Post Election Odds and Ends

My day has been filled with debates and observations about the election last night. Opinions abound, especially in the media, as to whether Senator Obama's campaign fell far short of expectations. I, for one, never expected Obama to "crush" Hillary Clinton. Neither did the "thinking" people I know expect such.

First, it doesn't make a lot of sense that he could gain that many votes in a week or so in California to offset the early balloting for Clinton. Neither did I expect him to pick up enough Hispanic and Asian support to win. What I did expect was that he would give her "a run for her money," and knock her out of the front runner status she has enjoyed.

Second, the most important result for Obama last night was that he cracked the 40 percent of white votes that pundits said he wasn't able to do. Bill Clinton implied as much when he invoked Jesse Jackson's totals that fell below 40 percent when he ran for president. The doubters said Obama would not be able to draw much white support.

Third, Obama proved the doubters wrong by winning caucuses in Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Alaska, Kansas and Minnesota. He should be called the "crossover candidate" because he won more than 40 percent in eight states, and he beat Clinton in California and won a clear majority in Illinois and California. He also broke his pevious white vote ceiling in 11 other states.

Fourth, the polls indicate that Obama is surging, particularly among voters who have a chance to hear his unfiltered message. As I wrote in these pages yesterday, the central message Obama is peddling more than hope and Clinton is peddling less than effective leadership based on being a policy wonk. In next week's primaries in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland, voters will have had more time to get to know Obama. His likability score is far greater than Clinton's.

Fifth, another thread that is emerging on a lot of the sites is the relative merits of electing a black or a woman. At least two generations of feminists are weighing in on which candidate--Obama or Clinton--should get first dibs at being president. The names of the feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the abolitionist Frederick Douglas are being invoked in a polemic that has been running since the mid-1800's. It is also a fruitless argument because it yields nothing for either side to argue whether a Black Man or a White Woman should have the upper hand.

Finally, I just read an interesting piece by Jelani Cobb, the history professor at Spelman College. He argues that if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, blacks should take a serious look at voting for John McCain. I am not going to entertain such a novel position but I think he bears reading (TheRoot.com). I would hope the campaign does not deteriorate to a point where blacks feel they may skip voting if Barack is not the nominee. We shall see.