Hello everyone! Welcome to the interactive, electronic portion of the Contexts 'social significance of Obama' roundtable exchange. Hopefully you've had a chance to look through each other's initial statements, and seen a sampling of the range of opinions and ideas on this historic candidacy and potential presidency.

Our idea/goal now is to pose a series of questions and topics (i'll update every day or so over the coming week) that will allow each of you to draw out your ideas as well as sharpen and extend them in comparison and contrast with those of others on the panel. So feel free to respond to the question or each other as appropriate, and with the help of our Contexts board I'll try to keep the discussion both orderly and productive.

Keep in mind that our goal is to be able to edit this into an "exchange" feature for the print publication and eventually open it up for others to give input on the website. So with those high hopes and not a little fear and trepidation on my part, here goes:

When we first put out the call for this roundtable, we got a number of prospective responses that were quite critical and pessimistic, far more so than we might have expected given both the popular and intellectual enthusiasm for the Obama campaign. Some of the statements we've assembled still reflect that orientation. Why do you think this is/was? And what does it say or suggest about sociologists and their orientation to politics, American society, and/or social change more broadly?

Wow. It looks like I got a little singed coming out of the gate: I am probably one of those closer to the “cynical about Obama” position ;). That being the case, I’m happy to go forth as the sacrificial lamb and throw my hat into the ring first…

One obvious explanation for all the progressive hand-wringing about Obama might be the nature of our field, which places a high premium on non-intuitive positions at the expense of those that are more straightforward and simpler (and perhaps also fit the facts more closely). In some ways that can be good, but there may also be lesson here about the undue premium sociologist place on being provocative.

That said, I think that there is also something particular about the Obama campaign that draws out cynicism. In doing my fieldwork, I have been consistently struck by the fact that Obama’s candidacy symbolized something completely different for many of my informants in Iowa and for some of my progressively-minded collogues back at the university (so I agree with Eduardo – my fellow cynic – on his 5th point). Part of this may be a time issue: 30 years ago, I am sure that nearly everyone in the U.S. would have understood Obama’s success similarly to his more progressive supporters today (i.e. as a victory for historically marginalized groups). But that is neither how many of Obama’s other supporters seemed to understand his campaign nor do I think Obama would have been as successful if he had been universally understood this way.

I think that this differential signification of the Obama campaign says something fundamental about our time; if we chalk Obama’s success up to a progressive shift in the electorate (i.e. in the way many of us and our collogues understand progressivism) we might miss an important piece of a developing story. So for me, taking the cynic position on Obama is primarily a way of flushing out and exploring this differential signification (although there are other reasons why I think his candidacy will both hinder and further traditional New Deal type causes). Perhaps my robust cohort of fellow cynics has sensed a similar tension surrounding the Obama campaign.

My reaction to Obama reflects my background as a sociologist of color from the Caribbean as well as a person who has been involved in left-wing politics for almost thirty years. I have seen many black politicians in the Caribbean not deliver on their promises once they reach the post of Premier, Governor, or President. The best predictors for this outcome, in my view, are leaders who are wishy-washy, not clearly connected to social movements, and who in the course of their electoral campaign, “compromise” on almost anything to get elected. That has helped me, as most folks in the Caribbean, to develope a healthy skecticism on all minstream politicians and realize that leaders must be, paraphrasing Dr. King, "judged by the content of their politics and not by the color of their skin."

But I realize that for Americans, Obama and his promise seems like a unique moment in their history. They have never seen or experienced something like this. Hence, few dare break the spell and question things. But I am particularly distraught by progressive folks who, presumably, should know better. They seem caught in the Obama craze, too (and, of course, we are social beings and, as such, not immune to social currents). Too many of us accept the silly notion that Wall Street folks are supporting Obama as individuals rather than reflecting their class interests? Few of us challenge Obama's reactionary stand on FISA, "personal responsibility," gun control, the death penalty, or his faith-based initiative. And how come we are not saying anything about Obama’s imperialist call for expanding the size of the military by 100,000 and to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan (and I hope his advisors talk to folks from the former Soviet Union to get a sense of how easy is to fight Afghanis and their allies)?

Americans, particularly blacks, progressives, and people of color, will be sorely disappointed once the spell is broken, once the craze subsides, once we we all realize that Reverend Wright was right when he said that Obama was a politician. Then the fuzzy and disarticulated American Left will either drown in hopelessness (assisted by Dr. Johnnie Walker or massive does of Chardonnay) or wake up from its 30 year-long political depression--and this is my audacious hope--and get back to the business or organizing and collaborating with various social movements so that in 2012 it does not face once again its self-imposed dilemma of having to choose among the lesser of two evils.

I am a bit surprised that I am the only one of the commentators who raises the question of Senator Obama's electability. This seems to be the first question to ask about this odd election. I think he only has a remote chance to be elected, in spite of an as yet weak campaign by McCain. McCain is only behind about six percent in the polls (about 52-48 if you exclude undecideds, who probably lean to McCain as a group). And we know from research that Eduardo and I and others have done, such as in our Two Faced Racism book on 626 white college students, that numerous whites misrepresent (that is, lie about) their racial views in surveys. That white inclination likely means that McCain is doing better , maybe much better, than the polls indicate now.

I also expect the 527 Republican groups to start attacking Obama in a few weeks and insistently raising a variety of issues that play into that centuries old white racial frame, including renewed Muslim, Wright, Rezco/criminality, and "inexperienced" type attacks. Obama also has some other skeletons in his closet yet to be revealed. I expect a substantial majority of whites to vote for a white war hero, unless McCain has serious health problems or loses it in a big temper tantrum. This election is McCain's to lose in spite of all the media hype about Obama and close horse race discussions.

Hasn't anybody in the media talked with working class and middle class whites lately, privately over a beer, about how they really feel about a Black man as president? My experience with this white reaction to Blacks in authority in interviews is not encouraging, to put it mildly.

Thanks to those who took the bait and got us started. All points well taken. But I guess i want/need to push a bit harder before we move on.

I keep thinking about the various "potentials" Jeff sees for Obama to be a transformative figure, even just in terms of overturning the worst excesses of the Bush administration; or about Gianpaolo's points about his international significance and holding the mirror up to other societies on race.

Is our sociological skepticism about Obama or about American society and the difficulty of social change in general? Perhaps to put it somewhat differently and more provocatively: Is there any campaign or candidate who/that wouldn't be subject to some of the issues and critiques that have been raised? And if not, why not pay more attention to the positives, the potentials that others see?

On that note, I think that we should not overlook another positive in the discussion: Obama is running an incredible campaign. Even those cynical about Obama could probably find some silver lining here.

