Flickr: Creative Commons by dbking

Maybe you have the same reaction I have when I hear the latest study that shows that smoking is harmful to our health. Who doubted this? Who wasted money on this study? I felt the same way this weekend when I read article after article discussing whether some voters will not vote for Barack Obama because he’s black. Why are we even discussing this and who’s seriously questioning if there’s anti-black prejudice?

Here’s the answer. Yes. Yes, Virginia, some people won’t vote for Obama or will vote for McCain merely and solely because they won’t or can’t vote for a black candidate. Just how many is the question. Do people vote for a multiplicity of reasons? As Palin might intone, “You betcha, doggone it.” (God, how she grates on my nerves.) Let’s explore this fascinating issue.

In our country’s mere 232 years, we have not exactly been exemplary anent race relations. As a black trial lawyer buddy of mine in “Flawda” used to remind me, the First Amendment meant nothing to me until the Thirteenth. Our history is indeed pocked by despicable moments: the Scottsboro Boys, Emmett Till, Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, the Klan, the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers, “Bull” Connor, Rosa Parks, lunch counter sit-ins. Shall I go on? This is sickening just to type this horrible, yet truncated, list of just a portion of this dreadful part of our history.

Many of us don’t want to talk about this. It’s embarrassing. It’s time to move on, they’d say. Forget the past. Put it behind us. That was then and this is now. Not so fast, Buster Brown. While we certainly are happy that lynchings have disappeared (save the high-tech type à la Clarence Thomas) and there have been considerable strides and advances in civil rights, much still needs to be addressed and, frankly, the horrid memories described supra are still a part of the collective consciousness of many African Americans. So, while some white folks want to put this behind them/us, still stinging from the well-deserved and understood guilt of our despicable history, there are many Americans who will never forget and shouldn’t. You see, while many of us may consider historical referencing needless and unnecessary, others don’t. So when it comes to the issue of racism and whether we still haven’t overcome our insidious past, many Americans would like to think that all is well and good and that race plays no part in elections. Puh-leeze.

There are folks who would swear on a stack of bibles that race has nothing to do with their vote. They say Obama’s too inexperienced (though Sarah’s okey-dokey and would do just fine should McCain absquatulate prematurely at 72) or too exotic or “not like the rest of us.” Fine, that’s valid. If that’s true. There are folks who would never vote for Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish. Folks balked at JFK and his Catholicism. Today, some aren’t too keen about a distaff commander-in-chief. Though we haven’t had this to consider, I’d bet that a single, gay or mustachioed candidate or one who smoked openly would be eschewed as well.

And this may surprise you, but there’s nothing wrong per se in preferences. I have serious questions about McCain’s age; that doesn’t make me an age-ist. Sorry, but a 72 year-old man with a series of health issues is nothing to take lightly. What if you thought a female president would be ignored or not taken seriously internationally? Now, that makes no sense I admit what with the bevy of women world leaders, but if that were really one’s position, is that necessarily misogynistic or sexist? I submit that preference and bigotry are two different concepts, but you are free to disagree.

How many times have you heard the term “The Bradley Effect”? Does it apply today? Sure. But, again I ask, how much? It’s almost said axiomatically and apodictically today that pre-election and exit polls will show higher numbers for the African-American candidate than actual vote margins. In 1982 Tom Bradley was thought to have cinched the gubernatorial election against George Deukmejian. This “effect” was also seen in other races, viz. Douglas Wilder, Harold Washington, Jesse Jackson and David Dinkins. I believe that people answer poll questions like a civics test. Even some racists are embarrassed to be such so they lie when polled. (Gee, a racist lying.) And then there are those folks who don’t think they are against Obama because of his race but for “other” non-melanin-related factors.

On a personal note, when I left the prosecutor’s office and represented the unjustly accused (ahem), I’d ask prospective jurors during voir dire if they believed in the presumption of innocence and would hear all of the evidence before they rendered a verdict against my client who sat before them in chains and a spiffy orange jumpsuit. OK, I exaggerated, it was a blue jumpsuit. Invariably they nodded in Pavlovian affirmation when all along I knew they were lying through their teeth.

What’s really the issue that should be more problematic than it is is, frankly, the despicable catcalls from McCain-Palin audiences. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir can’t be directly held responsible for such, but they have certainly showed reticence in officially distancing themselves from such hateful comments. McCain-Palin rally attendees were heard to yell “traitor,” “criminal,” “terrorist,” “bum,” “liar” and, finally, “Kill him!” Congressman and veteran civil rights leader John Lewis accused McCain and Palin of "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" but later “clarified” his statement. Either way, he’s right.

Last week I wrote that I fear that some nut will be inspired to do or try something stupid to gain entrance into our pantheon of political assassins. With instant Internet(s) and YouTube gratification insuring immediate publicity, notoriety-seeking nuts need no assistance or encouragement from anyone. McCain and Palin should have squelched troublesome rhetoric immediately and strongly. Passive or no response tacitly endorses the idea. Finally McCain disagreed with some dingbat in Minnesota who “accused” Obama of being an Arab. He said that Obama was a decent family man. How does that refute the statement that Obama’s an Arab? Can’t an Arab be a decent family man? Oh, I forgot. That 9/11 thing. Right.

If this rhetoric doesn’t stop or if it’s not refuted and denounced more fervently and immediately, it’s not the Bradley Effect I’m worried about but a crazed loon who wants to secure his name and place in infamy.