This Year in “This Week in Race”

When we began this blog in September, we didn’t know what to expect. We were dissatisfied with the journalistic and knee-jerk responses to issues of race and politics. It’s not that we thought they were not valuable, but just that they were incomplete. We thought we had a different perspective to add, and we hoped to apply early findings from The Project on Race in Political Communication to current events. But we didn’t know if anyone would care.

We’re academics, which means that we conduct research and teach at the college level. We both hold the highest degrees possible in our respective fields of study. Besides helping to disseminate knowledge to students in our classes and to the broader community, we are responsible for helping to create knowledge through our research. That does not make us any smarter than anyone else writing. That does not make our perspective more valuable than any other bloggers’. That does not privilege our perspective over any others. It does mean, though, that we approach the discussion from a different set of expectations, assumptions and traditions. Our work is rooted in theoretical approaches to understanding politics, race and communication, and is often accompanied by systematic data collection (or observation) and analysis that is guided by principles that have been developed, tested and accepted in the social sciences and humanities for decades.

All of this is to say that while we believe that we have provided a unique contribution to the discussion over the past four months, we recognize that many of you disagree. This week’s blog is a celebration of that disagreement.

Many of you subscribe to the blog via email, so you probably don’t visit the site much. While that convenience has allowed us to share our ideas with you more easily, it somewhat detracts from the community of ideas that partly characterizes the blogging process. So we hope to start a tradition here of relating a few of the criticisms we’ve gotten in the comments section of the blog this past year. We are not interested in defending ourselves or arguing against any of these ideas. We present them so that their voices can be heard alongside ours. Some are thoughtful and insightful; others are hateful and not particularly sophisticated. All are of interest and confirm the importance of continuing the conversation about race and politics in America.

Happy New Year!
(BTW – We’ve gotten a lot of supportive comments, as well, many of them quite thoughtful. Thanks to all who have taken the time to contribute!)
_______________________________________

“‘we scolded the show’s producers for ‘profiting off the centuries of suffering of people of color.’” “Wow! You are arrogant beyond reason and without merit if you dream yourselves capable of "scolding" the shows producers. You're gnats living and dying in the endless shadow of a monolith that will remain forever beyond your capacity to impact. You're significance so infinitesimal it defies definition. Although, perhaps it is inversely related to the contemptuousness audacity that is discharged throughout your writings. Oh! Boys why do a throw away blog about a show that is long since past its prime when you could have written about about wild eyed, hate crazed, animals that were terrorizing the good and decent law abiding and white folks who were trying to buy their Chinese sweatshop made Christmas presents? The black folks in NY are all bent out of shape that the diverse NYPD used its righteous fire power against certain criminal elements corrupting the city. Now thats a good topic. C'mon boys you've got to stay current and keep up with the IMPORTANT issues of the day.” (Mike Nifong, 12/23/2006, 2:19 a.m.)

“Please stop trying to "keep it real" in future blogs. Knowing that you feel comfortable enough to use the word [spit] in the hip-hop context is revolting. . . .Get the fuck out of here! The idea that hip-hop is challenging the "cosnciousness" people in power would be funny if I weren't a little depressed thinking that you two might actually think that it's true. You were kind enough to point out that Public Enemy's vainglorious attempt to curb materialism and enlighten people to African issues. Clearly, they weren't successful as the "community" has gone 180 degrees against in the opposite direction. If Black people don't seem to be challenged by hip-hop why would people in the halls of power be challenged? Oh, you misspelled consciousness in the last paragraph. Buy a dictionary or at least use the spell check...DICK! Oh I don't spell check because I don't care enough about the issue. I guess you don't spell check because you don't care about black people!” (David Duke, 12/16/2006, 6:48 p.m.)