One measure we could look at is campaign offices. Obama has more campaign offices in swing states like Ohio now that either Kerry or Gore ever had (and more than McCain is planning to have). He has also expanded into traditionally red states: twenty offices in Virginia and multiple ones in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Texas, the Dakotas, Montana, and even Alaska – all of these are places that have seen few if any paid Democratic staffer during election time and where McCain has established very little campaign infrastructure.

This is an extremely significant development in the US context, because our political parties have traditionally been very week – non-existent really – vis-à-vis other nations. In some ways, the party is re-constituted every 4 years during the presidential election. For example, in the cities where I conducted fieldwork (about 100k people, in a swing state) the DNC maintains one part-time paid staffer. By comparison, the Obama campaign has already sent over a dozen full time staffers to each city and some say more are coming. My informants on the ground tell me that these staffers work well with locals and are willing to canvass for local, state, and other federal races (this is a stark contrast to both Kerry and Gore staffers, which had a reputation for operating independently from local party activists). As I see it, this will have three important consequences:

1) Obama is more likely to win. More staffers = lots of new voters registered, lots of absentee ballots handed out and an effective get out the vote operation around election day. (Full disclosure: I agree with Joe Feagin that Obama will have some problems, especially with older working class voters. However, at present I think that he will still win the election, potentially by a healthy margin.).

2) Democrats running for all levels of government are more likely to win, especially given that Obama staffers are willing to canvass for them.

3) Obama is building up a lot of good will among both grassroots activists and Democratic elected officials in traditional red states. If Obama wins the election, he will enter the white house with considerable political capital, which could be used to leverage controversial initiatives.

So here is the kicker then: One would indeed think that progressives should be licking their chops over not only a landslide victory for the Democratic candidate, but also a sound springboard for sweeping change in public policy. Yet I am left wondering: “ok, so maybe Obama wins – but to what end?”. What would a sweeping change in (progressive) public policy even look like? At present, it seems as though mainstream “progressive” politics consists of not messing anything up too badly on the national level and fostering economic development at the local level.

Personally, I view this situation in the context of Theda Skocpol’s discussion about structural isomorphism, or the importance of having groups that are organized on a local, state and national level to exert pressure for change (e.g. as was once more the case with the labor unions in the US). This seems close to Eduardo B-S point about the importance of connection between campaigns and social movements (although I might ask: in a country as large and complicated as the US, what would such a movement look like? Do you think this kind of thing has happened in the past in the US and/or do you think there any issues that could spawn movements of this type today?).

So I guess my answer would have to be “no, I would personally not place much stock in the transformative potential of any progressive candidate today”. Or, to return provocatively to Jeff’s point: “how much difference can one person really make?” ;).

I think Doug is pointing to something important when he speaks of "professional cynicism" of sociologists vis a vis the Obama campaign, but I think we can qualify the proposition about the profession a bit. Sociologists are not cynical about lots of things - many many sociologists use concepts like social capital, integration, american civil religion, and a litany of others that speak implicity or explicitly to the virtues of u.s. american society. Sociologists are also generally positive about the social movements they write about, for example. To borrow a point of Burawoy's: in contrast to continental or Latin American sociology, for example, in the us sociology had its origins in civil society itself and it has always positioned itself in contrast to the state and as a critic of involvement with the polluting influence of the state. While political scientists might write about the virtues of federalism or constitutionalism, they bring a cynicism toward social movements. To my mind very many sociological arguments follow the tropes set out in something like Piven and Clowards' Poor People's movements - institutionalization ruins the purity of voluntary mobilization. If you look across Latin America, for instance, you'll find sociologists on either side of the many governments of the "pink tide" - because social sciences are closer to the state in the first place there is no disciplinary reflex against that kind of political engagement.

So I think that Doug is correct in pointing out some of the reason for the skeptical gaze. Obama is not a social movement candidate. Collective mobilization has occurred in response to his campaign, but he is not someone who comes from social movements and who has not had particularly strong connection with movements. Now, I also think the critical scrutiny has turned a lot to be

Gianpaolo picks up on something several of the members of our graduate student board have been talking about: social movement backing--or the lack thereof--as well as the coalitions of of support behind Obama. It seemed to them a point of contention and genuine difference of opinion in the various commentaries. After all, Eduardo explicitly argued that Obama lacks the backing of a genuine movement, whereas Jeff saw a maturing 'McGovern coalition.' Wondering where others stand on the sources of enthusiasm and support for Obama, what they reveal about his significance and what they might suggest about his ability to lead and govern?

My reading of the situation is that the progressive coalition that is backing, or potentially backing Obama is in fact quite fractured. As I discuss in my initial statement, while the recent democratic primary was historic and momentous in many ways, it also led to acrimonious debates and bitterness among different groups to the left of center; much of it centered around the relative significance of “race” versus “gender” oppression in this society. Though my comment focused primarily on conflicts between women, Obama’s recent movement to the right has also vexed many of his lefty/liberal white male supporters, who had formerly endorsed him almost uncritically.
I think that Eduardo’s point that Obama symbolizes something very different for different people (also raised by Roxanna Harlow in her talk at the Association of Black Sociologists meeting) is important, and worrisome. For example, many have claimed that an Obama presidency would herald a new age of racial politics (e.g. “Is Obama the End of Black Politics?” New York Times, August 6, 2008). But what exactly these new politics will entail is far from clear.

Increasingly, it seems to me that the main thrust of the “new politics” is something like this: In order to achieve racial reconciliation and heal the nation, upwardly mobile blacks (like Obama) agree to 1) give up the language of “grievance” and “victimhood,” (see “Where Whites Draw the Line, Washington Post, June 8, 2008), 2) acknowledge how little racism there is in the U.S. today compared to the past, 3) distance themselves from bad, angry blacks like Jackson, Wright, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Michelle Obama and 4) generally repudiate the poor choices and lifestyles of the black poor; 5) while emphasizing personal responsibility, black patriarchy, gratitude towards and love of country, and Christian values above all. This seems to me to be a Faustian bargain indeed. If this is the racial dream that the newly-appointed spokesman for black America (see “Blacks Pick Obama Over Jackson as Spokesman,” Gallup, July 14, 2008) is implicitly selling to white America, then the black middle-class is in trouble, and we do need to interrogate the “Obama phenomenon” more critically.

But back to the question posed. While there is much enthusiasm for Obama among different sectors of the electorate, I am not at all sure that there is a great deal of consensus about the direction he should take the country in, or the significance of his candidacy. As Obama has not emerged from a social movement, there are many serious questions arising from his candidacy—concerning racial justice, gender equality, poverty, elitism, religion, patriotism, and nation-- that progressives have not had the chance to hash out together collectively. And there is much work to be done by those of us who care passionately about these issues to make sure that the kind of change that Obama might bring about is in fact change that we can live with.

