The LBJ Era Departs

---

---

For many years, I worked in a building that was located along LBJ Freeway here in Dallas.

I worked for an auto loan company, and I often had to call people — customers, dealers — and sometimes those calls required me to give them our mailing address. More than one gave me a questioning response when I told them the street address.

"LBJ stands for Lyndon Baines Johnson," I would tell them. If that produced no knowing response, I elaborated. "He became president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy." That was usually sufficient. The people with whom I spoke were not always old enough to remember Johnson, but they recognized Kennedy's name.

Those conversations always struck me as odd because, when I was a child, everyone knew what LBJ stood for.

I was still quite young when he left the White House. I knew his first name was Lyndon and his last name was Johnson. I had heard him called Lyndon B. Johnson. I'm not sure if I knew exactly what his middle name was, but I had heard plenty of people refer to the president as LBJ.

There always seemed to be footage on the evening news of angry college students marching in protests against the war and chanting things like "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?"

I mean, unless you were deaf, dumb and blind (or, perhaps, just plain Forrest Gump stupid), just about everyone who was alive in those days knew what LBJ stood for!

My father was a college professor, and I knew some of his students. And they not only knew what LBJ stood for, most of them seemed to think LBJ was going to be around forever.

That wasn't true, of course. As I say, he left the presidency in 1969 after choosing not to run for another term; then, in one of those ironic twists of history, he died of a heart attack two days after that term would have ended.

Thus, he proved all those predictions of his immortality to be indisputably wrong in rather short order.

And, one by one, most of the figures from Johnson's administration have left the earthly scene as well. His secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, died last summer, and then today, two more people from the LBJ days — Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and Liz Carpenter, a close aide to both President and Mrs. Johnson for many years — have died.

Udall was 90. Carpenter was 89.

It strikes me as ironic that not one but two people from the Johnson presidency should die within a week of the 45th anniversary of what is arguably the most significant speech that Johnson ever gave.

On March 15, 1965, Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to press for the passage of the Voting Rights Act about a week after the infamous "Bloody Sunday" confrontation in Selma, Ala., during the first Selma–to–Montgomery voting rights march.

---

---

He adopted a line from the protest song that had become synonymous with the civil rights movement as he took a stand against discrimination in the most public way that a president can. On that evening, Johnson said, "Their cause must be our cause, too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome."

My mother was active in the Human Relations Council in my hometown in Arkansas when I was growing up, and I know from speaking with many of the black members in those days that they were deeply moved and inspired to hear the president of the United States use a phrase that was so closely linked to "the struggle," as they called it. That was one of the last things that most of them had ever expected to see in their lifetimes.

---

---

Language has power. It isn't always how much you know but how you express it that makes the impression. And, in Johnson's case, what he knew (which was the moral and ethical thing to do) and the best way to express it came together at a crossroads in American history.

There is no denying that there was plenty of deception and trickery from the Johnson administration when it came to its policy on Vietnam. But, on March 15, 1965, he spoke to — and, perhaps, with the assistance of — what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."

It may have been the shining moment of Johnson's life and presidency.

The Politics of Race

---

---

I am astonished that Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't — or won't — see how much things have changed in America. After all, much has happened in his lifetime. Yet, he proclaims that America "does not differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago."

Sounds like a cue for one of Seth Meyers' "Really!?!" segments on "Saturday Night Live."

Holder was a child during the 1950s, when the participants in the civil rights movement were protesting the segregation of public schools, public transportation and public facilities, when progressive-minded Americans of all races were taking part in lunch counter "sit-ins" and the "Freedom Rides."

He celebrated his 10th birthday the day after John F. Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic president, and he holds his current position because he was nominated by the nation's first black president — who was elected in a campaign that was as free of the influence of racial prejudice as I could have imagined even a short time ago.

I have no doubt that some people (both black and white) cast their votes last November strictly on the basis of race. But I believe they were a distinct minority. Most people decided how to vote based on the issues that were discussed and the ideas that were expressed.

