MichaelFauntroy.com

Obama and the African American Vote

I had the pleasure of participating in a discussion regarding Barack Obama and the African American vote.  It aired on NPR's Talk of the Nation and I hope you'll check it out.  I think the issues in the discussion will be a factor throughout the general election.

McClellan's Reputation Rehabilitation Tour Begins Now!

File this under “now you tell us.”  Former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan is the latest Bush administration official to write a book that may have the faint whiff of reputation rehabilitation.  According to excerpts published by The Washington Post and Politico, McClellan’s book promises to take score-settling to new heights.  It also confirms much of what Bush watchers think of the President and his inner circle. 

I  wish we had a government in which high level officials resigned in protest rather than go along to get along.  I'm not saying McClellan is the reason we're in the mess that we now find ourselves, but imagine what would have happened to the march toward war in Iraq if the mouthpiece of the administration resigned rather than be the daily salesman shoveling the poop that he did.

Then again, if Big Media did its job, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess either.  They seemed to just sit there and act like stenographers with limited critical analysis of what they were told by the administration.  Conservatives have done a great job in neutralizing the media through its the-liberal-media-are-biased-against-us routine.  In trying to prove otherwise, many media have bent over backwards to be "fair," thereby not giving us the whole story in Iraq (and there are other examples in other areas as well) for fear of being charged with bias.

From the Post (on the inner circle and selling the war):

The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not “employing out-and-out deception” to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled “Selling the War,” he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush “managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”

“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage.”

From the Politico (on the response to Hurricane Katrina):

McClellan was one of the president’s earliest and most loyal political aides, and most of his friends had expected him to take a few swipes at his former colleague in order to sell books but also to paint a largely affectionate portrait.

Instead, McClellan’s tone is often harsh. He writes, for example, that after Hurricane Katrina, the White House “spent most of the first week in a state of denial,” and he blames Rove for suggesting the photo of the president comfortably observing the disaster during an Air Force One flyover. McClellan says he and counselor to the president Dan Bartlett had opposed the idea and thought it had been scrapped.

But he writes that he later was told that “Karl was convinced we needed to do it — and the president agreed.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

Here is a piece that aired on Today discussing the book.

  Here is video of Tim Russert analyzing what going on.

More reaction here . . .

Vote for the DC Quarter of Your Choice!

I’m sure by now that you know the U.S. Mint is in the process of deciding on a design for the D.C. Quarter which will be released to the public in 2009.  But did you know that you can vote on the final product?

The commemorative quarter continues the 50-state program, which places a special design on the reverse of the coin to highlight some aspect of the state.  The District began the process in January by passing legislation that authorized the formation of a coin design advisory committee to sift through citizen recommendations and develop narrative statements that were passed on to the U.S. Mint.  I am pleased to note that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton nominated me to serve on the three-person advisory panel along with two other Washingtonians nominated by the Mayor and the Chairman of the City Council respectively (the entire process was managed through the Office of the Secretary of the District).  I consider it a high honor to represent the citizens of the District in helping to create something that will symbolize the city for generations to come.

I hope you will take time to vote for your choice of either Duke Ellington, Benjamin Banneker, or Frederick Douglass.  All three are worthy candidates and I’ll be happy with whichever design is chosen.  I must confess, however, that I’m partial to Ellington.  He is the only one actually born in the District of Columbia (though it should be noted that Banneker was born before the District was created).  I suspect more Americans are familiar with Ellington than the others, particularly "old school" jazz fans, some of whom may have actually seen him perform.  His musical contributions are known worldwide, while the great work of Douglass and Banneker in their respective fields may not be known was broadly.

Please take a moment to visit the DC Quarter Design site and cast your vote (and don't forget to tell a friend).  It’s history in the making!!

Obama or Clinton vs. McCain: The Polls

There is a lot of talk from supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton regarding how their candidate will do against John McCain in November.  While it is borderline irresponsible to look at polls in May to predict what will happen in November, I have found two sites which are notable.  I've linked to the Real Clear Politics (RCP) page, which regularly updates its poll data.  One finding:RCP's average of recent polls shows Clinton running better than McCain in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  Obama leads McCain in Pennsylvania and Ohio, but by smaller margins than Clinton; McCain leads Obama in Florida.  McCain beats Clinton in Wisconsin and Virginia.  Obama leads in Wisconsin while McCain is ahead in Virginia.

Newsweek has released a 20-page summary of a poll it recently conducted.  The poll shows Obama leading McCain by two points nationally; Clinton leads McCain by four points nationally (both spreads are within the margin of error).  The poll also lays out the Racial Resentment Index and how much of a climb Obama has with White general election voters.  Let the arguments begin!

Obama and the Jewish Vote

Here is a clip from a MSNBC story on Barack Obama's attempts to shore up support from Jewish voters.  He addressed a group in Boca Raton on the subject.  It's difficult to see how he wins the electoral college without Florida, so expect these sorts of events throughout the campaign.

Here is an Associated Press story on the event.