Doug is right about the huge level of enthusiasm for Obama. Americans are truly sick and tired of "politics and usual" and this national mood opened the door for Obama to emerge and tell Americans what they longed to hear—a message of unity, hope, end of partisanship, and “change.” But enthusiasm for a candidate a social movement does not make. John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy generated a lot of enthusiasm, but we would not say they created a social movement. And, politically, Obama is no McGovern—and I know this is not what Jeff was suggesting. Heck, Obama is not even Jimmy Carter!

Second, Joe challenges us to discuss the issue of Obama’s electability. I suggest we are in new territory. Obama won in the primaries states such as Wisconsin, Vermont, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and many other “white” states and is still ahead in most of these states. He has garnered a strong support among whites (40-42% or so), which is as good as any Democratic presidential candidate has been able to garner since Jimmy Carter. And as of today, Obama is ahead or very close in states one would not expect him to be doing well at all such as North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, or Colorado (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/
latestpolls/index.html#). Hence, in my view, the most important question is not whether Obama can be elected--which I believe he can even if he faces attacks from 527s, but why is a black man generating so much enthusiasm among a large segment of the white electorate? (Josh's ethnographic field observations seem apropos here!)

This new political landscape does not reflect the “declining” but rather the “changing significance of race.” I have argued that Obama is the product of 40 years of racial transition from Jim Crow to what I have labeled as the “new racism.” At the political level, and in contrast with the Jim Crow era, “new racism” practices include the incorporation of anti-minority minority leaders in the Republican Party (e.g., Clarence Thomas, Linda Chavez, Bobby Jindell, etc.) and of post-racial sanitized minority leaders in the Democratic Party (Andrew Young, Bill Richardson, Harold Ford, etc.). All these leaders do not pose a challenge to the socio-political order and teach the “wretched of the earth” the wrong political lesson: that electoral rather than social movement politics is the way to effect change.

Third, sociologists—and the immense majority of sociologists in America are white—are not cynical or pessimistic about Obama. In fact, they are as much caught up in the “Obama craze” (see article by Matt Gonzalez on this topic) as the average American. Most sociologists are indeed happy, happy, happy about the prospects of having a black President and I dare suggest for the same reasons as the average white Obama supporter.

This is why I believe—and I am agreeing with Gianpaolo and Enid—we need to scrutinize Obama’s statements, his politics and policies, his political history (few social movement activists would call “community organizing” what Obama did in Chicago 20 years ago), and his political behavior during this campaign. We cannot give Obama—or anyone else for that matter—a blank check or else his campaign of hope may bring hopelessness and, rather than change, bring America more of the same.

But there is still time to help Obama take a left turn so that if he is elected, we get a few basic progressive things out of his administration.

Let me offer a slight dissenting note here. It strikes me that worrying about how "progressive" Obama will be once in office -- if he wins -- based on what happens or is said during the campaign is off-base. You run for office to win, and doing so sometimes requires rhetoric that narrows the perceived differences between you and your opponent in areas where the other party is historically stronger (such as in this case taxes and national security for Obama). This is exactly what the Obama campaign has done. It makes him look a good deal less progressive than in late 2007 when he was speaking to progressive Democratic voters.

We should keep in mind that the disconnect between campaign rhetoric and policy initiatives once in office can be enormous. Remember George Bush's "compassionate conservative" in 2000, or that FDR ran a very conservative, balanced budget campaign in 1932? The bigger issue, and here I would agree with what most of my fellow commentators are suggesting -- is that the collapse of the Republican Party is taking place at a time when there are few progressive forces capable of nudging Obama to the left, or even pressuring him to follow through on his more progressive commitments (like national health insurance, card-check unionism, and ending US unilateralism in foreign affairs). The 1991 recession created the opening that produced the Clinton Presidency and 54 Democratic Senators, but few effective progressive forces to push Clinton (and those that did exist tended to give him the benefit of the doubt until his Administration had charted their very centrist or even center-right course). Avoiding a repeat of the Clinton years is, it seems to me, an important thing for us to ponder.

Lots of good points so far, it seems my last post got partially eaten.

One of the points I was intending to make was that while Obama is no social movement candidate - that is, he does not come from social movements, his candidacy, energizing as it is to many, is not a social movement, there is much in his campaign that alludes to the rhetoric and style of social movements. "Si se puede," etc. And I think some of the appeal of his candidacy has to do with that. There is a tremendous hunger for change in this country - remember the interest in Dean four years ago, and I think that someone who positions himself as a change-maker, as Obama has, speaks to that sentiment.

I think Jeff is correct in that one shouldn't assume that an eventual presidency would be a mirror of the late stages of the campaign; fair enough. But I think the "left turn" scenario for Obama - the covert progressive theory that some folks have proposed is unlikely. As Jeff says, it's hard to imagine where that pressure would come from down the line.

Which gets me back to the social movement point. There is a profound asymmetry between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to their relationship to their putative "bases." Maybe it is because, as Domhoff and others have suggested, that liberals lost the post-WWII war of ideas in the United States. Republicans candidates make concessions to their "bases" - fringe issues like creationism get play because candidates have to appeal to the christian right and so on. Democrats seldom do the same. Imagine, for instance, that Obama, in order to appeal to the UFW, in addition to taking the slogan also insists on a period of amnesty for undocumented workers and reorganizing immigration services. Or in order to appeal to the Living Wage movement, decides the federal government will only subcontract to companies paying living wages. Or to appeal to the environmental movement.... and so on. I suppose this sounds absurd, but this is how many contemporary democracies work and how many left of center and social democratic parties function.

There are real change-makers in this country making things happen every day, from urban activists to progressive sectors of the labor movement and in many other sites. Without a doubt they most will vote for Obama regardless of what is said between now and election day, and it's difficult to imagine how these bases will have a voice in the eventual administration.

Nice to see so much discussion on the social movements point, but I feel part of the issue with progressive politics is also related to “institutionalization/integration into the political realm” aspects of political power in addition to “civil society/voluntary mobilization” (to follow upon Gianpaolo’s earlier distinction). I guess pushing on this point makes me a bit “un-American” vis-à-vis US Sociology, but that is okay – I’ve been called worse!

Based on what I have seen, the Democratic Party still gets a rush of volunteers around election time or in connection with a particularly contentious issue; many of these folks are spillovers from other local and national movements. What has really declined is long-term organizational capacity. I think this has almost everything to do with the decline of organized labor (which often has the funny status of a hyphenated movement in US Sociology, due probably to the bureaucratic nature of labor unions). Historically, organized labor and the Democratic Party were virtually synonymous in the places where I did fieldwork – both in regular people’s minds and in the sense that full-time union reps played leading roles in the local party. I imagine that this was once the case in very many places in the U.S.

