In last week’s West Virginia primary exit surveys showed that 22% of voters considered race a factor. Assuming some people are - how should we put it? - coy about admitting to a stranger with a clip-board that melanin levels are important when choosing the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee, the actual percentage is probably much higher.
Most media outlets reported on this. They also noted that 4 out of 5 of this – how should we put it? – derma-sensitive group voted for Senator Clinton. And most reporters concluded that this was a Major Problem. A major problem for West Virginia? Mmmmm...not really. For America? Naaah. No, the problem according to most pundits was Senator Obama’s. You see, apparently he is failing to reach out to the folks who are picky about pigment. That’s right. These good people might be willing to vote for him if only he’d show them a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Now, you could say, hold on a minute, what about the fact that in some states Obama picks up 90% of the African-American vote? Doesn’t that have something to do with race? Well, yes. But there is a huge difference between, on the one hand, African Americans voting 43 years after the Voting Rights Act for the first black guy ever to have a decent shot at the appropriately-named-in-an-ironic-kinda-way White House – a black guy who is, incidentally, half-white, and who speaks eloquently (and I mean that as a compliment) about America moving beyond racial division – and, on the other hand, people voting against him because he’s black.
No doubt if Senator Clinton on Tuesday wins big in Kentucky we’ll be presented with the same graphics showing the same survey results as those in West Virginia, accompanied by the same questions about Senator Obama’s Weakness With the Working Whites. But what about Oregon, where polls suggest he will win? The last time I was there it was clear that most Oregonians are decidedly on the pale (if not pasty) side. I assume the guys and gals in Corvalis are as hard-working as those in Clarksburg, WV, or Hopkinsville, KY. I assume there are as many Guangzhou-made blue-collars in Medford as there are in Beekley or Owensboro. But will it matter to, for example, CNN’s Campbell Brown or lovable Lou Dobbs if a big Clinton win in Kentucky is countered by a big Obama win in Oregon? Somehow I doubt it. I suspect that Oregon is not rust-belty enough. Not Heartlandy enough. Oregonians have values, true, but they’re Left Coast values that don’t represent the Middle. On Tuesday, Oregon will likely join the list of predominantly white states that were won by Senator Obama. But its voters, like those of the millions of white people in other states who have voted for him and who are actively involved in his campaign, will probably get less attention than those who won’t vote for him because they, as the survey question puts it euphemistically, "consider race a factor." This latter "demographic" is a problem. But it isn’t Senator Obama’s. He may have a 50 state campaign but he doesn’t need all 50 states to win in November. While CNN gives us "Black Man Struggles to Win Votes of Racists," the real story of 2008 is the shocking possibility that America is more racially tolerant than some of us dared dream.