Let's Not Overreact to Obama's Win

I find myself increasingly agitated at the response to Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses.  I have concluded that far too many people – from the news media to Obama supporters around the country – are reading too much into what it means for the presidential campaign and race relations.  Yes, it was impressive.  Yes, it was historic.  Yes, it caught many people by surprise.  Yes, it begins to give people reason to believe that America might be ready to elect a Black president.  However, I feel compelled to make two points in my effort to warn people not to overreact to Obama’s win.

Barack_obama_2_3 First, beware the fawning media.  Virtually all of the coverage of Obama’s win has been over-the-top, almost as if he won the nomination.  This isn’t a surprise with Obama, as the national news media have treated him as if he were the Second Coming from the moment he rocketed to national prominence following his speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention.  His personal story and charisma have charmed the media into doing almost no critical analysis of his political positions.  Most of the coverage I saw tried to suggest that his win was proof that White voters have overcome their aversion to Black presidential candidates.  His chief opponent, Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, has been bashed by the media consistently since she hit the nation’s consciousness in 1992.  If Clinton’s coverage were half as positive as Obama’s since her rise to national prominence, then she might have the nomination locked up by now.

CNN may have been the worst of them all on Thursday night with Bill Bennett leading the charge.  His saying that racism is no longer a problem in America is ridiculous on its face.  Racism may not be an issue for White, middle-aged, millionaire men such as Bennett, but there are a lot of jobless, homeless, incarcerated, and otherwise disenfranchised Black and Brown people in American whose lots in life are at least partially attributable to racism.  Bennett, who experiences America from the comfort of a climate-controlled radio studio could never understand this.  He interviews and takes calls from people who think the way he does and share his beliefs.  This cocoon-like existence only validates a warped world view that leads one to believe what Bennett believes.

Second, it should never be a surprise to anyone when a Black Democrat wins a presidential primary.  Democratic voters around the country have been voting for Black presidential candidates for years.  After Jesse_jackson_2 all, the hated Jesse Jackson won seven primaries and four caucuses 20 years ago. He scored wins in, among other places, the White-as-Iowa Vermont (95 percent White) and disproportionately White Delaware (70 percent White).  Indeed, the real surprise will be when a Black candidate wins a Republican primary.

Obama won the support of 38 percent of Iowa caucus-goers in his victory.  That means, of course, that 62 percent of caucus-goers did not want him to be their party’s nominee.  This is all the more significant given the incredible turnout much of which has been attributed to Obama’s campaign of hope.  He expanded the playing field and got his people to the caucuses for which he should be commended.  However, it should be noted that Senator John Kerry also received 38 percent support in his 2004 Iowa caucuses victory.  Obama’s win was solid and comfortable, but it wasn’t earthshattering.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote.  A registered Independent, he blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

January 5, 2008 | Permalink

Comments

Obama is the Tiger Woods of presidential candidates and he will unify our country and create a working majority to solve important problems. No candidate has the incredible cross-over appeal that Obama has.

I predict that Barack Obama becomes the 44th President in a landslide victory over Mitt Romney (or John McCain). With conditions in Iraq improving, the weak economy becomes the determining issue in voters' minds. They want to make sure that gridlock ends and Congress gets something done for a change. The Democrats end up with 60 Senate seats and a clear majority in the House of Representatives.

Posted by: techinvestor | Jan 9, 2008 8:45:06 AM

I agree with 95% of this article, but I wish you had given his Iowa win a little more legitimacy. I hear in your words a de-emphasis on his win based on the over-hype of the media and I fear that the media treating him like a rock star will cause some people to dismiss him without ever really hearing him. Despite the media treating him like an American Idol winner, I believe Obama has good ideas for the nation when we hear what HE has to say.

Posted by: Gary | Jan 8, 2008 10:07:05 AM

The only thing wrong with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is the Bush part. Hillary is a more sure, grounded person than Bill, has learned from the manifold mistakes of those years, and would make a better President. And Bill was pretty good.

