial block of voters who consider and see her as the most polarising public figure in the American political landscape.

What has McCain to say about Clinton? In a November rally, John McCain and the Republican audience laughed when a voter asked him how he planned to "beat the bitch." McCain replied: "I fully understand why many people don't like Clinton. I don't much like her myself. She seems calculating, cold, and overly ambitious." (The Week, November 30, 2007, Page-14).

Ryan Sager in the New York Post argues that McCain would be hard-pressed to steal centrist votes away from Obama, while, in a McCain – Clinton duel, most moderates and independents would gravitate towards him, leaving Hillary with little more than the Democrats liberal base. The prospect of another Clinton presidency will bring together the McCain hating conservatives because "there are fates worse than John McCain."

Obama, on his part, is a liability of a different dimension -- not only because he is black, but also because his middle name Hussein, taken from his Muslim Kenyan father, is the last name of Saddam Hussein.

The question many people are already grappling with is: "Is America ready for a black president, who also has a Muslim middle name?"

This dilemma hasn't yet caught up with the white Americans. Once nominated for the presidency, however, one thing is all but guaranteed -- that the Republicans' "dirt digging" and "mud slinging" machines will blitz the digital space and the news media with a relentless series of vicious and personal attacks against Obama, designed to arouse the latent prejudices of American voters.

Despite being 50% black and 50% white (American white mother), Obama is classified as black. He would still be classified as black if his parents' races were reversed.

Prior to 1960, different states followed different rules, including the 25% blackness (that would be Obama's grand children) rule, to classify people as black. The identifying criterion now is "one drop rule" -- one drop of black person's blood in your veins. Some Republican (religious extremists) internet bloggers and mainstream ultra-conservative columnists are already identifying him with Muslims because of his father, who was a non-practicing Muslim. So he has to overcome triple jeopardy -- black blood, Muslim blood, and his middle name.

The question remains: "Will Americans elect a woman, or a black man, as president?" According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans are much more likely to elect a woman or a black man as president than a Mormon or an old man. More interestingly, they'd rather be governed by a homosexual than an atheist.

These statistics, obviously, are prospective. People know, for example, that John McCain at 71 is not young; yet, his nomination for the presidency from GOP is all but a formality now. He has already announced that, if elected, he would serve only one term -- a self-imposed limit out of self-consciousness of old age.

Will the wave of youthful enthusiasm and passion, which has buoyed Obama's campaign to date be enough to propel him to the White House? It certainly seems possible. "Obamamania," however, reminds many seasoned Democrats of the tidal rushes of youthful energy that marked the McCarthy campaign in 1968, the McGovern campaign in 1972, the Jerry Brown campaign in 1992, and (to a lesser extent) the Howard Dean campaign in 2004.

Polls often reflect voters' attitude and sentiments, which can change in a split second at the instant of voting. Had this not happened in the New Hampshire and California primaries, Obama would have been well ahead of Clinton in delegate counts, with a momentum on his way to secure the nomination.

And therein lies the uncertainty -- the curious perversities of American elections in which young voters have, historically, shown uninhibited enthusiasms in primaries, but have neglected to vote in general elections. Their disillusionment with the candidates -- who focus more on mutual diatribes and negativities and less on policy differences -- may be the reason. Whatever it is that generates their apathy to voting, the trend is indisputable.

If Obama is the consensus nominee of the Democratic Party he will have to succeed in keeping his young supporters, disillusioned Republican crossovers, Reagan Democrats, and above all, the great majority of the independents, on board with his inspirational message of "hope and change" to win the race for the While House.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors are, respectively, Professor (economics) and Adjunct (college of technology) at Eastern Michigan University, USA.

[steve-b]

The simple fact is that a significant number of conservatives who wouldn't show up to vote for McCain would show up to vote against Hillary. Thus, Obama has a better shot at beating McCain.

[jwparkerjr]

re: America elect a black president?

Absolutely, and his name is J.C. Watts. As my mom used to say, “Right church, wrong pew.”

[SuziQ]

Oh, I’d have no problem voting for a black man, as long as he’s a Republican, which means he’s more likely NOT a socialist.

[SuziQ]

Will the wave of youthful enthusiasm and passion, which has buoyed Obama's campaign to date be enough to propel him to the White House?

Only if they actually bother to get out and vote on Election Day.

[hinckley buzzard]

This was written by two university professors? I've seen better written articles from semi-illiterate asylum residents or high school freshmen.

Am economist and a techie. No wonder they're language-challenged. But it all doesn't matter anyway because Clinton will be the nominee.

[Mike Darancette]

Despite being 50% black and 50% white (American white mother), Obama is classified as black. He would still be classified as black if his parents' races were reversed.

Who classified Obama as black? The government? The press? No, Obama classifies himself as black.

It is my opinion that the first black President will be a Republican.

[GOPJ]

Unlike liberals, I don’t look at Obama’s skin color first.

That's one of the nicest things about being Republican. Obama tried to run as a Senator who just happened to be black, rather than as a black man, but the Clintons played the race card in SC and put an end to that. Guess they need dem victim groups to know their place. Sick.