Media Continue to Study 'Race Card' in Obama-Clinton Showdown

By: Greg Mitchell (Commentary) After the surprising results on the Democratic side in New Hampshire, race and gender politics have really come to the fore in the media and even, at times, on the campaign trail.

HIllary Clinton, on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, continued to hit The New York Times' version of her remarks about the relative roles of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson in passing civil rights legislation. Tim Russert opened the show by reading from The State, South Carolina?s largest paper, which reported yesterday: ?Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. ? all from people associated with Hillary Clinton?s presidential campaign ? have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.?

Clinton replied: "Beats me, because there?s not one shred of truth in what you?ve just read."

The New York Times carried yet another article about the dispute today, and the same paper, at the top of the front page of its Week in Review section, carried huge side-by-side photos of iconic 19th century women's rights and black rights leaders.

John Judis, meanwhile, is out with a piece at The New Republic's web site attempting to debunk the notion that even a small part of the reason for the Obama loss in New Hampshire might be attributed to certain whites telling pollsters one thing and then voting differently. He may or may not be right, and everyone eagerly awaits pollster Andrew Kohut's promised look inside the numbers (Kohut has said he thinks there is something to the racial bias theory).

But why do so many pundits, particularly on the left, feel it's ridiculous to suggest that race might still be a key factor when Americans go to the polls?

It would seem that the only way you could claim that there is no race-tinged voting today would be to hold that racism has been completely wiped out in America. Does anyone seriously believe that?

There's no way it could not have been a factor at all in nearly all-white New Hampshire, or everywhere else where (unlike in Iowa and Nevada caucuses) votes are cast in private -- especially with a black man having a real shot at becoming president. It's just a matter of the size of it: very modest or fairly significant? Judis feels -- really, guesses -- it was very modest, at most.

It's fine to say that a flood of women flocked to Hillary's side on the final day, but does anyone really believe only a very few them had a single racist bone in their bodies? Yet Judis writes that the "explosive claim" that more than a few voters in New Hampshire are not ready for a black president "deserves to have been backed up by some kind of evidence."

But what airtight evidence could possibly prove what crucial factors really went into anyone's very private, and no doubt, mixed emotions on Election Day? Balance that against history and logic, which suggests that racial bias is still real, for now, and as such has to play a role.

By the same token, does anyone really believe that some men (or for that, matter, their wives) simply won't vote for a woman as president right now? In fact, the Obama-Clinton "bias" vote may have simply canceled each other out in New Hampshire.

If Hillary makes the finals this fall will anyone then claim that gender bias is a total non-factor? If she loses to, say, McCain by 2% will you really feel that it played no role? I'm glad we've come a long way, baby, but we have a ways to go.
*
To comment (and see more on campaign politics), go to blog.