McCain Removes Hagee from Around His Neck

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain didn't have a choice.  After kissing up to Reverend John Hagee in a pathetic attempt to win the support of religious conservatives, McCain has now "rejected" Hagee's support after the final in a series of controversial and, without question, politically poisonous statements made by the Reverend.  McCain merely squirmed -- but continued accepting Hagee's backing -- when Hagee was quoted referring to the Catholic Church as "the Great Whore" and suggesting that the devastation brought to New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina was God's response to the decadence of the Crescent City.  The recent revelation that Hagee played the Hitler-was-doing-God's-work-during-the-Holocaust card was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.  There are no circumstances in which someone who believes what Hagee believes can be affiliated with any responsible person, certainly one who aspires to the presidency.

McCain did the right thing.  However, a few questions come to mind:  Didn't McCain know what this guy was about before he begged for the Reverend's endorsement?  If no, then why not?  How many other prominent religious conservatives believe what Hagee spouted?

You can read more here and here.

Here is an MSNBC News story on the issue.

Democrats and Republicans on Minority Recruitment

I came across this Politico.com story on Tuesday that lays out the failures of the Republican Party to recruit minority candidates.  I'm not surprised in the least at their findings.  It's been my experience that the GOP does not have the commitment or infrastructure to get significant numbers of minorities into their candidate pipeline.  J.C. Watts told me in an interview for my book Republicans and the Black Vote, that the GOP doesn't "get it" on race.  This article shows that for the GOP, as much as things change, things stay the same.

Here is a snippet from the Politico article --

Just a few years after the Republican Party launched a highly publicized diversity effort, the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor.

At a time when Democrats are poised to knock down a historic racial barrier with their presidential nominee, the GOP is fielding only a handful of minority candidates for Congress or statehouses — none of whom seem to have a prayer of victory.

At the start of the Bush years, the Republican National Committee — in tandem with the White House — vowed to usher in a new era of GOP minority outreach. As George W. Bush winds down his presidency, Republicans are now on the verge of going six — and probably more — years without an African-American governor, senator or House member.

That’s the longest such streak since the 1980s.

Republicans will have only one minority governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an Indian-American, when the dust settles on the ’08 elections. Democrats have three minority governors and 43 African-American members of Congress, including one — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — who is their likely presidential nominee. Democrats also have several challengers in winnable House races who are either black or Hispanic.

When it comes to African American recruitment, the GOP is in abysmal shape.  They don't do a good job of identifying, training, and supporting Black candidates.  Indeed, too many of the African Americans that are identified often wind up as mere political cannon fodder.  Seventy-three African American Republicans captured their party’s nomination for the U.S. House or Senate during the 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 congressional election cycles (this figure includes multiple counting for candidates who ran more than one election cycle).  Nearly 80 percent of these nominees lost to their Democratic opponents by at least 25 percent; there were numerous races in which the GOP nominee lost by more than 50 percentage points.  The GOPs failures on race can be found in many areas and candidate recruitment is a significant example.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have an African American and a woman as the last candidates standing in their presidential nomination contest.  Oh, the irony.  I've always found it curious that Republicans have been gleeful at the way race has become a factor in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest.  They seem to say "see, I told you the Democrats were phony on race."  I think the Democrats must be commended for dragging the country, kicking and screaming, into this new era of politics where race and gender no longer serve as impediments in the same way as in past years.  The Democratic contest and its impact on politics is akin to a child transitioning from adolescence to adulthood.  It's often been awkward and contentious, but the Democratic Party and the country will be better off because the Party has shown a much more serious commitment to gender and racial diversity than the GOP.  The Republicans certainly do not have a pipeline of minorities and women who can legitimately contend for the presidency as the Democrats.  Indeed, it may be a generation or more before the GOP can produce their versions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama Needs Clinton

Many people have been screaming at Senator Hillary Clinton to abandon her presidential bid.  They argue that she is selfishly standing in the way of party unity and increasingly the likelihood that Senator John McCain will be the next president.  The Hillary-must-go-now crowd should tread lightly. What many of these people don’t seem to understand is that Barack Obama cannot win the presidency without significant, sustained, and sincere support from Clinton.  Consequently, he needs to be patient and give her whatever she wants – even if it means giving her the vice-presidential nomination.

There are four reasons why Obama needs Clinton.  First, the Obamaniacs have yet to accept that, for all the money and notoriety his candidacy has generated, he may be weakest Democratic nominee since former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.  I know that seems counterintuitive, given the enormous amount of money he has raised, the way he has energized new voters, and the way his message is resonating with voters all over the country.  The reality is, however, that he has not dominated the nomination fight – indeed Clinton would already be the nominee if the Democrats allocated their delegates on a winner-take-all basis as the Republicans do in most states.  Moreover, we don’t yet know the full extent of the racial and cultural roadblocks between Obama and the White House.  My study of race and politics tells me that those roadblocks are mountainous and we are not yet in the general election.  This puts a high premium on picking the right running mate.

