Conversation | 05/20/2008 10:29 am

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

With Candice Bergen, Lesley Stahl and Liz Smith

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.

182 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Ladies and Administrators of WOW - I’m putting out a call for a positive article to be posted on WOW in support of Barack Obama that will detail the reasons, beyond the rhetoric, why he is the right person to lead our nation over the next four years. Alright, I’ll admit it, I am a H. Clinton supporter. She is not ideal but I feel that she would be best able to lead us in the most positive direction. However, if she does not get the nod I will be casting a vote for someone come November without regard to political party, gender, age or race. There is a voluminous catalog of articles here and elsewhere extolling the why’s and why nots of the other candidates but not so for B. Obama. I have been a Democrat for over two decades and will continue to be one at least for the time being. I am hoping to have my faith restored in the DNC. I’d prefer to vote for a Democratic candidate. I do not have any qualms about voting for an African American candidate. Why should I cast my vote for B. Obama? What are the solid reasons - beyond gender, beyond race, beyond charisma, beyond rhetoric that B. Obama is the best person to be our next POTUS?

By E . on 05/22/2008 9:35 am

e-mail alert

Elizabeth - I have posted extensively BECAUSE of the dearth of non-HRC perspective. If you do, please be prepared for blowback including but not limited to WoWers proffering the ASSASINATION “possibility” long before last Friday — among other things. Interesting. You will not see much about Senator Obama on this site beyond his being a default to HRC’s ambitions. In short, on this site — Senator Obama is in HRC’s way — not the winning (thus far) candidate for the Democratic Nomination. Consequently, the open exchanges re ASSASINATION “possibilities” weeks ago among WoWers. If you go to the section regarding “SAFETY” if a woman were President — I have posted my own personal perspective to provide balance to what I just detailed. One WoWer asked me if I were a “black preacher” or a “Jehovah’s Witness.” Interesting — and, some of the reasons HRC is losing and will ultimately lose her Senate seat as well.

By Renata on 05/28/2008 10:05 am

e-mail alert

I think Liz raises an interesting point — throughout this exchange. And then, rightly leaves it an open question at the end. I felt my early support of the Obama Campaign vaidated by watching the amazing Portland, OR crowds. However, whether the SPECTACLE of the Obama experience will translate into a Presidential vote in the General Election — remains a question to this particular group of conversation hostesses — for good reason. The guest at the Manhattan (I am assuming) party, is — for the most part — representative of not only HRC’s women supporters — but our elite class or top 1%-ers, which are heavily represented in the social circle confluence of (traditional) media/financiers-bankers-hedge fund types/real estate/(traditional-establishment) politicians. I am not at all surprised the guest expressed open hostility to the idea of voting for Senator Obama — a black upstart — in her view. MA puts out her Liberal credentials via the Kennedy mythology and, for the most part, it is accurate. African-American friends of mine, however, remind me of the Boston racial busing “episodes” as well as the fact that Martha’s Vineyard is still SEGREGATED. Millennials, with a President Obama, will move America forward to a place where the REALITY and not just the patina of Liberal thought and deed, defines the experience. When WoW evolves, perhaps, a question after the General Election might be — to ask a boomer and senior African-American panel of women HOW if felt/feels to have the subliminal wound of Racism openly exposed after 30 years — and our perspective on whether or not the pain it causes for us to be openly discussed as sub-par once again — is a worthwhile price to pay for advancement of the American ideal we export worldwide, but sometimes fall short of here at home. Exposure and cauterization was/is in order — to progress. My question for Liz and Lesley would now be, how will their own relationship with the guest at the party change — or will it? Are there ANY consequences socially for someone who feels so free to impose her overt bias on a table of guests at a party — or not? Boomers and seniors are accustomed to these kinds of trade-offs and compromises. They were/are our stock in trade as we navigated the Civil and Women’s Rights era — and landed in a more/less stable environment. What happens when someone does this says as much about the guest as it does about those who will continue to socialize with her, unabated and w/out consequences. Fortunately, our children do not and will not have to make these kinds of trade-offs. And, for the most part, their lives are not a patina of acceptance of the “different” — but an immersion and embrace of it. My daughter’s friends would have gotten up and left the party out of respect for my daughter and their own sense of SELF, which is connected to my daughter and every other human being. They would have taken their party somewhere else and NEVER made this guest a part of their circle again. They will leave a job, neighborhood, etc. with ease. Our sacrifices and compromises make their FREEDOM of and from this kind of guest — possible. Latent Racism is one thing. Blatant Racism, another. This is PROGRESS.

By Renata on 05/26/2008 4:39 pm

e-mail alert

As to the article, the outspoken prejudice of the unfiltered woman at least gives an opportunity for the questions raised in the article to take shape (even though I was writhing in my seat to read it). In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, there is a provocative look at the bias and subconscious snap judgments we ALL make. It’s intriguing. How do we counter our slants and as they are referred to in the book I mentioned, “rapid cognitions?” I think we bring them out into the light of day where we can “choose” to modify them rather than keep them under cover where we act from them unknowingly.

By T S on 05/20/2008 12:01 pm

e-mail alert

True, that was an impressive book. But one would hope that voting is not done by snap judgement, that some thought was allowed to percolate through. Even if we all come to the party with a bias of some sort, to leave with the bias is sad indeed. Lost is the opportunity to learn, to test those biases and see them fall apart. It took me a while to decide who to support, and I had trouble because more than anything, I did not want any more George Bushes in the White House. Sometimes I think that is why Clinton and Obama are the last ones running in the Democratic Primary. They are the most un-GWB in terms of their appearances and manner, of anyone who was running.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/20/2008 1:03 pm

e-mail alert

When the woman at the dinner table said she would never vote for a black man for president, did you ask her if she would vote for a dead woman? Being alive is of course a major problem for Hillary because the country is not ready for a live woman. Presently the only woman who could beat Obama is a dead woman. Yes, a woman such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards. You know, a dead woman. Maybe even women would vote for her. “If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it. The men better let them. Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.” —Sojourner Truth

By A B on 05/20/2008 3:12 pm

e-mail alert

There are several strong women in the Senate, such as Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. So if a women doesn’t make it this time, this election will show how well Hillary Clinton did should encourage other qualified women to run. You can say she almost had it sewed up, because she is so very close.