“Wow you both really missed the point on this one. The real racial issue in this whole the whole Michael Richards incident is why the fuck are black people talking during his show? Why are people so shocked to see a comic unload hate and venom in his stand up routine? The people up in the balcony got uppity and Michael Richards had to hit them with the fire hose. . . .You know where THOSE people learned it from? Church, they constantly holler out during the service and now they do it amongst civilized people in comedy clubs and movie theaters across the nation. On the positive side it is good to see that nigger still wounds black people. Despite all the efforts of rap music to take the word back and the claims of so many black people saying that the word doesn't hurt them anymore. Hearing, the pain in the voices of those black people who shouted "Dat wuz uncall'd fo'!" fills me with joy. He didn't even have to use other words in conjunction with nigger. I normally reach for phrases like bitch nigger for men and nigger cunt for women when I'm trying to hurt peoples feelings. But thats just a matter of personal taste more than anything.”(peaches, 11/27/2006, 2:04 p.m.)

“. . .I would like to see more done to address the issue of race in journalism. Especially in political journalism. In my community, minority candidates that are not Democrats are ignored by the local media.” (Raymond C. Dix, Jr., 10/27/2006, 9:03 a.m.)
“Caliendo: I just read the [AP/Washington Post] article in which you were quoted discussing Michael Steele's election bid and the racial dimensions of a black candidate appealing to white voters. I agree with your general premise that there are predispositions, perhaps even subconscious ones, that lead to apprehension on the part of white voters to elect black candidates; however, I think your characterization of the sentiments involved is off and perhaps misleading. Rather than merely supposing that black candidates will not be good leaders, the hard truth, I believe, is that many (most?) white voters are possessed of a sense of superiority that is not qualified by any specific or logical criteria--it is borne purely out of distinguishing skin color, be it on a subconscious level or otherwise. Consequently, voters are uncomfortable with the idea of being "led" by a black person (and all that it symbolically entails). . . .” (Ken, 10/27/06, 3:28 p.m.)

“. . .The idea that black people are going to change the United States all by themselves is a joke. (I know I’m laughing). For the CBC to decline someone membership on the basis of race forces them to rely on the 12.9% of the population that is black. They have denied themselves access to extremely talented allies who share a common vision. Idiots. Lets be honest those 12.9% of Americans who are black are not exactly the brain caste of American society. The CBC has a made the quest for equality exponentially more difficult. . . . "This reasoning is faulty and ignores the historic legacy of racial discrimination." How you manage to talk out of both sides of your mouth is impressive. Rightly condemning the discrimination of the past and still enabling its perpetuation the future. Bravo! One last thing, Stephen Caliendo I realize Italians are just Africans turned inside out but I hope you realize that you are never going to get the NAACP wonderful white man award. The subtleties of your self loathing may have been amusing years ago, but I promise you it has become tedious to those around you. And for the love of God don’t try and join the CBC, I hate to think of you in tears as the people you care so much deny you membership because of your skin color. What a rube. . . .” (Johny Cakes, 9/29/2006, 5:59 p.m.)

“This is what we will see by the end of the so called "rascist" survivor. The hispanic tribe will be good at building their camp. The asian tribe will be good at solving the mental challenges. The black tribe will be good at the athletic challenges. (Not swiming though) And the white tribe... WILL HAVE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!" (Anonymous, 9/16/2006, 3:28 p.m.)

Racial Prophecies Fulfilled in Survivor Finale

We launched this blog back in September, the morning of the premier of “Survivor: Cook Islands,” where for the first time the “tribes” were divided by race. The season ended this past Sunday night, so we felt that it would be appropriate to revisit our predictions about how the season would turn out.

We claimed that while the intent of the show’s creators and producers was an interesting topic for discussion, that we were much more interested in the potential effects the gimmick would have on viewers: “As we see it, the potential effects such a stunt might have on viewer’s attitudes about race in America is what so desperately needs to be addressed – much less so than motivations, about which we can only speculate, at best.”