Second, Hillary Clinton can be a better running mate than anyone else being mentioned.  Who among us believes that Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or John Edwards can go into Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia and deliver those states to the Democrats?  At one level or another, they represent some of the old style politics from which Obama promises to move the country.  It’s also doubtful that Nunn, Biden, and Edwards for example, would be willing to go after their former colleague, McCain, as the running mate is expected to; Edwards’ unwillingness to do that in 2004 is seen as one of the reasons why John Kerry lost.

Third, the 41-point beating he took in West Virginia even though it’s widely accepted that he will be the party nominee underscores the serious problem he has in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and West Virginia.  Those realities can’t be overcome by just holding campaign rallies and talking about inclusion.  Obama needs a running mate that has credibility with these voters and can vouch for him on all the areas where questions exist.  Who better to do that than the woman who won, or is far ahead in the polls, in those states in the primaries?

Obama needs someone who can make him palatable to the voters that have, heretofore, remained cool to his presidential bid.  Some have not taken to Obama because they, idiotically, believe that he is a closet Muslim (as if that means he’s disloyal to the country) devoutly dedicated to the teachings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or some of the other ridiculous notions being pushed by conservative talk radio.  Even more don’t like him because he is Black.  Obama seems unwilling or unable to confront racism for what it is, so he will need someone who can divert attention from race to something else.  Clinton can do that too.

But would such a teaming work in November?  I think it could, given where the Republicans are in the eyes of the country.  Recently losses by the GOP in previously safe southern House seats, President Bush’s historic unpopularity, and questions about McCain’s longevity suggest a voter mood that is sure to keep the Democrats in the game, Obama’s weaknesses notwithstanding.  An Obama-Clinton ticket may seem like a longshot but, upon further review, it may be the only way the Democrats can recapture the White House.

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

On Obama's Deracialization Strategy

One of the major pillars of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign strategy have centered around something known as deracialization. It’s a dilemma-filled political strategy with a rich recent history.  Black candidates in majority-White jurisdictions – from L. Douglas Wilder in Virginia, to Norman Rice in Seattle, to Ron Kirk in Dallas, to Wellington Webb in Denver – have practiced it on their way to electoral wins.  Some see it as a necessary evil for Black candidates running in majority-White jurisdictions, while others see it as an unfortunate capitulation to the reality of White prejudice.  Either way, it’s part of doing business in American politics and Obama is beginning to see the downside of the only “racial” strategy that he had at his disposal.

Deracialization is an amorphous, never admitted to political practice that forces African American candidates to remove virtually all evidence of race as a central part of his or her being.  It’s a delicate socio-political dance that is partly a reaction to the reality of race in America.  White voters –  even progressive white voters – have adverse reactions to those candidates who don’t hide their Blackness. 

Obama’s decision to deracialize his candidacy was the only chance he had to avoid the dreaded “Black candidate” moniker. To divert attention from race, Obama has avoided some of the messy issues that have obvious racial dimensions.  Recently, Obama gave an uninspiring response to the acquittal of New York police officers who fired 50 shots in a car of unarmed Black men, killing one just hours before his wedding. 

Instead, he has emphasized vague traits like inclusion, change, and hope – the kinds of things that sound great but have many different connotations and may actually not amount to much. These traits are among the factors that have led Whites to conclude that he is acceptable because he’s not “bogged down” in race (we are so touchy about race that even mentioning it can lead to being seen as “bogged down” in it).  Indeed, he is seen as someone that “transcends” race, a slightly-offensive compliment that has legitimized him in the eyes of some White voters and led many skeptics to accept the notion that America is ready for a Black president.

The problem with deracialization, though, is that it raises the racial stakes for the candidate who practices it and the voting public.  The candidate has to continually narrow the topics on which he or she will address.  Meanwhile, voters may find themselves on the lookout for anything that may reveal the “real” candidate who seems to be too perfect.  They may punish the candidate if something does arise and that appears to be the case with Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

The deracialization strategy worked well for Obama until You Tube introduced Wright to the country. Now, all of a sudden, Obama’s deracialization strategy has been turned upside down by the reaction to Wright's words.  White voters are beginning to take a second look at the “transcendent one,” wondering if he may be hiding something about his true feelings on race.  Some are questioning his commitment to racial comity by virtue of his nearly 20 years as a member of Wright’s church.

The deracialization of Black candidates says more about the country than most are willing to admit and raises a number of questions that must be address before we can “go beyond race,” as some seem to want.  Why must the reality of race in America be submerged or, worse, ignored?  Why are candidates who intelligently raise issues that have racial dimensions immediately marginalized as the “Black” candidate or someone playing the race card?  Why is the “Black candidate” moniker so unpopular that Obama has gone to such great lengths to avoid it?

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: www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Sometimes You Get Exposed When You Don't Know Your Stuff

One of my continuing frustrations with the punditocracy (of which I am a member) is that some people don't have enough dignity to decline media requests to talk about issues when they have no idea what they are talking about.  Here's an example of what happens when you don't know your stuff:

I'm pretty sure Kevin James can't tell the difference between Neville Chamberlain and Wilt Chamberlain.  He should have heeded Mark Green's advice and stopped digging.