When Holder was a child — even when he was a teenager — a Barack Obama could not even vote in many places in the United States, much less dream of being nominated for president. How can Holder not see a difference between 1959 and 2009?

Today, at a time when millions of Americans of all colors are suffering in a cruel recession that often seems to have no end, Holder expresses displeasure because of "social segregation." He conveniently overlooks the fact that blacks and whites work together in harmony, sit next to each other in movie theaters and restaurants, stand in the same lines to vote and apply for unemployment benefits.

And Holder can't see how much things have changed? I can. I grew up in the South. When I enrolled in first grade in 1966 (Holder would have been 15 by that time), it was the first year that the public schools in my hometown were integrated — yet, as I recall, integration was achieved peacefully.

I can remember, as a small child, going to movies when the theater in my hometown was still segregated and blacks were ushered in to a designated section of the balcony through a rear entrance. I don't recall when that changed, but that, too, was accomplished without much fanfare, as was the desegregation of just about every other public building and privately owned business in town.

It's been many years since I lived in my hometown, so I don't know if any blacks have sought political office there — or if any have been elected. But if it hasn't happened, it will. And any blacks who decide to seek office there would be wise to follow Obama's all-inclusive example.

The very thing that set Obama apart from other blacks who sought major party presidential nominations in the past — the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons — was his expressed desire to be the president of all the people, not just the black Americans. As president, he has continued to embrace Americans of all colors — and, even if he believes that Holder, however misguided Obama may think he is, may have a point about blacks and whites not socializing together, Obama understands that now is not the time to chastise them for it.

There are, as my grandfather liked to say, bigger fish to fry.

I'm sorry if Holder doesn't think blacks and whites attend the same parties often enough or that enough of them have an after-hours beer together. But, as a lawyer, he should understand that the law can't legislate social behavior — and that such a change will take time to achieve.

America is a work in progress. More work undoubtedly remains — and not only in race relations. But, even if Holder does not acknowledge it, a lot of work has already been done.

Lincoln — the Myth and the Man

---

---

Chris Wehner had an intriguing post in his "Blog 4 History: American & Civil War History" blog recently — "Lincoln a Racist? What, You're Kidding Me!!"

In it, he quotes an article by Henry Louis Gates Jr., an author and professor of African-American studies at Harvard — "Was Lincoln a Racist?"

This is a subject on which I touched last month, when I posted an article following Barack Obama's inauguration as president.

In my post, which I gave the heading "The Great Emancipator," I pointed out that Lincoln did not enter the presidency with the objective of ending slavery. In his inaugural address, Lincoln clearly stated that his goal was to keep the nation together and that there was no reason for the people of the South to be apprehensive about his presidency.

He cited his own speeches prior to his election as proof of his intentions.

In his article, Gates recalled reading a "troubling" essay by W.E.B. Du Bois that had been published in 1922. "Du Bois wrote that Lincoln was one huge jumble of contradictions: 'he was big enough to be inconsistent — cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man — a big, inconsistent, brave man.' "

Du Bois, wrote Gates, supported his point by quoting from a speech Lincoln gave two years before being elected president:

---

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

---

Thus, Lincoln has become the source of great conflict for many black Americans. Gates writes about accepting two years ago an assignment to co-produce, write and host a PBS program on Lincoln that would coincide with the 200th anniversary of his birth this week.

That program, "Looking for Lincoln," is airing on the Dallas PBS channel tonight from 8-10 p.m. It may be airing at a different time and on a different date in your city and state.

I think Gates had at least an idea of what he would find.

"Lincoln's myth is so capacious that each generation of Americans since his death in 1865 has been able to find its own image reflected in his mirror," Gates wrote.

"Lincoln is America's man for all seasons, and our man for all reasons. In fact, over and over again through the past century and a half, we Americans have reinvented Abraham Lincoln in order to reinvent ourselves. The most recent example, of course, is captured in the journey of our 44th president, Barack Obama, who launched his presidential campaign in Lincoln's hometown, Springfield, Ill., cited Lincoln's oratory repeatedly throughout his campaign, retraced his train route to Washington from Philadelphia and even used Lincoln's Bible for his swearing-in ceremony."

