At a Table in So-Called Liberal NYC, Woman Announces: I’ll Never Vote for a Black Man for President

Editor’s Note: Featuring Kathleen Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a professor of communications and the former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

LESLEY: So I’m so glad that you all could join us today. Liz Smith, obviously we know who Liz Smith is; Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and an expert on campaigns; and we are blessed with Candice Bergen. Let’s get started right off the bat, discussing the topic du jour, the campaign. Actually it’s the topic of every day. But let’s talk about the three “isms”: racism, sexism and ageism, starting with racism. Here’s my question: It has for long, I think, been that racism is a hidden issue. If voters made decisions because of race, they often lied to pollsters. It was kind of shameful. Do any of you get the feeling that that is changing, ever since the Rev. Wright issue exploded? Do you have a feeling that people are more willing to openly admit that they won’t vote for Obama because of race? Kathleen, are you picking up any of this?

Click here to read Part Two: Percentage of Voters Say They Would Never Vote for a Woman, Regardless of Qualifications.

Click here to read Part Three: Who Says Older Ages Equal Serious Health Problems?

KATHLEEN: Well, we’re seeing it in surveys. We’re seeing a percent of the population that doesn’t say it wouldn’t, but does say it would be less likely, or that race is a factor in vote. And then when you parse the question by saying, “Is race increasing or decreasing the likelihood of your vote?” what you actually see is, it’s increasing likelihood for some and decreasing likelihood for others. And then you have to ask, “And then what do those two things mean and how do we parse all that back into our history?”

LESLEY: But are people more willing to admit this than ever before? Or is it just a feeling one gets?

KATHLEEN: I don’t think we know whether they’re more willing because, in the past, we haven’t framed the question that way. And so I think it’s a great question and I don’t think we have an answer.

LIZ: If you look at The New York Times from Monday, it looks like America has racism pretty much under control when Obama can draw 75,000 people to a rally in Oregon. That’s just an incredible picture. The enthusiasm for that is incredible. Of course … that means nothing.

LESLEY: Liz, you and I went to a very fancy-schmancy dinner party in New York the other night. And a woman at our table, in so-called liberal New York City, announced to our table that she would never vote for a black to be in the White House. That’s what she said. And everybody else at the table was shocked and started to yell at her. But she felt perfectly comfortable saying that.

LIZ: Well, I was just glad nobody overturned the table …

LESLEY: Well, they wanted to. But the point is … I hear it more. That’s why I’m asking this question.

KATHLEEN: Lesley, when you hear it, do people then give you some reason? It seems to me that saying that should be unacceptable unless one has a reason. And I can’t think of a reason that could legitimize that conclusion.

LESLEY: What I was wondering is, does that mean that the Rev. Wright issue changed peoples’ attitudes in a way that it’s no longer as shameful for some people?

LIZ: Yeah, that’s a very good point, Lesley. I think that’s true. But, honestly, this woman the other night that you refer to at our dinner, that is the first overt thing I’ve ever had anybody say in my presence in – honestly — in years. So maybe today people are more politically correct; but privately they may be something else.