This gave the local party a lot of institutional know-how and memory. Union reps had lots of experience maintaining voter lists, doing get out the vote drives, fund-raising, setting up phone banks, lobbying and pressuring politicians and – perhaps most importantly – union reps were around long enough to get a permanent “seat at the table”, whether locally, in state politics, or with a federal representative.

The decline of organized labor has changed this situation in two ways. First, there is nobody around to paint the party office, bake cookies, update voter rolls and perform the myriad of other mundane tasks that are required to lay the framework for successful mobilization between elections (which means you now have to pay people to do these things). Second, it seems like a lot of the work that the party does now gets dissipated into a kind of nervous energy that goes nowhere (e.g. paid staffers admit to often giving volunteers tasks that make them feel important, but serve no larger purpose). In the past, such energy would probably have been more fruitfully directed by people that knew how to “play the political game” a bit better. In particular, that loss of that organized labor “conduit” between grassroots mobilization and institutionalized political power means that direct efforts to pressure politicians seem to have become much less frequent and effective. This could have a lot to do with the paradox raised by Gianpaolo and Eduardo: there are a lot of progressive social movements in the United States, but somehow their activity seems to exist in a parallel universe vis-à-vis institutionalized political power.

Great stuff, everyone. Let me throw a couple of new topics out to see if we can generate some commentary and discussion in other directions.

One has to do with voter turnout and impact that Obama’s campaign may have for other contests around the country.

Another is about racial differences in perceptions on Obama. Our student board got started on this theme in reflecting on Eduardo’s critique of excitement about Obama, suggesting it reflects a sinister “color-blind racism.” Enid’s point about the implicit pact that black politicians may be making with these white supporters may be similar. The question, I guess, is in what ways do whites and non-whites see the Obama campaign (and potential presidency) differently.

Finally, and really up-ing the ante on the racial front is the question that has been talked about a lot and that one of Enid’s points touched upon: Is Obama black enough? What do you guys think about this? (Our internal discussions on this early on were also informed by some of the late night talk show jokes on the matter and the interview Steven Colbert ran on his show earlier in the year.)

Lots of insights in the commentaries here, but I think my question of Obama's electability is not so easily dismissed as some suggest. First, keep in mind that of all whites who have voted so far in all Republican and Democratic primaries, only 25 percent have voted for Obama. Some 75 percent of all whites who have so far voted have voted only for whites. (Most white independents have not voted yet and they are mostly not liberals.) In addition, the NYT July poll that asked whites about whether most acquaintances would vote for a black man found that 19 percent said NO. The figure was this high for white independents and Republicans and fairly near that for Democrats. Assuming this is a sizable group of white acquaintances, then this is a chilling finding. The 19 percent is higher than the percentage of young people who are voters, or the percentage of Blacks who are voters.

Candidates win presidential elections by a few percentage points, and how can Obama win in a situation of white racist thinking and framing? We know whites lie in polls on racial matters, so how can so much commentary think he has an easy win? I repeat, whites lie in polls, and yet almost everything we think we "know" about this election comes from polls. We have much social science data suggesting that most whites operate still out of a white racist framing of society. Why are so few election analysts looking at the data on what whites say and do on racial matters? The data are why I am pessimistic about his chances, and no other reason. I remain amazed that the social science data on whites' racist views are largely ignored in almost all commentary, left and right, on this election. Why is that?

The coming 527 attacks (Wright again, his Muslim/Indonesian education, questions of foreign-ness and his Muslim relatives, Rezco, and much else), I predict, will successfully play into the old white racial frame and peel off numerous whites who now "support" or "lean to" Obama.

In addition, as Adolf Reed and others have pointed out, even if Obama should pull out an upset and win, he is pretty much in the pocket of the same corporate elite that has always run this country. His image of a populist is not really deserved, as we are learning each day that he backs off of one truly progressive position after another (Like FISA)

I think we also need to give attention to a question that no one is asking here or anywhere else that I read: What happens to the youthful/others movement Obama has generated if he loses? What will be the impact on that minority of young whites who have supported him (so far, at least until the 527 attacks begin)? What will happen to the Black community's hopeful view if he loses? I think the answers to these questions are pretty negative and need to be considered fully.

Re: Turnout and the Election

Nice to have the electability issue brought up again. Politics is a bit of a sport for me (e.g. I must check the polls at least twice a day this time around) so I’m happy to wade right in to this one.

I fully agree with Joe Feagin that Obama will loose some voters due to race. Even with this loss of support, however, I actually think Obama will over-perform the polls on Election Day. The reason has to do with relative rates of involvement among the core supporters of each candidate.

Based on what I have seen, each political party essentially consists of a coalition of a couple different types of voters. The Democratic Party in the cities I studied, for instance, consists of a labor union/working class wing, a professional wing (I think jeff was first in pointing that out), and a kind of moderate/traditional democrat wing. In Iowa, Edwards and Clinton tended to do well with the labor union wing and Obama completely swept the professional wing of the party. Obama also took more of the moderates than the other two. I think this same dynamic played out similarly in other places. The good news for Obama is that the professional wing has increasingly become the activist wing of the party, and this has already produced a lot of political infrastructure for the general election (see earlier post on campaign offices).

The Republican coalition, by contrast, consist of party activists (many of whom, though not all, are evangelical), country club republicans, and moderates/traditional democrats. Based on what I saw, Romney swept the country club republicans (and actually quite a few country club republicans crossed over and voted for Obama), Huckabee swept the party activists, and McCain (along with Guilliani, Thompson, and a handful of others) were popular with the moderate wing of the Republican party. For the general election, this is bad news for McCain because the moderate wing of the party hardly ever volunteers. Moreover, most activists seem to so dislike McCain that they have almost resigned themselves to sitting the election out (for a progressive Democrat, the closest analogy might be having Joseph Lieberman win the Democratic nomination). To give you just one anecdote: the only McCain yard signs I have seen in the two cities where I did fieldwork were at the local Republican Party Chairman’s house – and he still had not taken them out of his garage.

We know from works like Berelson’s et al’s “Voting” that elections are about three things: turning out among the base of the winner, turnout among the base of the looser, and what those in the middle decide to do. Research tell us that the people in the middle usually make their mind up at the last minute – so we won’t know what they are going to do until a week or two before the election (as Joe Feagin points out, racial scare tactics will probably swing a number of them to McCain – or more likely convince them to stay home). With regards to the bases, however, the case is more clear: McCain’s base is demoralized and is unlikely to become energized because all of the activists are lackluster about McCain. By contrast, a considerable portion of Obama’s base is excited about his candidacy and Obama’s campaign has created probably the most extensive grassroots operation in contemporary electoral history. This kind of situation would suggest good turnout for Obama and poor turnout for McCain and that suggests that Obama is in very good shape headed into the home stretch.

Re: The color-blind/”Black enough” issue…

This is kind of a hard one for me to field as I am by no means a race scholar (nor did I ever imagine that I would have much to say on the matter after undertaking a study of electoral politics in the heartland). For that reason, I’m just going to share a couple reflections that I found myself having repeatedly while doing fieldwork rather than try to say something definitive – feel free to take the reflections with a grain of salt.

As it became clear that Obama was a contender for the Democratic nomination , I found myself thinking a lot about William J. Wilson’s work. So for example, one of the traditionally very white cities in Iowa that I studied is experiencing a moderate influx of African Americans from Chicago’s south side. For the most part, these are former impoverished residents that have decided to move to Iowa because of its relatively generous public welfare provisions vis-à-vis Chicago (I know this to be true, because a fellow ethnographer is doing fieldwork on the south side, where she has attended community meetings during which strategies for moving to Iowa are discussed). For the most part, these migrants have settled in several traditionally all white blue-collar neighborhoods – one of which I conducted interviews in.
As you guys might imagine, this situation has generated a good deal of racial tension. So for example, one of my informants is Greg – a former meatpacker and truck driver in his fifties who is now disabled. Since he has a lot of time on his hands, my “interviews” with him usually just consist of hanging out for a couple hours and talking to him, his wife and sometimes his daughter (who is in her 20s). Over time, I have heard a lot a lot of veiled racist remarks (e.g. “can those people even keep track of all their kids?”) and many not so veiled remarks (e.g. you can probably imagine) at Greg’s house about the newcomers to the neighborhood. What always struck me about the situation, however, is how easily Greg would switch from these comments about his neighbors to praise, for example, of the few black professional involved in local politics, or, for that matter, to praise for Barrack Obama. The issue is not so much that these cases were used to illustrate exceptions to the rule or token black acquaintances (some much older people do perceive Obama that way; they say, for example, “he speaks well and seems educated for somebody from his background”). Rather, Greg made these switches so readily that it did not seem like he was thinking about Obama and local black professionals as “black”, at least not in the same way that his new neighbors were “black”.
So following Wilson, I have tended to think about such cases in the context of the widening gulf between the urban underclass and black middle class (which, if I remember, Wilson attributed to de-industrialization, decreasing residential segregation, the limited success of affirmative action, and a few other factors). The ideological echo of this gulf, I think, can sometimes produce an identification of African Americans with exclusively the black underclass among some people. Those that do not exhibit the characteristics of the black underclass, by contrast, are afforded a sort of provisional whiteness/”normalcy”. I think this certainly worked in Obama’s favor; a lot of people I spoke with found the fact that he did not “seem black” “refreshing” and that got him a lot of support (and was also one reason why the “scandal” about his distinctly inner-city black church so damaged him politically). This was predominantly the case in higher income neighborhoods, but even in the racially polarized working class neighborhood Obama got a lot of support (so Gary caucused for Edwards because his brother worked on the campaign, his wife went for Clinton and his daughter for Obama – although all three liked Obama a lot and are now supporting him during the general election).

Yikes, looks like I went and wrote a small treatise on thse two points. That is what a three hour flight will get you!

I apologize in advance as this will be longer than warranted, but Doug's three issues seem exteremely important. I address them in the order in which they were presented to us.

First, the available evidence suggests the enthusiasm Obama's campaign has generated among blacks, Latinos, progressives, and in the general electorate may have a positive spillover effect for democratic candidates. Heck, Democrat Travis Childers won the Mississippi special election and Democrats have no business winning anything in Mississippi! Whether this development is a good or bad depends on whether one believes the Democratic party—which has been moving to the right since Bill Clinton was elected President and since the DLC was established—will work on progressive social policies without a social movement pushing it.

Second, on how whites and non-whites look at Obama, I restate what I said recently in a speech in August in the conference POWER AND RESISTANCE: CRITICAL REFLECTIONS, POSSIBLE FUTURES in Boston organized by the journal CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY.

“Whites (again, the 40% or so of whites who like Obama) and blacks look at Obama differently and his potential election seems to mean and symbolize totally different things for them. White Obama supporters like him because he is the first “black” leader they feel comfortable; because he does not talk about racism; because he tells them every time he can he is half-white (and it helps his father is from Kenya rather than from the South side of Chicago); because he is so “articulate” or, in Senator Biden’s words, echoed later by Karl Rove, Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy"; because Obama is talking about national unity, and because he, unlike black leaders hated by whites such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and, of course, Minister Farrakhan, does not make them feel guilty about the state of racial affairs in the country. Obama has said and done almost anything to make whites feel comfortable and thrown under the proverbial bus anyone who makes him look “too black” (Michelle Obama better watch out!) or “too political.”

Symbolically, even for the 60% of whites who will not vote for Obama, his success is proof that America is finally beyond race. His white supporters see him as the leader who will be able to deal with America’s “real” problems as for them race inequality is a secondary matter. And, as an added bonus, supporting (and, ultimately, voting for) Obama is becoming a signifier of “racial progressiveness.” Voting for Obama may even be seen by some whites as their path for (self-) absolution from their racial sins! [Again, Josh's comments based on his experiences doing work in the campaign are important. I also think that anyone who wishes to corroborate these matters may examine closely the various Obama groups in FACEBOOK and see what the young, mostly white members are saying about Obama and about race matters in America.]

In sharp contrast, for many nonwhites, but particularly for blacks, Obama is a symbol of their possibilities. He is, as Obama has said of himself, their Joshua—the leader they hope will take them to the promised land of milk and honey. They read in between the lines (probably more than is there) and think he has a strong stance on race matters. Obama is, for the old generation desperate to see change before they die, and for many blacks who came to age in the post-Reagan generation who have seen very little racial change in their life, the new Messiah; the new “race man” following on the footsteps of Martin, Malcolm, the Jesse of the 1980s, and the Al Sharpton of 2004. Poor blacks believe Obama will bring economic and social change to them—higher wages, health care, etc., and, for elite blacks, Obama is a symbol and a confirmation of their own standing, politics, and even behavior and manners—the genteel, aristocratic character of the black elite.”

Third, the question of Obama’s blackness makes sense if we understand that historically there has always been a “black majority” (Marable 1981) that has shared a similar set of life chances. By this standard, Obama is not Jesse, or Al, as Farrakhan, or Maxine Waters, or any other black leader with roots in the poor and working class segment of the black community. The question of his blackness then is not about his skin color, but about his life experiences and how his different experiences and background may affect his politics. Obama is black lite not because he is half-white, but because he has taken an almost raceless political stand and persona.