By Alessan O on 05/20/2008 11:32 pm

e-mail alert

Will also due respect T.S., in BLINK, Malcolm Gladwell is really talking about “rapid cognitions” as useful intuitions or first impressions that may serve people better than too much study. One example he gave was about a painting or sculpture that this curator intuited was a fake but went along instead with the results (wrong) of appraisers who were called in. That said—and I hope you’ll excuse the non-sequitur—Malcolm Gladwell in the “New Yorker” said that the seventies and eighties are a time when writers and thinkers often do their most important work. Heartening news for a writer.

By Patricia Burstein on 05/20/2008 6:07 pm

e-mail alert

Yes, Patricia. I remember the story about the curator. As I recall however, aspects of the book discussed what he called bad cases of thin-slicing or the “dark-side” of blink and bias/prejudice was the theme. Do you disagree with that? Or are you just adding that rapid cognitions have an “upside.” (which I agree they can). Did I miss the point of the book or did I choose the wrong example to support that I was trying to say we all have bias and perhaps underlying prejudice we need to discover within ourselves?

By T S on 05/20/2008 7:37 pm

e-mail alert

TS: You are entirely correct about the “dark side” of blink and bias. I agree with you entirely. I was just pointing out the “upside” of rapid cognitions, likely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do tend to digress. Your example was absolutely on point.

By Patricia Burstein on 05/21/2008 6:02 pm

e-mail alert

It has been my experience that when you want to break a concept or preconceived notion -right when it arises or when you have that “rapid cognition”, you have to recognize it quickly as error and then dismiss it out of hand. Immediately. Don’t own it. Don’t take it like a seed and examine it and then replant it in your mind somewhere - get rid of it. False things are not worthy of your time. Assume the virtue or being without it - so to speak. Let it die. All the talk over and over again about race, the same scenarios in many ways keeps racist views alive. Don’t get me wrong. We cannot get to the point of dismissing it without seeing that it is there, but then let the light of day dissolve it. Drop it like a hot potato and get on with the business of living. When you look into someone’s eyes, don’t see the color of their face - look for the light.

By Frannie Em on 05/21/2008 9:20 pm

e-mail alert

Let’s be real here - I think anyone would be lying if having a person of color in the race hasn’t phased them in the least. I would hope it would bring to light our own prejudices both big and small as we navigate our way through the Presidentail race and our personal reactions to it. The lady (if I may call her that) at the dinner is pure and simply a bigot and she’s been outed. My true hope and desire is that we as a nation will grow from this if we allow ourselves — “to hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal”… We stand at the brink of embracing what our forefather’s espoused - not in our words but in our actions…

By DeAnne from Big D on 05/20/2008 12:04 pm

e-mail alert

I do not think everyone was fazed by having a person of color in the Presidential race. This has happened before, on a regular basis it seems for several decades. What was impressive was just how impressive Senator Obama is. Sure we all live in a society that has its roots in racism, but that does not mean that every leaf and bud is racist as well. I remember playing marbles with some kids across the street when I was very little. They were black, but my first impression of them was that they were unusually good at playing marbles. I agree with you that it is exciting. I know I have read that people overseas are impressed that the next President of the U.S. may very well be someone of color, that this may mean that how the U.S. has been perceived overseas in the past will be affected positively. As for the “lady,” she outed herself. Perhaps she is not well. Sometimes when people suffuse themselves with fear and hate, they are suffering from something within.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 05/20/2008 4:08 pm

e-mail alert

totally agree

By Esther Bradley-DeTally on 05/20/2008 4:53 pm

e-mail alert

Elizabeth— Your beautiful remark “I remember playing marbles with some kids across the street when I was very little. They were black, but my first impression of them was that they were unusually good at playing marbles.” really struck me. I really think you hit the nail on the head—kids don’t care about race, they are taught to care. As the product of a caucasian mother and Chinese father, I can remember that in early childhood, none of the other children even realized that my father was Chinese, he was just “Eleanor’s dad”. My siblings and I grew up in a suburban area outside of an east coast city—and there were no other minority children in my class—only caucasian kids. Even I didn’t realize that my parents were “different” from one another until I was probably 8 years old! Children just don’t see that kind of stuff, they just want to play and really could care less what you look like. Once we got older, the name calling started and the kids made constant fun of our very unusual Chinese name. So, I think racism is learned and it is about fear—fear of something different. When my parents would take us to California every year to visit my grandparents, the Chinese community (not my Chinese family) looked at us as if we were aliens from another planet. What I am trying to say is that all races are racist. White people feel guilty all the time, but they shouldn’t because other races are just as racist against them. It just isn’t “politically correct” to talk about that. And, honestly, I don’t think most people who are perceived as racist really hate other races, they just don’t understand. As an example, I can not tell you the number of times that people, just walking down the street, turned and looked at me and my sisters, then at my parents, then back again. We used to laugh about it, I don’t think they were racist, I just think they never saw that “combination” before. These days, there are a lot more interracial couples/children, so it is becoming less “shocking” so to speak. Unfortuantely, there will always be racist people, and it has nothing to do with what race (or political party) they are.

By eleanor roche on 05/20/2008 5:23 pm