After discussing difference between racism (systemic oppression) with bigotry (individual-level hatred), we scolded the show’s producers for “profiting off the centuries of suffering of people of color” and added, “If there is any good to come out of the stunt, it will be to force America to confront issues of race (apparently Hurricane Katrina wasn’t enough) so that such attitudes are no longer latent.”

Here was our prediction: “the editing and production will result in a product that fits the American myth of race by reducing it to individual-level attitudes. . . . [T]his season of Survivor will allow us to stay comfortable [refusing to deal with the systemic racism that has plagued America for 400 years].”

While we don’t have any scientific polling to indicate if our concerns were warranted, a glance at the numerous online discussion boards dedicated to the program on the final night and the next morning can provide some insight. That anecdotal evidence confirms our fears. That is, 1) stereotypes were reaffirmed in viewers, not challenged, and 2) the focus remained on individual-level attitudes, not systemic forces of oppression.

Yul, an Asian American man, won by beating out an Asian American woman and a Hispanic man in the final vote. No white castaways were in the final four. Here is how our first contention played out. There were countless references during the final tribal council, the reunion show, and the message boards that reinforced stereotypes about Asians and Hispanics (specifically, that Asians are smart and that Hispanics work hard). Here is a sample from the message boards and blogs (quotes have been cut and pasted with no effort to remedy errors):

"'Brains' edged out 'brawn' on Sunday night's finale broadcast of Survivor's thirteenth edition, with Yul Kwon narrowly defeating Oscar 'Ozzy' Lusth to emerge as Survivor: Cook Islands' ultimate survivor and $1,000,000 winner" (Steve Rogers, "Yul Kwon edges Ozzy Lusth to win 'Survivor: Cook Islands,’” 12/18/06, http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/yul-kwon-edges-ozzy-lusth
-win-survivor-cook-islands-4468.php).

“And why do you think the hispanics were voted out early? Because Ozzy was instrumental in PURPOSELY voting one of them out! First stupid strategic move! Ozzy was an excellent physical player but he just didn't didn't have the witt to manipulate people” (Diva, 12/18/06, 9:54 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

“Here are the facts. Yul is smart. Ozzy is athletic. . . .Yul's brains allowed him to find the Idol and thus help him in the game. . . .Yul used his brains to win the game. I think he played a great game and deserved to win. . . .Ozzy relied on his superior ability as a fish and an eagle to save his place in the game. . . .Granted, if it weren't for Ozzy, that Aitu tribe would probably have been toast, but he didn't make any strategic moves later on even when presented with them” (Zagar, 12/18/06, 5:47 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

“Ozzy is a great athlete and there would be no one else I'd rather have with me if stranded on a desert island and needed to survive but the game is about much more than that” (Grasshoppa, 12/18/06, 6:09 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

“I think Ozzy should have walked away with the title becuase he did OUTPLAY, and OUTLAST.
Yul played an excellant game as well, and if I were in need of an excellant lawyer, he'd be the one I call, but if I were marooned on a dessert island, (gee, they were weren't they), I'd want Ozzy” (cherylb, 12/18/06, 4:17 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

“Yul ‘played the game’; Ozzy ‘played the challenges’. Big difference and the one who played the game, deserves to win” (Diva, 12/18, 2006, 10:00 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

"Re: Who Will be the Survivor of the Cook Islands? yul 'the brain' will win” (a1000ninjas, 12/15/06, 6:39 p.m., http://www.tv.com/survivor/show/4742/who-will-
be-the-survivor-of-the-cook-islands/topic/3279-611882/msgs.html).

"Re: Who Will be the Survivor of the Cook Islands? My mom said Yul's not playing fair. He's using more than 10% of his brain" (blue4t, 12/16/06, 10:23 a.m., http://www.tv.com/survivor/show/4742/who-will-be-the-
survivor-of-the-cook-islands/topic/3279-611882/msgs.html).

“I think both Yul and Ozzy were every bit deserving to win, both for different reasons. Ozzy completely dominated physically, and Yul completely dominated strategically” (Boot, 12/17/06, 11:37 p.m., http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=486788&page=1&pp=25).

There were some dissenters, but not many. Here’s an example:

“Ozzie the smartest, not Yul! For those of you who think that Yul was the smart one, think again. It was clear that Ozzie solved the ‘hardest puzzle ever’ faster than Yul or anyone else. The only reason Yul won was the racial makeup of the jury. He automatically had the Asian vote and Ozzie did not have the Hispanic vote since they were eliminated too early in the show. Ozzie should have been the winner. The biggest mistake made was not following Adam's suggestion of voting for Yul with five contestants left, thus eliminating the idol from play in the final four” (ho-do, 12/18/06, 8:24 a.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

With respect to our second prediction (individual v. systemic focus), the above confirms our expectations, as does this post, that directly addresses the issue:

"Racism On Survivor. How is it ok for Sundra to say QUOTE ‘BLACK, BROWN AND YELLOW POWER’? If a caucasian person said ‘white power’ it would considered racist. I like the fact that survivor mixes every kind of race in the show never before has this kind offence come to light. This Comment really offended me, I would like to know how the producers can air this comment with a clear conscience. This is condoning racism” (Kirby988, 12/17/06, 9:47 p.m., http://forums.survivor.com/).

Oh, Kirby988. To not see how “white power” differs from “black, brown and yellow power” takes an immense effort of ignoring historical systemic racism. Assuming that Kirby988 is white, we wonder why he or she was so offended? What possible power differential in this context would be threatening? From a purely individual-level perspective, one can imagine the white people of the world trembling at the thought of minority groups coming together to oppress them all. But individuals work within systems, and even if those groups wished to do that, they would have to figure out a way to do it within a system that was designed to (and therefore continues to) put them at a collective power disadvantage. So don’t worry, Kirby988. Even given the Survivor producers’ professed attempt to bring about racial equality, you’ll still be able to benefit from white privilege for the foreseeable future (after you get over feeling hurt, of course).

For a recap of the Survivor finale (and the season), see http://survivorhut.blogspot.com/

Conflict Diamonds: New News to Mainstream Media is Source for Long-time Hip-Hop Activism

Ed Zwick’s new film Blood Diamonds, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, opens in theaters nationwide today. The movie has been accompanied by what will prove to be a short-lived public interest in the conflict diamond trade in West and Central Africa. Jewelers are nervous that the timing of the film will interfere with holiday shopping. (For his part, Zwick is adamant that the timing of the film has nothing to do with running interference for the industry: “Our release of the film at this time of year has everything to do with the number of people who go to movies over the holidays and nothing at all to do with the diamond industry’s sales.”) News outlets are acting as if they’ve never heard of the controversy before this week – or maybe they’re not acting. (See stories from Amnesty International and the United Nations).

But hip-hop fans are no strangers to the economic exploitation of the continent by Westerners and the internal violence that has resulted. Most famously, Kanye West made a video portraying the issue for the song “Diamonds from Sierra Leone,” from his 2005 album Late Registration. In 2004, Talib Kweli released Beautiful Struggle, the first cut of which (“Going Hard”) also addressed the issue:

You already lost the fight if you don't know the cost of life
These kids is forced to fight a war they can’t outrun
Ain’t got no shoes but got a gun
Now where the fuck he pulled that out from?
People ask me how we wearing diamonds
When there’s little kids in Sierra Leone
Losing arms for crying while they mining
Probably an orphan who’s momma died of AIDS
He built a coffin working often but he never paid
Forever slaving in the world that’s forever cold
Becoming the man of the house at 11 years old

Most recently (and relevant to today’s release of Blood Diamonds), New York rapper Nas has a song entitled “Shine” on the film’s soundtrack, where he says, in part:

