Getting Out the Barack Vote: Did Race Bias Cost Obama A Win in New Hampshire?

No one will ever know for certain if racial bias played a part in the New Hampshire results, although I would picture - perhaps incorrectly - Iowa as a more likely place for racial bias. In any event, Editor & Publisher has an article that looks at this possibility (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003694676). Unfortunately, some of the analysis does make sense, especially the ability to vote in private as opposed to out in the open in front of others. The Democrats need to be VERY careful - the last thing needed in November is for disaffected black voters sit home to "punish" perceived bigoted white Democrats. I can only hope for the day that Americans will judge people by their merits and abilities rather than their skin color (or sexual orientation). Here are some highlights:

Many theories have been advanced in the media since Hillary Clinton’s stunning upset over Barack Obama. One of them has been much contested: that white voters told pollsters they would vote for Obama but couldn’t quite pull the trigger for the African-American candidate when the time came to cast their ballots. This allegedly counted for more than any sort of “late female surge” for Clinton.Maybe when Bill Clinton referred to the “fairy tale” surrounding Obama he meant the fable that massive numbers of whites would actually vote for Obama when they had plausible alternatives. But this has been the elephant in the room almost totally ignored by the media until now.

Why did it show up (if it did) in New Hampshire and not in Iowa? The Iowa caucuses were quite public, this theory goes, while voters had a curtain to hide behind in New Hampshire. An interesting new detail has now emerged seemingly bolstering that theory: not just advance polls, but some exit surveys apparently show that even coming out of the polls, voters in New Hampshire gave Obama about a 5% bulge -- if they were being honest. Where did all those votes go? Maybe he never really had them to start with.

"I think it's very naive to dismiss the racial factors in this," said Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia. "Anytime you've got white undecided voters pulling the lever choosing between a white and a black candidate, that is when the race issue is most important," Drew Westen of Emory University told Tom Edsall, the former Washington Post reporter now writing for Huffington Post. "Both campaigns' internal polls showed a 10 to 12 point Obama lead; to see that evaporate into a three-point loss, when he didn't have any gaffes, that has a ring to it."

This is not a new phenomenon, of course. It is sometimes called “The Bradley Effect” or the “Wilder Effect” after two well-known black officials whose huge leads in final polls mysteriously disappeared (Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles and Governor Doug Wilder of Virginia). And, of course, if true (and it may not be) it would have enormous ramifications for the rest of the primary race, and the general election if Obama did manage to get the Democratic nod.

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Wednesday night told pollster James Zogby that the only thing we now know for sure coming out of New Hampshire is "Democrats lie." He wasn't referring to the racial controversy but the issue is now out there.

The Supreme Court is divided not merely over how to interpret the Constitution. It’s divided over the meaning of American history.

As an attorney and as one who believes in equal rights for ALL citizens, I was appaled by the Supreme Court decision last week that struck a blow to allow creeping resegregation of the nation's schools to occur. Having read countless Supreme Court opinions in law school and in private practice since, this decision underscores how important a single justice can be and that their opinions can have huge consequences. Fortunately, Justice Kennedy , while agreeing with some of the majority, stopped the worse of the decision's potential fall out:

Kennedy typically swings more conservative than O’Connor; and, as was expected, he agreed with the conservative majority this time. But he could not accept some of the assumptions in the decision authored by Chief Justice John G. Roberts.

As Kennedy made clear in his own opinion, he was uncomfortable with his conservative colleagues’ acceptance of “de facto resegregation,” as he was with the idea that the state was barred from making racial distinctions in the pursuit of educational equality. Nor was he happy with their approach to the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which was passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of emancipated slaves. “This Nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all of its children,” argued Kennedy. “A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue.”

Gary Orfield, codirector of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, tells NEWSWEEK that the result of resegregation is far from race-neutral. “Blacks and Latinos end up in neighborhood schools that are inferior, with fewer curriculum choices, lower graduation rates and less experienced teachers,” he says. Based on his research, Orfield has no doubt that Louisville’s school system will end up more segregated—and that black students will pay a price—when the desegregation program ends.

The other lesson from the Court's decision is that the far right of the GOP, including the self-proclaimed "Christian" element care little about the rights of minorities. While the GOP has always had an element within it that wanted to preserve the status quo and white privilege and preference, never during the period I was involved in the Party did the dominant element in the party clearly oppose equality under the law and equal rights for all citizens. For more on this issue, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19511718/site/newsweek/