Wait. Wasn’t this supposed to be the post-racial presidency?

April 27, 2010

Then why is President Obama appealing to voters by citing their ethnicity? Oh, and their age demographic and gender, too?

I guess Jim Geraghty should add this to his comprehensive list of Obama promises that have expiration dates.

Jennifer Rubin provides this analysis:

Several things are noteworthy. First, so much for the post-racial presidency. We are back to naked pleas for racial solidarity. This comes from a man who told us that there were no Blue States or Red States, and that we should stop carving up the electorate into ethnic and racial groups. It was moving and appropriate and now it’s inoperative.

Second, this also suggests that just about everyone else in the electorate is a lost cause — whites, men, independents, and older voters. The Obama coalition has fractured — a little later than Hillary Clinton predicted, but it has. It seems he is reduced to the core left, not a recipe for successful governance or re-election.

Click though to see why she thinks this means the Democrats may be in big trouble in November.

Of course, appealing to voters on the basis of what we now call “identity groups” is nothing new in our history and, as recently as 2004, John Kerry was nakedly pandering to Catholic voters on the basis of shared identity. But it’s something I’ve always found offensive and self-betraying in a nation founded on political principle (often honored in the breach, but, nonetheless).

And it’s doubly so coming from Barack Obama. He is President of the United States and Chief of State – of the entire State. For him to toss aside all the eloquent words (“Just words.”) he said about getting beyond those things that divide us and to make a blatant appeal for votes based on those same divisions is cynical beyond belief.

It’s also desperate.

(via Fausta)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah.