"It's Because He's Black, Stupid"

The election is only a few weeks away, and there are still "undecideds." What are they waiting for? And how can they be torn between these two guys. They're so different. They are offering voters a very clear choice. Besides, what more could the undecideds possibly hope to learn or see about the candidates? Is Obama finally going to gain a few pounds? Is McCain finally going to stop saying, "My friends?" What is taking these people so long to make up their minds? Well, when it comes to some of them, to paraphrase a famous political saying, I'd have to say, "It's Because He's Black, Stupid."

Now before you start angrily typing to me, let me make a few things clear. I'm not suggesting that everyone who dislikes Barack Obama and plans on voting for John McCain is doing it because of race. I'm not saying that all of the people who are still undecided are racist. What I am suggesting is that we have to look at and wonder about those voters who agree with Barack Obama on issues that are very important to them and disagree with John McCain's positions, yet are still thinking about voting for McCain. Why? Could it be race?

Lately, political pundits have been talking about "The Bradley Effect." This refers to the 1982 California gubernatorial contest in which Tom Bradley, an African American, was ahead in the polls but lost to George Deukmejian. Some experts feel that some white voters were embarrassed to tell pollsters that they really planned to vote for the white candidate, and others who favored Bradley just couldn't vote for the black candidate once they got in the polling booth. There is some feeling that this may happen again in the Obama-McCain contest.

But I think there's also something going on that I'll call, "The Who, Me? Effect." This involves white voters who don't consider themselves anti-black. They may live among or work with African Americans and would certainly never use a racial slur. But, well, they just aren't completely embracing African Americans. They feel uncomfortable, weird, and awkward about the whole thing. When they're having a public conversation in a restaurant, etc., they always seem to whisper the word, "black" (like some people always whisper the word, "cancer"). If someone called these people bigots or said they were prejudiced, their response would be a shocked, "Who, me?"

But they agree with Obama on all the issues that are important to them, yet they're just not sure about voting for a black man. So they remain undecided. And they are desperately searching for some reason, some excuse, some rationalization for voting for McCain that doesn't involve race. Apparently, they couldn't convince themselves that eight-year-old Barack Obama was a radical member of the Weathermen, so they're still looking for some reason not to vote for Obama without feeling guilty.

When you combine "The Bradley Effect" with "The Who, Me? Effect," the numbers could be quite significant. A whole vocabulary has evolved to help the "Who me-ers" rationalize their opposition to Obama. I can help with the definitions:

"I don't like him because

he's arrogant" really means, "He's black."

"He's inexperienced" really means, "He's black."

"I know he's not a Muslim,

but how can I vote for

someone with a name like

that in these times?" really means, "He's black."

"His speeches are too fancy" really means, "He's black."

"How did a guy with his

background end up at Harvard?" really means, "He's black."

"I like his ideas, but

there's just something

about him" really means, "He's black."

"I don't like his wife" really means, "He's black."

One good thing about America is that you are not required to justify whom you vote for. If you want to vote for someone because you like his eyes or the way she dresses, you may do that. And if you don't want to vote for someone because of the color of his skin, that is your right. I just hope that not too many people exercise that right.

Sarah Palin: Speakin' Her Mind

Maybe John McCain was clever in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Now that their campaign is increasingly desperate, she can be his "attack dog" as they say in politics. She can say whatever she wants, things that McCain can't say. And if anyone points out that she's exaggerating or ignoring some facts, they're accused of sexism or of picking on Palin.

She was quoted the other day in the "New York Times" as saying, "I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago." Right there, we've got a credibility problem. First of all, she was quoted as saying "reading," not "readin'." Next you'll notice that she was quoted as saying, "my 'New York Times.'" Do you really think that Sarah Palin gets the "New York Times?"

If she did, don't you think that would've been one of the newspapers she could've come up with when Katie Couric asked her what she reads? You betcha it wouldda been. Some people might say that it wasn't fair to ask her what she reads, because the other candidates weren't asked questions like that. That's true, but we already knew a lot about the other candidates. We don't know much about her, and it seems like we have a right to find out about her interests and her intellectual curiosity.

I know it's been a while since the Biden-Palin debate, but the networks have been rerunning it over and over again much like "Law & Order" or "Wings." For me, it's like seeing an accident on the highway. I know I shouldn't look, but I can't help looking for a moment.

And now that I've seen her rerun, I'm suspicious about something. Her performance seems even more extreme, more exaggerated than it did on Debate Night. Her poor grammar, her poor diction, and her poor sentence structure are just too over the top. Here's the suspicious aspect of this: she had a great deal of time to prepare for her debate, she haed some very experienced people helping her, and she clearly practiced her lines. Don't you think, if the party professionals wanted to, they could have told her the proper way to pronounce "nuclear?" Don't you think they could've told her how to say words that end in "ing?" You're goll-darn right they could have.

So here's my theory: they want her to sound like that -- not just like you and me, but dumber than you and me! They think this will endear her to voters. George W. Bush played down his Yale and Harvard education, talked in a Texas twang, and it seemed to work for him for six or seven years.

It's always been interesting to me that American politicians aren't supposed to be too smart. The public doesn't seem to trust or want intellectuals, "eggheads," or professorial types. The theory is that they want someone who is "just like them." If they speak properly, if they're highly educated, if they're interested in complex issues, Americans are wary of them. Smart people are considered "elitists" who think they are "better than we are."

This is crazy. I want the leaders of my country to be smart. It's fine with me if they're smarter than I am. Now more than ever, we need educated, intelligent people to help lead us out of this sad situation we're in. That's a lot more important to me than making sure that a leader likes to have a few beers when he or she goes bowling.

Obviously, I don't know if Sarah Palin is purposely exaggerating her lack of intellectual curiosity and her being just a "regular person." It doesn't even matter to me if she is or not. The point is, why should intelligence be derided and being average celebrated in politics?

At the October 7th Presidential Debate, John McCain called for a "commission of the smartest people in America" to help solve the economic crisis. I was shocked when I heard him make the suggestion. For one thing, how is he going to identify who the smart people are? Then was he just going to send them invitations? But, of course, what surprised me the most was that he dared to mention using smart people to solve a big problem. Maybe his campaign is really getting desperate.