They dug me out the soil in the mines of the Motherland
Now I’m misplaced, one hand to another hand
Illegal smugglin’, people strugglin’
Wish they could just throw me back in the mud again
Yeah, guess that’s how we got here
Slave trade then the diamond trade
Every child’s afraid
When his mother and father get sprayed
Forced in the army, young killer brigade
Gets a new name and then he give his nose glue
‘Til his mind can’t take what he’s goin’ through
Lookin’ in that dirt for that ice so blue
Then the Royal Family, the ice goes to
And this thing has to change, feelin’ half-ashamed
As I rap with my platinum chain
When you shop for a gift from me
You think about the misery?
The same way we made apartheid history
We can do the same thing to the conflict ice
But everybody wanna shine, right?

The hip-hop connection with diamonds is rooted heavily in the past ten years’ obsession with “bling” that replaced the early rappers’ obsession with gold. Perhaps the most forceful and well-known socially conscious hip-hop group, Public Enemy, spend most of their career arguing for African Americans to stop wearing gold (and replace those chains with leather medallions with the red, black and green outline of Africa on them). Here are some of the lyrics that Chuck D, the group’s leader, spit over the 1980s and 1990s:

I don’t wear gold, but I clock ducats
And I have the money overflowing out of buckets
(“M.P.E.,” 1987)

Yo Griff, get the green black and read and
Gold down countdown to Armageddon
(“Don’t Believe the Hype,” 1988)

Ain’t no different
Than in South Africa
Over here they’ll go after ya to steal your soul
Like over there they stole our gold
(“Who Stole the Soul,” 1990)

Divided and sold
For liquor and the gold
(“Can’t Truss It,” 1991)

So while this film may be a wake-up for the mainstream media, hip-hop fans have been in tune to what’s happening in Africa for decades.

But not all hip-hop icons are on board with the current consciousness-raising about conflict diamonds. Most have been silent, and one, Russell Simmons, has publicly refuted that conflict diamonds are much of a problem. Charmian Gooch, director and co-founder of Global Witness, in a chat with Washington Post readers this week, accused Simmons of getting “swept up by the diamond industry bandwagon and . . . effectively becom[ing] a sell out to them.” Simmons co-owns the Simmons Jewelry Company with his ex-wife and founded the Diamond Empowerment Fund to put money back into education and skill development in South Africa and Botswana.

While mainstream media seems rarely interested in maintaining continual focus on issues of race and economic struggle in the U.S. and abroad, the work of hip-hop artists - whose attendance to race cosnciousness has long challenged the conscience of those in power - will hopefully be a place we can continue to look to when the media hype of this current conflict is long gone.

Additional Reading:
Variety Review
Allhiphop.com
Rebel to America blog
PBS Newshour lesson

Tangled in Language & Legality: Segregation/Integration & The Limits of Constitutional Guidance

Our white students are forever concerned about “reverse discrimination.” Those who grew up with relative economic comfort especially believe that they are or will be disadvantaged for being born white - citing minority-focused scholarships, minority-centered mentoring programs, and, most alarmingly, affirmative action “quota” programs.

Quotas in higher education were banned in 1978, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed its position on the matter as recently as 2003 (see Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger). Still, opponents of affirmative action (the collective name for programs that attempt to rectify past inequality and increase diversity) continue to use the term “racial quotas” to inflame (or at least confuse) the issue. Set-aside programs violate the sensibilities of many of even the most progressive-minded Americans. Acknowledgement of continued inequality as a result of historically racist policies, though, is embraced by most Americans, and many appreciate the importance of strategic efforts to correct those trends.

In essence, then, affirmative action programs (not quotas) are necessary, sensible, and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, warranted (at least for now).

But the Court tackled the question of affirmative action (sort of – Justice Souter clearly stated “this is not an affirmative action case”) again this week, hearing oral arguments in two cases (Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Bd. of Ed.) involving race-based allocation of high school students in districts that allow parents and students to choose what public school to attend. As Dahlia Lithwick nicely points out in an article from Slate.com, there are really two separate legal lines that meet in these cases: school desegregation and affirmative action. These cases are neither. Or both. Hmmmm.