That is as honest an appraisal of Lincoln as you will find — and it seems particularly poignant coming, as it does, from a black man.

Many Americans — black and white — have seen in Lincoln what they wanted to see, but perhaps it is most pronounced in the black community.

"Lincoln continues to occupy a place of almost holy reverence" among blacks, Gates wrote, "the patron saint of race relations."

But Gates observes that "until very late in his presidency, Lincoln was deeply conflicted about whether to liberate the slaves, how to liberate the slaves and what to do with them once they had been liberated."

So it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the search for the "real" Lincoln continues, nearly 145 years after his death.

Lincoln was a man. He was a good man, perhaps, more generous than most. He certainly was more eloquent than many. But he wasn't blessed with gifts of prescience or insight that are unavailable to other mortal men.

Lincoln lived in the 19th century. And, no matter what 21st century people think of slavery, it was not seen as a moral issue but as an economic issue in the 19th century.

Whatever his views were on any issue, though, Lincoln did keep an open mind. And, as Gates points out, his attitudes and beliefs about blacks changed in part after meeting Frederick Douglass at the White House. "He was the first black person Lincoln treated as an intellectual equal," Gates observes, "and he grew to admire him and value his opinion."

Lincoln's life was emblematic of the nation he led. America remains, as it was in the 19th century, a work in progress. It is a better place because Lincoln was its president. But neither the man nor the country have achieved perfection, regardless of the mythical reverence with which some insist upon regarding both.

As Gates observes, Lincoln's "journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died," and America's journey is not complete today.

It is fitting that the nation should honor Lincoln tomorrow on the 200th anniversary of his birth. But the most fitting tribute that can be paid to our 16th president is to continue the quest for improvement.

Perceptions of Race, Politics

I don't suppose it will come as a surprise to anyone, but Adam Nagourney writes, in the New York Times, that a recent New York Times/CBS News poll finds that there are differences in the way that blacks and whites perceive racial relations in America.

And those differences are spilling over into the presidential race.

For example ...

"More than 80% of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama," writes Nagourney. "About 30% of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him."

Nagourney concedes that "[a]fter years of growing political polarization, much of the divide in American politics is partisan," but it also "underlined the racial discord that the poll found."

The respondents to the survey found some common ground but not much, Nagourney reports. "Black and white Americans agree that America is ready to elect a black president, but disagree on almost every other question about race in the poll."

One of the most interesting findings was this: "Whites were more likely than blacks to say that Mr. Obama says what he thinks people want to hear, rather than what he truly believes."

The flip side of that issue may be found in responses Nagourney received from white Democrats who tried to frame their differences with Obama in a non-racial light.

"This isn’t a black and white thing," a 69-year-old Pennsylvania Democrat said. "If a conservative African-American like former Congressman J. C. Watts was running, I’d have bumper stickers plastered all over my car supporting him."

Issues should decide the campaign, but it increasingly appears that only one issue — race — is going to be discussed in great detail.

Perhaps it was inevitable, with the first black presidential nominee.

But with all the problems our nation is facing in 2008, do we really want to spend the next three and a half months fighting the Civil War again — more than 140 years after it ended?

Is that the only way to finally exorcise our demons?

The Media Weighs In On Obama's Speech

National Review contributor Victor Davis Hanson says the more praise Barack Obama received from pundits and op-ed writers in the aftermath of last week's speech, "the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.

"The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with (his pastor), nor dared open up a true discussion of race -- which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism."

John Heilemann writes, in New York magazine, that the speech "was pretty much everything one could ever hope for from a presidential candidate on the vexed topic of black and white: nuanced, candid, gutsy, and replete with context." He also writes that it was a "political maneuver" that "did nothing to defuse an issue that Republicans clearly intend to beat him senseless with this fall."

