The Contest

Race and sex. It seems like it's become a contest between the Obama/Clinton camps to see which candidate wins the "you think you got it bad" contest.

I wrote about Governor Ed Rendell's so-called racial comments regarding Obama the other day. See Ed the Rant-dell. The brouhaha hasn't died down. Rendell is still being pilloried for his comments about the state of race relations in the "You've Got a Friend in Pennsylvania" state. The Philadelphia Inquirer chastised him in a recent editorial, Rendell on Obama, which basically said that while Rendell may have been correct on the facts, he should have known better than to say them. This also seems to be the view of the NAACP, which likewise scolded Rendell for his comments. Rendell's had to spend a lot of time this week explaining himself, see Rendell defends race quote and Rendell offers his defense on Obama race remark.

During a session with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board, Rendell was asked to handicap the upcoming primary in the state, which he did. He speculated that some of the conservative white voters in this state might not be ready to vote for a black candidate. Interestingly, the latest poll shows Clinton leading Obama 52 to 36%, Clinton leading Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, which seems to lend support to his view. Gee, you think race may have something to do with it?

And the more I've read about Rendell's comments, the more I'm convinced that he spoke the truth -- a truth that is not pleasant or pretty, but is nonetheless correct. Frankly, I would have said the same thing. I've lived in Scranton, Harrisburg/York, Pittsburgh and Philly, so I've been exposed to a fair cross-section of the state in my life. That's not to say that a majority of voters here are racist, but we certainly do have our share. And they are not all Republicans either, much as it would be nice to put the bad guys in the bad guy party.

In fact, no one who knows the state denies that there are racists alive and kicking here, who would never vote for Obama or any other person who happens to be of another race. Yet we're supposed to pretend that it doesn't really exist? For some, it's better to imagine the world as how we'd like it to be, rather than how it is? But in the end, does that help us move forward? We can't work at changing something that we won't admit exists, can we? Yet, the message seems to be that denial is desirable over truth.

Tony Norman, who originally wrote the piece that caused the uproar, penned a follow-up column, Rendell's race problem -- and ours, stating:

Nobody feels sorrier for Gov. Ed Rendell than I do.

Thanks to an item in my column on Tuesday, Mr. Rendell has had to deal with a tsunami of unwanted and unflattering national attention. The column was picked up by political Web sites and quickly metastasized.

* * * *

Those of us who live in this state are painfully aware that there are many parts of Pennsylvania that will never be confused with a racial Shangri-la.

What little diversity there is in Pennsylvania is concentrated in Harrisburg and the two big cities that anchor both ends of the state. We should probably throw Erie into the mix for good measure while we're at it.

When Democratic campaign svengali James Carville famously described our peculiar political landscape -- it's Philadelphia on the east, Pittsburgh on the west and Alabama in the middle -- it resonated in our bones. It's one of the reasons I riffed on Alabama in that column.

Despite this acknowledgment, Norman still believes that Rendell should not have expressed his opinion. To me, it's like telling someone who's gay to stay in the closet -- life will be better so long as you don't recognize the "facts of life," so to speak. I'm not so sure. It doesn't change the fact that the person in the closet is still gay. Nor will it change the fact that the bigots won't vote for Obama. It's that sentiment that will lull us into a false sense of security. Greg Mitchell of Pressing Issues Racist voters, R.I.P.?, explains it best:

As I have pointed out for awhile, it amazes me that so many Obama backers, and fawning media, seem to act like racism ended in the U.S. at some point in the recent past. They have been carried away by Obama's strong showing so far -- while ignoring the evidence (as I have observed here a couple of times) that, indeed, some whites still are voting against him on the basis of race. I'm not saying that race is the major factor in this campaign but the extent that it is pooh-poohed surprises me. Rendell never said it was a large number -- but a number. Obama himself said in Virginia this week, 'Sure, there are some people who will not vote for me because I'm black and there are some people who will vote for me because I am black.'

Sometimes I even wonder if one reason so many conservative pundits, such as Bill Kristol, are saying so many nice things about Obama is that secret GOP polling shows that Obama will actually pose a weaker threat in November (for this reason) than Hillary. I feel there is a built-in 'ceiling' for each of them: Obama because of race, and Hillary as a woman and someone who is hated by so many.

In an NPR Radio Times discussion on the subject (audio available at Phawker), Norman implicitly recognized the reality of this when he noted that several years ago, Klansman David Duke received the largest percentage of contributions for his Louisiana race from Pennsylvanians. Likewise, last week, Wilkes Barre Blogger Gort42, observed of Obama: "If it comes down to PA I'm not optimistic. People that are circulating petitions are being met with the objection about the color of his skin or they got an email saying he he is a muslim." See also, In Pennsylvania, race is still a voter issue.

As former Inky columnist Clark DeLeon (miss you) said about the issue, in fast eddie, you got a biiiiiiggggg mouth:

Will everyone please grow up. Saying that some white people might not vote for Obama because he is black is like saying some Republicans won't vote for a Democrat. Are we supposed to act surprised? Do Republicans vote for Democratic candidates? Yes. Do Democrats vote for Republicans? Yes. But is that the way to bet on an election?

Rendell -- who got into trouble in 2004 while chairman of the Democratic National Committeee for suggesting that some people might not vote for a Jewish vice president -- got into trouble for that despite being Jewish himself. He also told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that he thought some voters wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman. (Don't stand next to Fast Eddie in a lightning storm!) According to the radio report from NPR's WHYY-FM, the Post-Gazette columnist who wrote about Rendell's remark about people not voting for Obama because he's black didn't mention Rendell's remark about people not voting for Clinton because she's a woman because the columnist wasn't surprised by that.

Doh!!!

Right. Never thought to mention the bias against woman issue, because that was not a surprise.
Speaking of the "woman stuff," Barack Obama has been in hot water over his recent comments about Hillary Clinton, which some have claimed are sexist. He said:

This is, I understand Senator Clinton periodically when she is feeling down launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal. But I think this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for. What they are looking for is ways to actually help send their kids to college or find a job or get health care and that is what we have stayed focused on in this race. And I think that is one of the reasons we have been doing pretty well over the last several weeks.

According to of Talk Left,

In a campaign marked by news coverage unrelenting in its sexism and misogyny, especially from NBC, the last thing we can afford is sexism from the frontrunning candidate. Barack Obama needs to apologize for this remark.

Apparently, "feeling down" is supposed to mean that Clinton gets the vapors, like we women are wont to do and "periodically" is code for that time of the month.

Give me a break. Trust me -- I am not someone who would suffer a sexist fool gladly (or lightly). And I have been known to express my disdain for the sexist fool in appropriate situations, in no uncertain terms. However, I'm with Balloon Juice on this one:

Look, I believe there has been a good bit of sexism launched at Hillary this campaign, and have said as much. I haven’t seen any of it, however, from Obama and his campaign.

Pretending this is a sexist attack is as stupid as pretending that when Clinton called Obama a “kid” means he was calling him a “boy,” which of course means Clinton was actually calling Obama the n-bomb. That was stupid. This assertion is stupid.

See also, I Don’t Need a Dogwhistle.

Let's just call it a draw.