The AP reported that some of the protesters outside the Court on Monday chanted “Equal education, not segregation.” But is this a false dichotomy? Does anything short of full integration (however that’s defined) constitute a return to the separate-but-equal policies that were legally in effect between 1896 and 1954?

These cases present interesting legal questions, but we’re more interested in the way language is being used to frame the debate. Here are a few of the powerful words that were invoked in the arguments in the Seattle case alone: integration, segregation, desegregation, quotas, compelling interest, strict scrutiny, racial balance, race-neutral mechanisms, and race-conscious objective. Such terms are not without context, and their potential effect is rooted in that context.

For example, if one is coming from the perspective of a black or Latino student whose group is underrepresented in a particular school, the term “integrate” has a positive connotation. If one has the perspective of a white student at that school, though, the same term could very well carry a negative connotation, as the suggestion is that something is wrong with his or her school because there are too many people like him or her there. Decontextualizing such a term (or, more accurately, refusing to acknowledge the context) will lead to continued misinterpretation of both perspectives.

Intentional or not, such decontextualization is part of the power struggle. Justice Scalia plainly told the Seattle School District’s lawyer Michael Madden that the only meaning of segregation is that which results from purposeful discrimination. Scalia suggested that a wish to provide “racial balance” is not as compelling as a need to desegregate (therefore, we should note, the ability to determine whether there is “segregation” is a very important power).

We couldn’t disagree more with Scalia’s characterization. From a legal perspective, he may be correct, but the very distinction between de jure (by law) and de facto (in reality) segregation suggestions that absent evidence of a conspiracy to keep people of color separated from whites (or vice versa), circumstances based on historic discrimination (resulting in disproportionate poverty, implicit discrimination, housing patterns, etc.) can and does result in segregation.

Segregation is real and has consequences, even if not mandated by law or “intended.”

We’re left with a lot of important (and difficult) questions. Is desegregation the same as integration? At what levels or mixtures of races is integration achieved? Is integration even really necessary for equality?

This last question is particularly sensitive. Even the staunchest proponents of “judicial restraint” refrain from publicly criticizing the Court’s landmark desegregation case (Brown v. Topeka Board of Education). At the time it was decided (1954), of course, there was widespread criticism and noncompliance of a decision by what many considered to be an overly activist Court that reached beyond the appropriate boundaries of their power. Today, though, when looking for evidence of judicial activism, public officials will point to Roe v. Wade (the abortion/right of privacy case), but never to Brown. This suggests how socialized we are to believe that racial integration is a prerequisite for racial equality. Jonathan Kozol skillfully and painfully describes how segregated our public schools are today (more so than in 1954) in his book Shame of the Nation, arguing that such segregation has resulted in an American apartheid that needs to be rectified immediately.

But many black leaders throughout history have argued that this is not necessarily the case (Marcus Garvey, Louis Farrakhan, Booker T. Washington), and there are many strong advocates for continuing the viability of historically black colleges that provide essentially segregated educational opportunities (see this recent piece from Inside Higher Education).

One of the important distinctions that the Supreme Court justices are faced with in these cases is the precedents from higher education cases, because mandatory public education is much different than competitive entry into institutions of higher education.

But the philosophical question remains: Can we have racial equality without racial integration? Might we have more equality if we maintain some separateness? Who benefits from racial integration? Just people of color? Mostly people of color? Mostly white folks? Does it undermine any benefits to people of color if white folks benefit, too? Is everyone harmed by segregation? Does the intent of segregation or integration matter? Or is it about the effects of such trends or attempts? These are tremendously difficult questions, but they are issues with which we should be dealing directly.