John McCain, of course, would have nothing to lose by using the race issue in a general election campaign against Obama. The black vote is a key component in the battle for the Democratic nomination -- but Republicans never win the black vote in the general election. Historically speaking, black voters will do one of two things this fall, and neither will affect McCain's situation adversely -- black voters will either vote for the Democratic nominee (even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton) or they will not vote at all.

In fact, writes John Harwood in the New York Times, "Feuding Democrats have handed Senator John McCain the gift of time."

(And, obviously, some folks in the media believe McCain should be using that time -- as he may well be -- to give a lot of thought to his running mate selection. Kirk Victor writes, in the National Journal, that the choice for a running mate provides voters "with what is often their first impression of what the presidential nominee really values.")

The thing that's getting all the attention on the Democratic side -- with the next primary still four weeks away -- is Obama's speech. Even -- or, perhaps, especially -- among Republican pundits.

"I shuddered only once while watching Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday," writes Republican pundit/analyst/strategist William Kristol in the New York Times. "The only part of the speech that made me shudder was this sentence: 'But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.'

"As soon as I heard that, I knew what we’d have to endure. I knew that there would be a stampede of editorial boards, columnists and academics rushing not to ignore race."

Well, it's not a "stampede" -- yet. But it's only been a week -- one that included a holiday, which means there has been less time to opine about the speech.

But a week is plenty of time for some people.

"In some ways, Barack Obama's speech on race last week was as brilliant as it was nuanced," writes Gregory Rodriguez in the Los Angeles Times. "But for all its rhetorical beauty, it was also an enormous step backward and, in the end, a rather self-serving call for more discussion about racial grievance in a country that has already done way too much talking. ... The one new thing Obama's speech added to the dialogue was the inclusion of whites to the list of aggrieved (and angry) parties."

Is the race issue going to decide the winner of the election? That remains to be seen.

But, Alison Fitzgerald counsels Democrats, in Bloomberg.com, "rising home foreclosures, shrinking financial assets and gasoline approaching a record $4 a gallon are daily reminders that the U.S. economy may be the worst in almost 30 years."

In effect, Fitzgerald tells Democrats, don't sweat the small stuff when the other party can be blamed for a recession.

"Recessions shaped four presidential elections in the past half-century -- in 1960, 1976, 1980 and 1992. Each time, the candidate from the party trying to retake the White House won. A model that uses economic data to predict presidential race outcomes has the Democrats getting 52% of the votes cast for the two major party candidates."

Pocketbook issues -- that's something everyone can relate to, right?

By The Numbers

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's speech on race -- and the followup interview in which he referred to his white grandmother as a "typical white person" -- it may be helpful to review some of the numbers.

First of all, the thing that is of the most immediate interest to political observers is how things are shaping up in Pennsylvania, site of the next presidential primary on April 22.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, which was completed a couple of days before Obama's speech, Hillary Clinton was leading Obama in Pennsylvania, 56% to 30%.

The margin was closer in a poll conducted jointly by Franklin & Marshall College/Philadelphia Daily News/WGAL TV/Pittsburgh Tribune Review/WTAE TV/Times Shamrock Newspapers, which was also completed a couple of days before the speech, but Clinton was the leader in that one as well, 51% to 35%.

Quinnipiac University reported an even closer margin, 53% to 41% -- still in Clinton's favor. Once again, that survey was completed before Obama's speech.

I have found no survey results from polls that were conducted after the speech or the interview -- yet. We'll probably start seeing those numbers this week.

To put things into a more appropriate context, Pennsylvania's racial makeup is about 84% white, just under 10% black.

That racial deficit didn't necessarily work against Obama in previous primaries -- but all of the previous primaries were held before the airing of clips of his pastor's hate-filled remarks, Obama's speech or his followup interview. One can only speculate about what sort of impact they might have had on earlier contests.

On average, Clinton has been receiving 53% of white votes, Obama has been receiving 39%.

