And that’s kinda the point, isn’t it? Like many bloggers, I’ve noticed the dramatic upswing in racially oriented reporting in the media regarding national attitudes and their potential affect on the Obama campaign. Like those same bloggers, I wondered why. Why all of a sudden are there so many polls, analyses and opinion pieces documenting and dissecting our common, or uncommon biases? Is something coming down the pike so devastating about Barack Obama, or some aspect of his candidacy, that it needs to have our attention diverted in advance?
Probably not.
What lead me to this conclusion was a confluence of recent events; the rash of polls, the accusations of David Axelrod-style “astroturfing” against Sarah Palin, which were borne out, and a number of opinion pieces, one in the Chicago Sun-Times, by race reporter Mary Mitchell, in particular. Now, I have no idea whether “race reporter” is part of Ms. Mitchell’s official employment designation, but since everything I’ve read that she’s written deals with the subject, I figured that must be her job. Besides, you can tell from the picture that accompanies every post that she’s black, so, it must be at least sort of a big deal to her. Anyway, it was after reading her take on the AP-Yahoo News poll when it all came together in my mind.
Now, we all know that “astroturfing” is the “art” of building fake grassroots support and that the acknowledged master is David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s campaign manager. And, as today’s AP-Yahoo News poll about the effect of disaffected Clinton supporters on Obama’s candidacy shows, many of those polled are skeptical of Obama’s competence. Many of them also happen to be white women. Barack Obama is a black man. Therefore, white women who supported Hillary Clinton are disproportionately unlikely to vote for the black man.
Get where I’m going with this?
Coming on the heels of the earlier AP-Yahoo News poll (or maybe the same poll with different data analysis) saying that racism among Democrats could cost Obama the election, the racial implications are magnified. Now add today’s ABC News/USA Today/Columbia University poll showing that black people think having a black president is a very good thing, and it becomes clear that the intention is to make the election a referendum on race, not a contest between candidates. Because when resumes are objectively compared, Obama loses. Period. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect squat. Clinton supporters have always known that, it is the basis for our continued outrage and rejection of the Democratic ticket. The “vote for him because he’s black and if you don’t you’re a racist” drumbeat is meant to be heard by all audiences and filtered through each individual’s and group’s particular lens. (Yeah, yeah, I know it’s a mixed metaphor, but I like ‘em, so sue me, or suck it up). Basically, Axelrod and crew gets to re-seed the oh-so-successful, combination “white guilt and black pride” astroturf planted early in the primaries and watch it grow. Obama performs badly in the debates? So what, he’s still black. He attacks black people’s lifestyles, values and behavior? Hey, it’s better than a white man. He flip-flops on every hint of a campaign promise he’s ever offered from a TelePrompTer? Yeah, but aren’t you proud to be an American?
The actual analysis of the various polls is irrelevant, they say what you would expect them to say. Same is true of anything Ms. Mitchell writes. Even when she says something relatively unexpected, like she did today, that Obama is not really black or white, it still comes down to a “yeah,…and?” kind of thing. Because, while we as Americans still have a lot of racial hang-ups, our lives are not usually motivated, or even largely affected by them. But that’s not the point. The point is we’re being bamboozled, hoodwinked and astroturfed by an “internet community organizer” (Axelrod) who believes he is so good of an illusionist that he can sell us that by pissing in our faces, the astroturf will think it’s rain, and grow flowers.
And so far, the polls show he’s right.
PUMA
Just Say No Deal