This said, the legitimacy of Obama’s blackness should be judged by his politics and, in my view, his are “neo-mulatto” politics (see the important essay on this subject by sociologist Hayward Horton in his edited book, SKIN DEEP, 2004).

Okay, everyone, it seems like we are going to need to start wrapping this up. Two things I want to ask at this point. One is to post any final comments or thoughts you may still have in the next day or so. The other is to take a look back over your own posts; if you have any changes or additions you would like to make send them to Jon and he will put them in. Our plan is to then shortly open this up to a more public audience for comment and response.

I want to directly Joe Feagin's challenge, about Obama's electability, which I think speaks to other questions about race and political change in America. I think Joe is right to point out that there are good reasons to think that enough white Democratic voters may end up voting for McCain to tip the election his way. In recent days, the average of all polls has, for the first time, McCain catching up to Obama for the first time and also pulling even or slightly ahead in some key "battleground" states.

That said, in my view this election is still Obama's to lose. Obama has been massively over-exposed as a candidate, while McCain has had a largely free ride up to this point. Having clinched the Republican nomination early, he has been able to coast on his close ties to the mainstream media and his "maverick" reputation. But that will soon change. As we approach the conventions and the start of the fall campaign, he will now begin to receive the same close scrutiny as Obama already has. McCain's flaws, and his unpopular policy positions and stances (not least a close connection to a deeply unpopular incumbent) will become incresasingly clear. The Obama campaign is also just now beginning their "ground war" with negative ads pointing these things out to voters in the swing states. All of this will push up McCain's negatives and undercut some of his most important advantages.

Second, we would have to think that the swing based on "race" is very large indeed to permit a McCain victory. The Democrats have almost everything going for them going into this election: an unpopular incumbent to run again, a declining economy coupled with widespread public insecurity about the future, an unpopular war (which can and will increasingly be powerfully framed in relation to economic insecurity). Now if Joe is right, it would require that Obama would "underperform" by something like 5-7% to lose this election. That is an awful lot of old-fashioned racism among normal Democratic and independent voters (noting that old fashioned racists who always vote Republican anyway are irrelevant, and there good reasons to think that the longstanding racial realignment in the post-Reagan era has long since moved those voters into Republican alignment.

Third, I think the Democratic campaign is going to benefit from a number of things that polls do not always pick up (some of which might offset whites lying to pollsters about their Obama preference). There is a huge reserve of anger and high motivation among activists and rank and file Democrats that will push up turnout among likely Democratic voters. I see nothing like that among Republicans; indeed, the religious right is divided and the Republican "base" is not excited about McCain, only fearing a large Democratic sweep and that is a much weaker motivation for action. Cell phone-only users are out of the sample in polls, and are likley to be Obama voters. And we have every reason to expect significantly increased turnout among minority voters that is, again, not necessarily being picked up.

It is always risky for social scientists to predict the future - the social psychologist Philip Tetlock has shown that "experts" are often no better than ordinary people in making projections - and as we wrap up this discussion on the eve of the conventions it is still "early." That said, I will stick my neck out and project that Obama will get 53% +/- 3% of the major party vote, and that America will have its first black president come January 2009. What that will mean for public policy remains, of course to be seen.

Doug asked us to wrap-up our comments on "The Social Significance of Barack Obama" and I want to do so in provocative fashion by daring to make some bold predictions. So as I look into my sociological crystal ball, here is what I see.

1) Barring some John Edwards-like scandal or a tragedy, Obama will be elected President of the United States! (So I concur with Jeff on his prediction.) I remind all of you who are afraid that Obama will not be elected that you had the same fear during the Democratic primary. Your most recent concern over the tightening of the polls in the last weeks misses the fact that these polls are not accurate because they do not include an adequate representation* of the black masses and the white youth, two crucial groups that strongly support Obama.

*How can we assess these groups are not adequately sampled in polls? Because pollsters still rely on contacting people via land line telephones and these two segments of the population are significantly less likely to have land line phones (See Megan Thee, December 2007 New York Times article, “Cellphones Challenge Poll Sampling”). This use to be a minor concern for survey researchers in the past as less than 3% of the population relied on cell phones as their primary phone, but today, the number of Americans that has cell phones as their phone has increased to 16% of the population. Besides, we must always remember that the outcome of Presidential elections in the USA is based not on the popular vote but on the electoral college and the most recent estimate offered by the The Rasmussen Reports suggests Obama holds a healthy lead there—273 to 227 with 38 votes deemed as a “toss up.”

2) After Obama is elected President, the USA will experience a brief “We shall overcome” period of euphoria; a “Yes we can” frenzy. However, we will soon return to the politics of “America the Brutiful.” President Obama will follow-through with the historic policies of the USA in the world and will defend our “national interest” by keeping the troops in Iraq for three or more years, by redeploying troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, by increasing the size of the military, and by talking tough to Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba.

3) In the home front, President Obama will talk about unity and about how we are one indivisible nation under (his) God, but most of his policies will do little to challenge the capitalist, gendered, and racial character of the polity. President Obama will not dare intervene with the “invisible hand of the market” that has been slapping all of us quite hard as of late. President Obama will not make a priority crafting policies to reduce the 25% difference in earnings between men and women with similar qualifications. And President Obama will take a middle-of-the-road, post-racial stand on race matters that will maintain the racial status quo. On the crucial symbolic issue of affirmative action, he will reaffirm Bubba’s mended but not ended stand.

4) America will remain Amerika, but will have a brown person in charge of keeping the White House white. Whites, whether they supported Obama or not, will rejoice and postulate a soto voce that Obama’s election demonstrates that the nation has finally moved “beyond race” and, accordingly, will object more vociferously than ever before to anyone who dares speak about racism. Blacks and other racial minorities, after their little intoxication with Obama’s hope liquor, will sober up and realize that having a black man in “charge” does not necessarily put food on their tables. And in a short time, we will all see the curious spectacle of white folks fanatically supporting a black President while black folks ask “their” President, “Damn, where did the change we could believe in go?”

5) The space for criticizing Obama today is very limited. Those who have done so have been called all sorts of names and accused of having all kinds of agendas. But historians and social commentators will ponder in a generation or two why we could not see clearly that Obama was not a progressive and why we could not understand that his campaign was not a social movement but part and parcel of traditional American party politics. Future generations will examine this period and agree with Nietzche’s dictum that madness is rare in individuals but common in nations and peoples.

One final note. I see the last few polls (mid-August 2008) show a tightening race, as I predicted. But these polls still are not to be trusted, as I suspect Obama is actually somewhat behind when you subtract white voters who are misrepresenting their actual views. Many whites really are not "undecided" or "leaning to Obama," as they predict.