In case you're interested, Obama also has been losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton in most states, 58% to 39%. Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, but Hispanics historically do not vote in large numbers, even in places where they represent a fairly large portion of the population. Many have been participating in the primaries this year, but it remains to be seen if that activism continues into the general election.

In some of the states with larger ethnic populations (i.e., California), Obama has more than made up for lost white votes by receiving huge majorities among black voters. His advantage among black voters has been consistently high, 80% to 17% on average.

But if he starts losing white votes by the same margin -- or close to it -- with which he has been winning black votes, the simple math suggests that his campaign could be in trouble.

We've been hearing for weeks that the only way Clinton can capture the nomination is to start winning primaries with the support of more than two-thirds of the voters.

We're about a month away from the Pennsylvania primary. In that time, Obama has to assess the damage that's been done to his image in the white community and find a way to correct it.

If he succeeds, the nomination will be his for the taking. But that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the general election.

Please Define 'Typical White Person'

I admit it. I was at work Tuesday. I didn't see Barack Obama's speech on race.

And I was at work Thursday, which apparently is when an interview with Obama was aired.

But I heard clips from both on the radio as I was driving home. And then I saw clips on TV at night.

I don't have the advantage of having seen or heard the speech or the interview in their entirety. And that may or may not affect my opinion of what was said or the context in which it was said.

But Obama, who apparently referred to his white grandmother in his speech and spoke about her suspicions of blacks, seems to have dismissed her reaction as that of a "typical white person."

A couple of questions here ...

First, what is a typical white person, anyway?

I grew up in the South. In my early years, segregation was stil the law of the land in the South. In my native Arkansas, I have vivid memories of going to the only movie theater in my hometown and seeing blacks being herded into one specific section of the balcony.

(I have a specific memory of going with my parents to see the classic film "How the West Was Won," which was completed in 1962 but didn't make it to my hometown theater for a couple of years -- things were different in those days and theaters in small towns weren't high on the list for distributors. And I recall seeing black patrons being crammed into a rather small section of the balcony. Although there were plenty of unoccupied seats elsewhere in the theater, the management brought in some folding chairs for blacks to sit in once that section of the balcony was filled. Either the law or social convention -- or both -- prevented the management from allowing any blacks to sit in the "white" section of the theater.)

And when I enrolled in school in the mid-1960s, public schools were integrated in my hometown for the very first time. So when my class graduated from high school in 1978, ours was the first class in my hometown's history to be integrated from first grade through high school.

The Democratic Party, which Obama now wants to represent as the presidential nominee, in Arkansas in 1966 was still filled with segregationists -- although not exclusively -- and Arkansas' Democrats had nominated a staunch segregationist for governor that year who just happened to live a few miles down the road from my home. I well remember the first day of school, when the media representatives of the day were on hand to photograph the gubernatorial candidate's twin sons being enrolled in an integrated elementary school.

My parents were Democrats, but they chose not to support their neighbor and fellow Democrat, mostly on the issue of segregation. And they joined with other like-minded Democrats in Arkansas who helped elect the state's first Republican governor since Reconstruction, Winthrop Rockefeller.

When Arkansas' Democrats got around to nominating a more moderate candidate for governor -- Dale Bumpers -- in 1970, my parents supported him.

Who were the typical white people in Arkansas in those days, Sen. Obama? Were they the segregationists, like our neighbor who unsuccessfully sought to be governor? Or were they my parents and those who thought as they did?

I'm sorry, but that phrase "typical white person" rubs me the wrong way. And I find it difficult to imagine a white politician using the phrase "typical black person" and not being chastised severely for it.

Or, considering who Obama's competition is for the Democratic nomination, can you imagine the reaction if Obama had used the phrase "typical white woman" in referring to his grandmother?

Daniel Nasaw and Ewen MacAskill write, in the Guardian, that other white voters are equally offended by what they've heard.

