Catching up on my Air America podcasts (we managed to lose our Air America affiliate here in Austin, TX - which has one of the most vibrant progressive communities in America. How lame is that?), I came across a Rachael Maddow (maybe the smartest person on talk radio these days?) comment that reminded me of this discussion.
She was talking about how Edwards had filled the "angry white man" role while he was in the race ... and how none of the other candidates could really match his tone effectively.
Rationale?
Paraphrasing Rachael:
If a white male is mad, he's viewed as "strong".
If a white female is mad, she's viewed as "shrill".
If a black female is mad, she's viewed as "crazy".
If a black man if mad, he's viewed as "scary".
Hillary has showed some flashes of anger from time to time - and she has certainly been labelled "shrill" repeatedly (or from time to time, a "bitch").
Obama can't take the risk. If he comes off as "mad", he's suddenly lost his ability to reach across to white voters, since the reptilian brain of many white voters tell them that angry black guys are going to hurt them.
Given that, I expect that if Obama locks up the nomination, we will see a Republican campaign aimed primarily at making Obama mad. Look for questions that are borderline insulting of him and his family, trying to cage him as weak if he doesn't respond in anger ... but with the real intention of making him appear scary to white voters if he acts the way any of us would do if our families were insulted or our values debased in public.
Given that - if Obama does manage to garner the nomination - we need to be thinking of a means to insulating him from this characterization now. I'm open to ideas.