I also predict intensive, thinly disguised racialized attacks on him after the conventions that will accent his not being "American enough" or "inexperienced," or "elitist and too well spoken," which resonate well with very old antiblack stereotypes in the white racial frame. There is much in his background (like many Muslim relatives, studying the Koran, poor close relatives he does not "care for," etc), that will be used against him. Racial Frame resonance is a central problem for him, but not for McCain, since there is no old and deep frame of a "dangerous white man."

This is a very sad time for this country, if he loses. Many activist youth and African Americans will be highly discouraged and depressed by the results.

Ok, some final comments from me as well, offering some prospective thoughts and a couple of final reactions. Before I "go," let me offer my appreciation to Doug and the rest of the Contexts folks for setting this up, and especially to my colleagues in the discussion who offered so many interesting insights as we went along. We actually did not pursue all of the instigating ideas that came up, but I suppose they'll serve as food for thought down all the way to November.

I think it was also telling that we as a group hesitated to get to the question of Obama's blackness. It's almost as if we played by the rules of acceptable discourse around his post-racial candidacy. Obama himself, as we've all noted, avoids the language of racial injustice, and does not dwell on the question of his own blackness. It is almost left largely to others to identify him. Post-racial politeness, though, calls for us to not to speak of the thorny issue.

But Obama's post-racial discourse is almost like a fiction that no one buys but everyone is supposed to pretend is believable. African-Americans don't (see Eduardo's point about reading between the lines) , and Whites don't either (see Joe F's point about thinly disguised racist attacks, or the point above about his being a palatable black person). But decorum calls for avoidance of the issue, especially by the candidate himself. His campaign has tried to avoid leaking to the press the stories of threats and burnings of campaign offices in the heartland. And remember how everyone pounced on Obama for "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" for the innocent statement that he did not look like the presidents on dollar bills. These rules speak profoundly to how things work in the current juncture of race relations as discussed elsewhere by both Eduardo and Joe F.

One way to interpret of it is clearly that the price a candidate of color must pay for mainstream respectability is the abandonment of racial discourse. Certainly something else going on is the "generational" effect that has had play in the media as well. I think it is correct to say that there is a newer generation of African American leadership that has come of age after the civil rights movement, with a different relationship to racial discourse, having lived much or most of their lives in the era of polite racism as opposed to overt, jim crow. I think it is also a generation that has on one had seen the erosion of civil rights victories but that has also had in some way a different horizon of possibilities as well since every civil rights era victory reversed (busing, affirmative action, and so on) has been justified as no longer being necessary since racism officially became "a thing of the past."

Prospectively, I think many of Eduardo's points are correct. I think Obama's victory will for many signify a celebration of the end of racism, and will foreclose in many quarters discussion of racial injustice. But I also think that the very fact that Obama's post-racial gestures are not quite believable means that there will also be productive tensions and ambiguous possibilities once he is in office. And here I think that the "Latinamericanization" analogy reaches a limit. One might say that Obama is akin to nonwhite politicians in Latin America whose very presence on mainstream political stage is premised on non-racialism. But the United States is not Brazil. Certainly racial structures here are evolving in that direction, but they do so in the context of a history of binary racial structures and a civil rights movement. Countries like Brazil have not had, until very recently and in a few places, "racial voting." In other words, I think the Michelle Obamas and Jesse Jacksons of this world will not go away and the post-racial project would be far from accomplished in the case of an Obama victory.

On the earlier points on movements and the democrats, I also think that progressive forces will have a hard time holding Obama to progressive positions. There is tremendous effervescence now around his campaign, and it is hard to imagine how this will translate into a seat at the table that would provide a viable counterweight to all the "reaching across the aisle" that would be part of an Obama presidency.

Finally, I continue to think that the global repercussion of Obama's victory would be huge. Imagine a Hussein in the white house! I think it will occasion at the very least some serious hand-wringing in countries whose self-image is as of less racist than the US. On foreign policy, we will certainly see a less unilateral United States. I suppose an educated guess on the contours of foreign policy would be that it would be a return to Clinton-era diplomacy, full of ugly moments, if not quite as bad as either of the Bush presidencies.

In my final comment I want to touch upon several of the issues raised above: 1) how Obama will impact race relations in the future 2) what it means to say that he means different things to different people 3) whether or not he is “black enough” and 4) what we make of the issue of his electability.

I think that Obama’s probable election (I agree that support for him among black and under 25 cell-phone only users is likely greatly underestimated and very important) will accelerate certain trends in American racial politics that began to germinate long before he declared his candidacy last February.

One major trend I see coming ever more to the forefront is the importance, or visibility, of the class divide in the black community. Both in terms of the discussions that take place among African Americans, and in terms of how blacks are seen by non-blacks in the wider world. As part of a larger book project on the significance of Obama’s candidacy, I have been conducting formal and informal interviews about Obama with African Americans-- especially those belonging to the middle and upper-middle classes—for several months now, and these conversations have led me think particularly about the salience of class among blacks in this election.

As recent sociological research has emphasized, black experiences of race and racism in the U.S. today differ tremendously depending upon social class. The increasing significance of socioeconomic differences among blacks is reflected vividly in discussions on black radio talk shows, in Sunday sermons, and in casual conversations. A November 2007 report by the Pew Research Center found that nearly 40% of blacks believed that African Americans could no longer be thought of as a single race because of the socioeconomic diversity of the community and corresponding differences in “values” and identity.

It is not simply that the impact of race is “less” as you ascend in SES, but rather that it is qualitatively different. The Pew Center study cited above, in fact, notes that highly educated blacks are more likely than blacks with less formal education to believe that racial discrimination is a serious problem. Higher SES blacks that I talk to in the Twin Cities often tell me about the infuriating slights and marginalization they experience in professional settings. In one study, (quoted by Cedric Herring in his 2002 Contexts article “Is Job Discrimination Dead?”), 80% of blacks with college degrees and a whopping 90% of blacks with graduate degrees reported facing discrimination in the workplace.

On the other hand, the constant threat of police brutality, school failure, chronic underemployment, gun violence and inferior housing faced by residents of the lower-income, almost solidly black neighborhoods of North Minneapolis should never cease to be regarded as shocking and shameful. Most African-Americans, across lines of class, live feeling that our “blackness” is a master status; one that- for both good and for bad- shades every aspect of our daily lives. But we experience and express the meaning of “our blackness” in different ways.

The “implicit pact” that I believe Obama is making with white America (discussed in my previous post) is for the acceptance of certain blacks into the American mainstream-- those with educational backgrounds, jobs, “values,” diction, and cultural sensibilities similar to his. Obama is a very exciting figure for many middle-class blacks in part because he seems to represent our experiences and points of view. We recognize in his biography and trajectory elements of our own. Many of us take on faith that the compromises and choices he has made during his campaign are strategic and tactical-- (as we hear more and more often, “Look, the man is running for president of America, not president of Black America!”)—and perhaps similar to ones we’ve had to make in our own careers.