"The danger for Obama is not just that he could lose badly in Pennsylvania but that senior Democrats will wonder whether the loss of white votes could cost him the November general election," write Nasaw and MacAskill. "A theme that emerges from the bars and diners of white Philadelphia is suspicion that Obama's failure to disown (his pastor) and his presence in his church for almost two decades suggests that he himself is secretly resentful towards white people."

A black cook reportedly told the Guardian that Obama's pastor's comments reflect "the way we think, as a people. It may be a big thing to the white race, but you know, these things happened to us. All these things that he's talking about happened to us."

That brings me to my next point. Obama's skin color may be the same as many of the people who are voting for him, but his ancestors' experiences are not. Obama's black father was from Kenya, which is in eastern Africa. Most of the blacks in America were descended from west Africans.

It's simply a fact that, when slave traders came to Africa looking for slaves to take back to the new world in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, they didn't go on time-consuming -- and profit-consuming -- trips across the entire African continent looking for them. They took what was convenient to take, and that was Africans on the western side of the continent.

I'll admit, it's possible that there were isolated incidents of east Africans who were enslaved on the eastern side of the continent and wound up being sold on the western side later on. But that group would be a relatively small part of the overall slave population.

But even if the traders had habitually gone all the way across Africa to Kenya looking for slaves, Obama's ancestors were not among them. His father was born and raised in Kenya. To my knowledge, none of Obama's ancestors ever spent a day in captivity. Certainly his father didn't. He was educated at Harvard and returned to his native country, where he was a successful politician until his death in 1982.

So when a black cook in Philadelphia tells the Guardian that Obama's pastor was speaking of things that "happened to us," he's not speaking of things that happened to Obama's ancestors. Or, necessarily, to Obama himself.

One of my favorite films of all time is "Being There" starring Peter Sellers. Sellers plays a well-meaning but naive, childlike person who has lived his entire life in a private home and finds himself cast into an unfamiliar world when the "old man" who owns the home dies.

Sellers' character is so naive that he has no comprehension of what has happened when Louise, the black housekeeper, tells him the news. Yet he manages to stumble his way into the seat of power and becomes the focus of cultlike attention when those around him believe he tells them what they want to believe that he tells them. In the end, he is being considered for the presidential nomination -- even though, as a gardener, everything he says is about plants and seasonal growth cycles.

I've mentioned this film before because it represented to me the kind of cult that I believe has been forming around Obama for quite some time. But I've been thinking about something else in the film that seems particularly appropriate now.

At one point in the film, Louise is shown watching Sellers' character on TV. He's being interviewed on a Tonight Show type of program that has everyone, including the president, riveted to their TV sets, and Louise observes, to her companions, "It's for sure a white man's world in America. ... All you gotta be is white in America to get whatever you want."

Is that an example of "the way we think," as the cook from Philadelphia puts it? If it is, it doesn't show much understanding of the history of this country.

By that logic, every white person in America has his/her dreams fulfilled simply by virtue of race. But the reality is that nearly every white person I know has unfulfilled dreams -- whether those dreams are to be rich and successful or to have the ideal love relationship.

And what I've heard from Obama is unconvincing even in defense of his freedom of religion.

I can't claim to be a frequent churchgoer. I believe it is my right as an American to attend or not attend church, as I see fit, and I believe it is the right of every American to attend the church or synagogue or mosque or whatever of his or her choice.

In America, no one is or should be compelled to attend any house of worship he or she does not choose to attend.

Barack Obama has attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. And, from what I've read and heard in the last several days, there are numerous recordings of Rev. Wright's hateful, racist comments from many different days and months and years, enough to know that Obama's pastor's remarks were not isolated incidents. They happened all the time.

If one does not agree with the remarks one's pastor frequently makes, one has a few options if the person is a man of consicence. Initially, he may express his concerns directly to the pastor. Since Obama portrays himself as the agent of change, bringing about a change in racial attitudes in his pastor and his church would demonstrate profoundly what he is capable of. Did Obama make such efforts in his church? If he did, what was the result of his efforts?

