Today's NY Times features a group of articles about the impact that Obama's race will have on the final vote. You can get to them all via links in the intro article, but I don't know that it's worth the time since they don't really have anything new to say. But, George Packer's long article in last week's New Yorker (which I admittedly haven't finished) does feature some interesting tidbits on this topic:
At one point, he [a building contractor from Appalachian Ohio] had doubted that Obama stood a chance in Glouster. “From Bob and Pete’s generation there are a lot of racists—not out-and-out, but I thought there was so much racism here that Obama’d never win.” Then he heard a man who freely used the “ ‘n’ word” declare his support for Obama: “That blew my theory out of the water.”
I've read some stuff like this other places and think it could be key. The economic issues are so serious in this election, that I think a lot of people will be looking past their prejudices when they vote. So, maybe I do need to go back and talk to that racist gomer in Indiana.
1 comment:
a (typically) simplistic observation from me is that I have known (and am related to) people who are, at best, bigoted towards people different than them; however, once if said "different" person wears the uniform of a team they support, the only color that matters is Cubs blue or Bulls red or whatever.
Racists still supported Ernie Banks and Michael Jordan.
So (again, hugely simple point), it seems that the colors that matter in this election are green (as in money and the economy) and red (as in rage towards the massive incompetence of the Bushies).
Post a Comment