Posted by: bob h | Jan 7, 2008 1:01:34 PM

C'mon, bruh. Give Obama some better play than this here. We're coming away from the Dumya Dark Ages. How much worse can the young brother be than this chuckle head in the Oval Office now? At least Barak speaks English, good unbroken understandable English. None of these campaigning jokers will enter into the job with Presidential experience. Since the Hillary whoring media is only going to facilitate enough competition to evade federal prosecution for vote tampering, we've got take the Obama surge to mean a little more than negro luck. If the boy was no threat, the Clinton Firewall would not be going up in anticipation of Hillary getting burned to political death come Super Tuesday. The Obama surge at least substantiates that America wants something different than what we've endured for the last seven years, too often with Hillary's approval.

Posted by: rage | Jan 7, 2008 12:16:33 PM

"He scored wins in, among other places, the White-as-Iowa Vermont (95 percent White) and disproportionately White Delaware (70 percent White)."

Were either of those states heavily contested? Iowa was a heavily contested state, one where Hillary spent a huge amount of money and was supposed to have an edge, one where Edwards had done well in 2004, had the endorsement of the First Lady of Iowa, and had repeatedly visited over the past 4 years.

"If Clinton’s coverage were half as positive as Obama’s since her rise to national prominence, then she might have the nomination locked up by now."

For many months in her White House run, she did seem to be getting positive press coverage. Edwards and Obama were presented as the simpletons who couldn't catch up to Senator Inevability. Meanwhile, Obama was told he was not black enough, he was told blacks would not support him, he was told he was boring and stiff and not worth the hype.

I certainly agree that Obama is overrated by the national media, but I don't believe that his win had anything to do with positive media coverage. He was mired in the midpack of polls for months. Even when Oprah endorsed him, the media claimed this would not do anything for him, and even claimed polling showed this hurt him with some female voters.

Hillary is a tired shell of a candidate. Her entire theme was "vote for me because I've been around a long time". Doing what exactly? Being a First Lady for 8 years? Bungling her health care plan? Being involved in various scandals? Being a junior senator for 6 years? People say Obama is untested, which has some truth, but when was she tested in a political campaign? She had easy opponents in 2000 and especially in 2006. Her current message seems to be some weird combination of "don't bother to hope" and "I can give you change because I've been here 35 years". She has not really come up with much of anything to make up for the astonishingly high negative views people have of her. A few days ago I heard Bill Clinton was going around complaining about negative media coverage and blaming the media for making people see her as divisive. Even IF that were true, what does that say about her that she is supposed to be so fragile that she cannot shape any public opinion of her?

Obama has deep flaws. That's one of the reasons I have been hesitant to support him. But Edwards and Clinton, especially Clinton, seem to have even more, and they also seem to be unsellable in a general election.

I think that many people in Iowa, and possibly in other states, have come to the same conclusion. Not because they are brainwashed by the media, but because they no longer have any faith in the messages that the other campaigns are sending them. And even if Obama has problems, I would prefer someone with a chance over someone who can barely limp out of a primary or who has to blame the media for their own flaws.

Posted by: Britt | Jan 7, 2008 9:13:25 AM

It was refreshing to read your post on the HuffingtonPost. I'm surprised that its publifcation was actualy permitted as everything on that site is pro Obama/anti Hillary. It is absolutely galling and slanted, from the photographs of Hillary as shrew and Obama as choir boy, to the specious headlines which bear no substance, to the very one-sided articles.

I have tried very hard to listen to Obama's message and have found him to be nothing more than a messanger without a message. He says nothing beautifully. I have no idea where he stands on anything and yet the infatuated media never brings him to task whereas Clinton is criticized for every glance, every movement, and every utterance.

Thank you, but I'm afraid that your voice will remain unheard. This country seems to be in a frenzy over Mr.Rhetoric and nothing will stop him until he comes up to the Republican machine which will no merely swiftboat him, but will swallow him live.

Posted by: Felicia | Jan 7, 2008 12:00:59 AM

Post a comment






 

blog advertising is good for you

Beltway Bloggers Network

PhD Pontificators Network