I think it's reasonable for voters to ask that question. Everyone, including Obama, has acknowledged that he doesn't have much experience, and that's how voters tend to assess a candidate for president. In the absence of experience, Obama has sought to assure voters of his commitment to bringing about change.

Was there a change in his pastor or church? Well, I see no evidence of a change. True, the pastor is retired now. But the church publishes a magazine that honors recipients who are deemed worthy with awards. Such an award -- which bears the pastor's name -- was given to Louis Farrakhan. Obama has never disavowed the magazine or the award -- or Farrakhan.

If a congregant is unsuccessful at bringing a change in the church, he may choose not to attend that pastor's services anymore. If he is truly a man of faith, he will seek out a house of worship in which he is more comfortable.

If he agrees with what his pastor says or if he has no conscience, he will stay where he is. Obama stayed where he was.

The recordings of Rev. Wright's rantings against America play against the American need for a president who at least seems patriotic.

"It is already easy to imagine the Republican attack ads against Barack Obama," writes Sheldon Alberts for National Post.

The scenario isn't too hard to picture in one's mind. It's as if the ad has already been put together and is just waiting for the right time to be aired:

"They open with video of his wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America 'for the first time in my adult lifetime' because of her husband's presidential candidacy. Cut to the Illinois senator explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it is a 'substitute for true patriotism.' Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a 'typical white person' because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people.

"Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting 'God Damn America' to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Game, set, election, John McCain."

I've heard a lot of people in the media in recent days applauding Obama for speaking courageously about the race issue. I don't think he spoke so much from courage as from political necessity. As the first black who has a realistic chance of winning a major party's nomination for president in a nation that once legally condoned slavery, it was inevitable that race would need to be addressed.

But confronting racism requires more from Obama -- who is, after all, as much white as he is black -- than stereotyping his grandmother as a "typical white person" while applying no such racial label to anyone -- his pastor, for example -- who is black.

If Obama is going to be a true spark for change, and if he wants some of that change to come in the area of race relations, he cannot frame discussions in an "us vs. them" way -- even if that is more implied than overtly expressed. His words this week did not suggest unity to many white listeners.

Because (as he surely must be aware by now), if Obama becomes the first president with dark skin, as much attention will be paid to what his words may or may not be suggesting as will be paid to the words themselves.

Whatever their traditional definitions may be.

Race and Politics in America

Today is primary day in Michigan. Unfortunately, only the Republicans are holding a meaningful primary. Because of intraparty squabbles, Barack Obama and John Edwards are not on the Democratic ballot, so Hillary Clinton appears likely to finish first in a highly diluted field.

The next meaningful battle for the Democrats will occur this weekend. While Republicans are holding the South Carolina primary on Saturday, Democrats will be looking for delegates in Nevada. With nearly 20% of its population Hispanic, Nevada has far greater ethnic diversity than either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Democrats in South Carolina (where nearly 30% of the population is black) will hold their primary on Jan. 26.

That, combined with the observance of Martin Luther King's birthday next Monday (his actual birthday is today), practically guaranteed that the emphasis in the campaign would shift from gender to race in mid-January. And so it has.

The Washington Post has devoted much space on its web site to the discussion of race and politics.

Joseph Califano, once secretary of the now defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare under President Carter, says in today's Washington Post that it took the partnership of King and Lyndon Johnson to make civil rights advances a reality in this country.

"That's an example the presidential candidates and civil rights leaders of 2008 would be wise to follow," writes Califano, who was special assistant for domestic affairs in Johnson's administration.

But not all the articles about race and politics strike such a positive note as Califano's. Some raise some troubling questions.

Take, for example, Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post.

Cohen observes that Barack Obama's church in Chicago is Trinity United Church of Christ. A magazine that was launched by the church gives out awards annually to worthy recipients. Last year, it gave one such award to Louis Farrakhan, and it said he "truly epitomized greatness."

Cohen points out that the daughters of the church's minister serve as publisher and executive editor of the magazine.

That opens up a hornet's nest of issues.