ABC News’s Good Morning America program has been running a series on race in the shadow of Michael Richards’s tirade a couple of weeks ago. A glance at their message board is very jarring. For those who believe that our racial differences are behind us, we urge you to take a look and even join in these online discussions. As crude and hostile as some of these posts are, it is through conversations such as these that we will begin to find answers.

Looking to the Constitution will be of limited help, as those who wrote it and those who are responsible for interpreting it have come from a very narrow slice of American society. The 14th amendment (on which these types of cases pivot) suggests that we treat individuals equally and, as Justice Scalia pointed out in Monday’s arguments, not as part of a group.

But, of course, society doesn’t honor that mandate.

We are not color blind.

We do see each other as members of groups.

And, we do make judgments and decisions (consciously or otherwise) on that basis.

For a Supreme Court justice to not consider that is to ignore the reality of the legacy of racism.
Accordingly, we should not be bound by constitutional and case law parameters to come to understandings and agreements about racial justice. It’s time to stop passing the buck to the elites. This work needs to be done on the ground.

Convenient Cover: Why Ideology & "Electability" May Overide Obama's Star Quality

U.S. Senator Barack Obama continues to be quite popular in this week's much talked about poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, and many pundits seem to be banking on the hype to push Obama over the edge and take the plunge into the 2008 presidential race. The problem with the rating, however, is that about as many people who gave Obama high marks said they didn't know enough about him to rate him. Do these almost 50% percent of Republicans and more than one third of Democrats perhaps not know - we dare say - that Obama is black?

Whether they and others know this or not now, perhaps, is not important. But there is no doubt that once the reality and implications of Obama's complexion sinks in, it will make a crucial difference in his election hopes - both among Democrats in the primary, and in the general election should he win (though, as you will probably see later, we wonder whether he'd make it that far).

Let's begin with the general election, where Republicans and other conservative types will of course be part of the electorate. It seems an almost foregone conclusion at this point that Republicans, especially in the South, have mastered and continue to refine the art of race-baiting; they know such messages will always find fertile ground to influence voting decisions at the least, and develop into vociferous anti-black/minority opposition, even hysteria, at most (especially in a Presidential race). Of course there is always convenient cover for such insidious messages; for Republicans, it is ideology.

And you can already see it coming in this week's evangelical rancor over Rick Warren's invitation of Obama to speak at his megachurch AIDS summit. Should Obama win the nomination, he is certain to face vigorous opposition from Republicans who believe Obama's real sin is his skin. This sentiment will be denied of course, with claims that it is his stance on abortion, stem cell research, homosexuals, etc. - not race - that is the reason for opposition.

Our claim that Republicans would respond this way is not without warrant (see an article in this week's New Republic for more in depth discussion about this).

However, Obama will likely face this predicament of opposition from Democrats as well. For some - those lingering Dixiecrats in the South - it also may well be a racial opposition. But by and large it is likely to be fueled by something different.

There's only one thing that matters to Democrats in 2008 - winning. It is this - what is known in political parlance as the question of electability - that will likely make Obama's quest, should he eventually embark on it, difficult. Democrats are likely to find themselves in a vicious circle of reasoning that though they themselves have no problem with Obama being black, they don't think others share their belief (at least not enough people). If you ask Democrats whether the country is "ready for a black President," my guess is the answer would be, no (for whites, and many black as well). And so many Democrats, in search for a winning candidate may likely conclude that people will not vote for a black President - he can't win - and therefore we shouldn't set him and the party up for certain failure.

Fraught with "race of interviewer" effects and skewed because of social desirability though it may be, what the folks at Quinnipiac, Gallup and other polling organizations should be asking at this point is whether or not people care about race when making their choice of candidates in 2008, and how willing they would be to vote for a black man for President. That, we believe, would tell us much more about the hopes and possibilities of an Obama candidacy than perhaps anything else.

Obama certainly has the qualifications to be President, yet the barriers of race make us quite skeptical about the possibility of the nation electing the first black President.