The black professionals I have spoken to admire Obama’s ability to straddle the lines between white and black worlds; to be seen as brilliant and successful and “cool” at the same time (Ebony Magazine recently featured Obama as one of the “25 Coolest Brothers of All Time”); to keep it real, but not so real that he loses the election before the voters even go to the polls (see Dave Chapelle “When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong”); to play real power politics (i.e. “When the Man is One of Us,” by Jack White on The Root.Com, July 10, 2008), and play to win. I realize here that I’m discussing style as much as substance. But in addressing the issue of what explains Obama’s appeal among different sectors of the electorate, such cultural cues are important.

As for the issue of racial identity, I believe that what Obama is doing is opening up the space for new, expanded notions of blackness. The more time he spends in the national spotlight, the choices will hopefully, no longer only be to be seen as either a) “authentically black,” i.e. in all ways identified with “the hood,” poor blacks, and the “urban experience,” or as b) “not really black,” “honorary white,” ”black lite” (to use Eduardo’s phrase), or “not black enough.”

While I realize that a number of progressive scholars and activists (from Jesse Jackson to Ralph Nader) disagree, for many of the members of the black professional classes that I have interviewed, Barack Obama is not simply a “whitewashed” black man. He is, rather, someone who represents the increasing diversity of the black community. Not all of us are from the hood. Some of us are biracial. Increasing numbers have parents from the Caribbean or from Africa. Obama seems to represent a blackness that is cosmopolitan, global, progressive, multifaceted, and forward-looking (rather than primarily referencing slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and our glorious past as Kings and Queens in Africa). We are more diverse, complex and dynamic than previously assumed; no longer so easily stereotyped or pigeonholed. We may not want to only be asked to speak about “black issues” or on behalf of the entire black community (see interview with Newark Mayor Cory Booker in "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?” NYT Magazine, Aug 6, 2008). We may sip a latte and shop at Whole Foods from time to time, but we can still drop a three-pointer on cue, listen to Jay-Z on our iPods, and give our significant others a pound as they go off to face the day.

The problem with this all, as I discussed previously, is that I’m not sure that many of Obama’s black middle-class supporters are clear enough about the bargain that Obama is implicitly making in our names. While they may differ on the ways and extent to which race shapes their lives, none of the people that I have spoken to thinks of themselves as “post-racial,” believes the U.S. to be a “magical place,” or thinks that racism in America is dead (to quote African-American commentator Tavis Smiley- “I love America . . . .but this ain’t Disneyland”).

We must listen carefully to what Obama is saying, and ask ourselves if he is agreeing to too much. For one, he has conceded that the children of the black professional classes should probably be excluded from affirmative action policies (see “Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences” NYT Aug 3, 2008). And while robust debates about personal responsibility have been taking place among black people for years, there is a degree to which Obama sometimes seems to be airing dirty laundry in public and scolding black people in order to score points with whites (yes I’m agreeing with Jesse here) that should make more of us uncomfortable.

The undertones of the new politics of race that may come to characterize the Age of Obama thus sometimes seem rather sinister. The crux of the subtext that I read is that --

• It is time for us all to get past race; especially blacks (see for example the article by black conservative John McWhorter, New Yorker Magazine, Aug 10 2008). We will move forward as a nation if blacks agree to come out from behind their walls, abandon grievance, victimhood, protest politics, cease to speak about racism, leave behind identity politics and try to simply become “Americans.”

• Do not remind whites that you are black, or talk about racism, because it may offend or upset them. (As highlighted in the upset over Obama’s comment that he “doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills,” which 53%of whites saw as racist !)

• Focus on individual achievement and pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps. Forget about institutional barriers to equality—not just those facing the black poor—but those that confront blacks in boardrooms, courtrooms and classrooms as well.

• Agree that racism is not structural but episodic, that most whites are well intentioned and colorblind, that racism is a two-way street, and whites and blacks can be equally racist.

• That men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are “hate mongers” and “race-peddlers” who stir up racial hatred simply to advance their careers.

• Etc!

These are the perils of the new politics of race. Somehow, we must find ways to support Obama and be excited about the expanded paradigm of blackness that he seems to represent without selling ourselves out in the process.

I guess I'll kick off the public portion of this discussion now by addressing the point Doug made about social movements and whether or not it can rightly be said that Obama lacks the backing of social movements.

If you talk to people who consider themselves "party activists," or read some of their blogs, many do describe themselves as part of a movement pressuring the Democratic party to change, view Obama as their candidate and devote lots of their time thinking about how to use technology & the internet as organizational tools (not just for fundraising). Obama's ability to tap into these technologies and the "netroots" has gotten a lot of attention from political pundits, but didn't come up here at all. If he wins, however, this will no doubt be considered part of his "base" within the party, gaining credit for much of his success, especially early on.

I certainly don't mean to take the position of the naive Obama backer here---I think skepticism about how much real "change we can believe in" is warranted (I'm especially in such a mood after watching too much of the sappy DNC already this week!)---but it does seem that Obama's success is attributable in large part to at least a kind of "social movement." It's not necessarily the kind of typical Left-wing mass, protest-based, demands-on-the-state kind of movement sociologists tend to think of, but I suspect many of Obama's supporters would be upset to stumble upon this discussion. I certainly don't want to incite a big discussion about how to define a "social movement" (boring!) but there is a movement flavor to much of Obama's base (if not his campaign itself), and I think this will be, historically, one of the more interesting aspects of his campaign; if for no reason other than the fact that Obama's campaign is pulling the internet further inside the mainstream political process than previous campaigns.

So, like I said, I think this is an under-discussed aspect of Obama's campaign in this discussion so far so I thought I'd throw that out there & see what everyone else thinks.

Mr. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva: you are right, you are speaking according to your own experience, being raised in the Caribbean.

I was raised in the Caribbean as well and although I have seen 'Black" leaders not deliver, it is not fair to believe that all Black politicians are the same. It ts narrow and unrealistic to think that every time a 'brother' or 'sister' runs for President, we find ways to bring them down when they need our support the most.

The question is: how many times we make such statements when a 'white' man/woman runs with similar promises and never deliver? or is it okay for them to screw up?

As the sociologist of color that you are, do you know of any other way that a black man can win voters by being a complete leftist? So what if he is a centrist? Why not encourage our brothers and sisters to follow President JFK's advice: "Ask NOT what the country can do for you... ask what you can do for the country".

The bottom line is that we need to stop rallying against our black leaders unless you disagree with their issues. That will be a personal choice and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Stop the stereotyping!