Farrakhan has been responsible for a "rancid stew of lies," Cohen says, particularly about Jews, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Cohen acknowledges that he does not believe Obama shares Farrakhan's views. But Obama has declined to criticize the award because it was given to Farrakhan by the magazine, not by the church that started the magazine.

"This is a distinction without much of a difference," writes Cohen. "And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"

Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer write in the New York Times about the Obama-Clinton battle for Hispanic voters in Nevada. Historically, there has been "tension" between blacks and Latinos, and even though Obama has been campaigning in a race-neutral way, they write, race clearly will be a factor when Latinos go to the caucuses in Nevada -- and the polls in other states.

The Hispanic vote could be even more important in the next three weeks, when primaries will be held in California, Florida, New Mexico and Arizona. And the black vote will be a factor in Southern primaries like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee.

Neither race nor gender has ever been as important in evaluating candidates as both are in 2008. It's an unpleasant, although unavoidable, fact of life in a campaign that has the first serious female and black candidates for a presidential nomination.

And it's good for our culture to exorcise these demons -- if only so the next woman or person of color to run for president truly can campaign above the restrictive natures of gender and race.

In his column, Cohen concludes, "The rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle."

That is the kind of question a presidential campaign is supposed to answer. There are questions that can only be answered under crisis conditions in the crucible of the presidency. But some questions about character can be answered while voters are still making up their minds.

In the coming weeks and months, we'll see how well this campaign answers questions about race and gender and the characters of the leading candidates.

I hope we get the answers we need to make the right decision.

The Politics of Race

A Huffington Post forum raises some interesting points about white men and their role in American politics.

It seems to be politically incorrect to discuss white men and their issues, even though we welcome discussions about the needs of women and blacks and Hispanics, and they are, to be sure, important voting blocs that each candidate must consider. Few people seem to mention white men, yet they represent a clearly significant bloc of the electorate.

Whites still make up about 80% of the population, as Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation observes, and that makes white men close to half of the voting population. Based on that alone, Vanden Heuvel and I agree that a candidate ignores this group at his/her peril.

I'm a member of that group. And I've seen more and more white men turn from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in the last three or four decades, particularly here in my native South. White men, who once formed the backbone of a coalition of voters who elected Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, haven't given a majority of their votes to a Democrat since Jimmy Carter's successful bid for the White House in 1976. Four years later, they began to move in the direction of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, and there most of them have remained.

There are many reasons, and winning them back will have to be an incremental achievement. As forum member David Paul Kuhn of The Politico says, Democrats need to "be pragmatic instead of dogmatic." Even a small gain can mean dramatic results. Kuhn points out that John Kerry could have won the 2004 election if he had merely narrowed his deficit among white men.

Thomas Schaller, from the political science department at the University of Maryland, doesn't think white men are a significant group. Maybe it seems that way in Maryland, where the governor, both senators and six of the eight House members are Democrats (and two members of the House delegation are black). Not to mention the fact that 55% of the registered voters in Maryland are Democrats and nearly 28% of its population is black.

But I'd like to hear how he explains the shift here in the South. When I was growing up, Democrats held most Senate and House seats from Southern states, and most governors were Democrats -- in fact, winning a Democratic primary was the equivalent of being elected in most races.

But, following the quixotic campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the emergence of the "silent majority" to which Richard Nixon appealed in 1968 and the "states' rights" speech Ronald Reagan gave in Mississippi in 1980, white men gravitated to the Republicans and have been responsible for the GOP's victories in seven of the last 10 presidential elections.

And Republicans have captured most of the Senate and House seats in the South as well.

Michael Lux, CEO of Progressive Strategies, makes a worthwhile point when he says that Democrats should be asking themselves two questions about white men: "(1) [A]re there some sub-groups within that demographic that are base-voting Dems that need to be identified and turned out to vote?; and (2) are there swing voters to be found within that demographic?" Lux contends the answer to both questions is yes.

It's an important discussion, and it holds the key to success next year. Unless the Democrats can stop the bleeding, they will never regain even a sliver of the support they've lost.