Without A Clue

Gwen Ifill of PBS on the May 25, 2008 edition of Meet The Press:

And the other thing those numbers kind of explode is the notion that black voters were always on board for the black candidate out of race pride. Black voters got on board for Barack Obama after it looked like he could win. It was really very simple, and it was pretty much the same. Maybe there was some race pride that kicked in later, but in all of the analysis, we, we tend to say, "Oh, well, we know black voters were always going to vote for Barack Obama," and that's not--just not true.

So before the very first vote- Iowa- of the campaign season, black voters, doubtful that a black person could be elected president of the United States of America, preferred the wife of "the first black President." Then when Obama won the Iowa caucus- remember, the first vote of the campaign- and the black candidate was on a par with the white candidate(s) with both having a chance to win, blacks began to rally around Barack Obama. And for Gwen Ifill, this means what- that this "kind of explode(s) the notion that black voters (acted) out of race pride?" Does this make any kind of sense? Obviously not. It would be better to argue that, yes, blacks have been voting for a qualified, viable black candidate partly because he is black and, given the context of America's racial past, that is understandable. Except.... then with the majority of white voters passing over Obama in favor of Hillary Clinton, it would be tough to accuse these individuals of racism. And we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

Race Matters

Would someone tell Gwen Ifill that most black voters are not racists?

Appearing this past Sunday, April 26, 2008, on NBC's Meet The Press, PBS' Gwen Ifill, after sympathisizing with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, stated

But what the, the numbers have shown us, the exit polls have shown us in the last week is that what we don't want to talk about is racism, which is, I think, a, a, a real issue. The people who said they--that race mattered to them, a lot of them voted for Hillary Clinton. I'm not calling the voters racists, but I think, at some point, we have to get back to a word that we're very scared of using in our society, which is the reason why people vote against someone because of their race is not a positive reason, it's a negative, and racism is a negative quality.

To summarize, Ifill says: A lot of people to whom race mattered voted for Clinton. I'm not calling them racists but people voting against someone because of race is a negative and racism is a negative quality.

Now, here are the results by percentage and race (black and non-Hispanic white only, so as not to complicate the issue) in a few Democratic primaries, as indicated by NBC exit polls (not all add to 100%):

New Jersey: whites: Clinton 66, Obama 31; blacks: Clinton 14, Obama 82
Mississippi: whites: Clinton 70, Obama 26; blacks: Clinton 8, Obama 92
Ohio: whites: Clinton 64, Obama 34; blacks: Clinton 13, Obama 87
Pennsylvania: whites: Clinton 63, Obama 37; blacks: Clinton 10, Obama 90

Bloc voting clearly has been more common among blacks and apparently race has played a part in the overwhelming majority of blacks voting for Obama. Therefore, if among people who said "that race mattered to them, a lot of them voted for Hillary Clinton," I think we can conclude that among people who said that race mattered to them, a lot of people voted for Obama. But I believe that most of these voters are not racist, yet Ifill cites strong white support for Clinton as suggestive of racism. I suppose, then, that Ifill believes that strong- no, overwhelming- black support for Obama suggests racism.... except she doesn't say that. So does this prominent journalist believe that Obama's support among blacks can be attributed to racism (I don't)- or is she a firm believer in double standards?