The sport of politics. The politics of sport.

Jump to Comments

The American press has done it again. Done what? Helped fuel a backlash to Barack Obama in the electorate last Tuesday. The usual suspects on CNN and MSNBC (you know who you are) couldn’t help INSINUATING LOUDLY over the past couple of weeks that Hillary Clinton should throw in the towel on her presidential bid as soon as possible. Guess they didn’t learn their lesson from New Hampshire; or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing.

Eager to keep the show going, the media keeps coming up with cute new names for contests that are not the Main Event. The sports media did it with the matchup between the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts last NFL season (”Super Bowl 41 1/2″). The news media gave us “Junior” Super Tuesday: a day that may live in infamy for millions of America’s true progressives, who are hoping for a new political landscape come November …

On the Republican side, it was a non-story. John McCain, no surprise, reached his magic number for nomination and Mike Huckabee conceded.

Everybody was watching the Democratic race and a lot of us were trying not to get a headache. Obama overcame double-digit deficits two biggest primary/caucus states last Tuesday: Texas and Ohio. But he couldn’t close the deal. He lost to Clinton by double digits in Ohio, but came within three percentage points of his rival in Texas, where caucus turnout helped him mitigate that loss.

A total of 370 Democratic delegates were at stake Tuesday. Clinton edged out Obama in Ohio 74-65, in Rhode Island 13-8 and in the Texas primary 65-61. But at last check Obama seemed to be surging back to a tie in the Lone Star State, as Texas caucus-goers who would supply one-third of the state’s delegates were favoring him 30-27. Obama won by his own double-digit spread in the whitest state in America, Vermont, 9-6.

Whitewash?

I got several calls Wednesday from disappointed Obama fans. One person compared Obama’s situation to what the Patriots went through last year: being the object of a lot of hype, a lot of momentum, and then an unwanted reality check or two heading down the stretch to the Big Game — in this case, the presidential election. Of course, many of us are hoping Obama doesn’t emulate the Patriots in the most important way: by winning most of the battles only to lose the war.

The general consensus seems to be that older, white, working-class women and, more notably, men were going for Hillary in large numbers — especially in industrial Ohio. People wanted to know what was up with that.

Here’s my take: Hillary Cllinton is selling the following ideas: stability and status quo; in other words, the “known quantity.” Add to that what we saw from the Clintons during the South Carolina primary: the use of Obama’s race as a divisive tool (see my blog postings on that). The Clinton campaign has been trying to make it easier for voters who are “uncomfortable” with the idea of a so-called “black” president (Obama is biracial) to vote their lack of conscience.

After stepping in it in S.C., the Clinton machine more recently has adopted a sideways attack: indicating Obama’s lack of experience is akin to a lack of maturity and understanding of reality; in other words, naivete. But that approach has been the convenient excuse of choice whites for centuries in their attempts to demean and dismiss the intellectual and leadership capabilties of black people — especially black men.

So, in my view, the reason Clinton racked up so many white votes – especially in the Buckeye State, which is not known for racial enlightenment — is that working-class whites are highly susceptible to appeals to racial prejudice, whether overt or covert. This doesn’t mean they will ALL fall for that stuff, but I think many of them can be swayed more easily than others because of “preexisting conditions.”

Specifically, the cultural lives of working-class folk, of any race, tend to be limited in scope when compared with the lives of better educated people. When many blue-collar types do mingle with “the other,” it’s often against their will and within a competitive framework: on the job, for example. It takes a lot of energy to expand your views, and not everyone has or wants to take the time to try anunderstand people who are “not like us.” Plus, who can say that the most natural state for human creatures is NOT to self-segregate? We see it all the time, from school cafeterias on up.

Better educated people are, for the most part, exposed to more cultural diversity in their lives; as a result, they tend not to feel threatened by that diversity. It’s no surprise that more of those folks are gravitating toward Obama. (This doesn’t mean a lot of those people aren’t insufferable blowhards; just that they aren’t as nervous about change.)

Football Logic

So how does someone who “looks like a black guy” convince the blue-collar guy or gal let that, somewhere, he’s one of them? Answer: Talk football. Obama knows this stuff already; he just needs to remember it — especially since he’s heading into Pittsburgh Steeler and Philadelphia Eagle territory as we head for April’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

This is going to sound simplistic, but I think one thing that happened is that Obama forgot to play his “guy” card: that is, to emphasize his love of sports in general and football in particular. This is because a lot of blue-collar traditionalists are football fans. Obama himself is a BEARS fan, for Pet’s sake. That means he’s a kissin’ cousin to Cincinatti Bengals fans. Another fringe benefit, from a “fan politics” POV: the Bears and Bengals aren’t in the same conference, much less the same division. So they don’t have the kind of rivalry-hatefest you see among intra-conference and intra-divisional teams. The Patriots-Jets come to mind, as do the Redskins-Cowboys.

Remember, Barack: Football brings America together. Those white, blue-collar folks are not part of your intellectually curious and culturally open-minded base. They are part of an even more crucial base: traditionalists. This is where a lot of white guys LIVE, including some dudes you might not have considered, like rock ‘n’ rollers.

(Example: A former drummer, super hip guy, super macho: looks like he’s leaning toward McCain. No idea why. Clue: He made it really clear he thought blacks were some of the worst racists he’d met. There’s an interesting perceptual hurdle to overcome, I thought.)

Traditionalism is all about NOT HAVING TO CHANGE YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW. So the only way to get traditionalists, especially white men, to embrace change (in this context, a relatively dark face in the White House) is to talk to ‘em in a language they can understand. Meaning: cool it on that lofty stuff.

I say for your Pennsylvania tour, write some new speeches based on listening to more ESPN Radio. Give’em meat ‘n’ potatoes talk. Football talk. And watch Harry Heartland — not to mention his undercover brothers on the fringes of urban hipdom — warm up to the idea of “equal opportunity,” FOR REAL.

Yours Truly, A.F. Cook