I have to admit that at the outset of the Obama campaign I was wrong when I said, "Sure there will always be some whites who would refuse to vote for Obama due to his race, but those folks wouldn't vote for the Democrat anyway." I assumed that over the course of the campaign, within the Democratic Party Obama would receive if not universal support, at least universal respect. I was wrong. Increasingly, we have seen race and racism play a role in the Democratic primary season. An article in today's Washington Post offers disturbing examples of whites--typically from blue-collar districts--who all too readily admit that they will not vote for an African-American for president. As a prime example, the Post article provides a statement published in a local newspaper by none other than the mayor of Tunkhannock Borough, an area in northeast Pennsylvania near Scranton:

Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him. No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office.

How can anyone not be disturbed by the image of a public official perpetuating long discredited internet myths about Obama in a local newspaper? In another example, an Obama worker who was wearing an Obama T-shirt at a polling place near Scranton reports that a Clinton supporter came up to her, pointed at her T-shirt, and said, "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"

Sentiments such as these have been heard by Obama campaign workers all too often in Pennsylvania, in parts of Indiana, and in West Virginia, and embody a kind of of paradox: As Barack Obama has become better known and more successful in his effort to secure the Democratic nomination he has engendered more resentment from certain segments of the electorate. Let us try to understand what is behind this dynamic:

In 1965, after the march on Selma, Alabama, Martin Luther King while standing on the Alabama Capitol steps, uttered these words, in a little remembered but profound speech:

The Southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow... And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than a black man.

The need to feel that however troubled our own lives may be, there is someone or some group that is worse off, is an insidious part of our social and political fabric. Indeed, the tabloid press has built a billion dollar industry by exploiting this dynamic: By chronicling celebrity divorces, by detailing every drug problem of the well-connected, by showing us that acclaimed actresses have cellulite too, the tabloids reassure us that we're not so bad off, and society's luminaries are not so well off as we had thought, which makes us feel better. Conversely, Obama's success has left some people feeling theatened. The white worker in Kokomo, Indiana who has been laid off sees not only Barack Obama as rising to new heights, but the African-American community in general, a thought which may leave him feeling left behind and unsettled, regardless of how much he stands to benefit from Obama's economic reforms.

Even Obama's comments in San Francisco about working-class bitterness have been somewhat misunderstood. In trying to explain his difficulties with blue-collar voters, Obama was actually bending over backwards to dispel any notion that race was a factor. His initial discussion was a defense of blue-collar whites against any charges of racism. Here is Obama just before he made the "bitter" comments:

People are misunderstanding the way the demographics in this contest are broken up the way they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to white working class don't want to vote for the black guy. There were intimations of this in an article in the Sunday New York Times today--kind of implies it's sort of a race thing. That's not what it is."

It was only after this comment, that Obama got himself into trouble by trying to find an alternative explanation for his lack of support in the white, blue-collar community. Had he simply said, "Look, people simply need time to familiarize themselves with a black guy named Barack Obama," he would have avoided a lot of trouble, and would have said something true to boot.

Another wrinkle in this campaign however, is that Obama has been very successful as a post-racial candidate. His critical win in Iowa, his showing in New Hampshire, his impressive vote totals in rural Nevada, not to mention his wins in places like Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah, and Minnesota show that in much of America, Obama has managed to transcend race. So what distinguishes the places he's won from the places where he's struggled?

I would submit that in states like Utah and Wyoming that have virtually no black people, there is no sense of competition between whites and blacks, which minimizes the tendency to engage in racial scapegoating. As such, folks tend to see Obama just as he is, as an inspiring politician with a set of progressive proposals. Paradoxcially, in more multi-cultural states, ethnic groups are more likely to compete for money, jobs, and for social status. As a result, resentment and suspicion of Obama is heightened. The divide between blacks and Hispanics in California is another example of this.

In the 1950's it was a rite of passage for black jazz musicians to travel to Europe, particularly France, where they were thrilled to find a people who not only respected their craft, but who respected them as individuals. Jazz great Miles Davis wrote of his joy at being able to go to a restaurant in Paris without having to worry about whether they would seat him. The France of 50's was white, homogenous, and compared to the U.S., relatively color-blind. Since then, however, an influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East has transformed France into a multi-cultural entity, and we now watch it going through growing pains, as "Rightist Front" and anti-immigrant groups play upon ethnic divisions. Surely the France of the future will be a better, richer, more diverse and more interesting place; but it now has serious work to do to resolve the tensions of its multi-cultural population.

In a similar way, the Obama campaign has brought to light some of the fault lines of American culture, showing the work that we have yet to do. Having said this, having outlined what I see as the racial problems of the 2008 campaign, I still believe that for Barack Obama, the future is bright. Here's why:

1) In the primary season when both candidates had virtually the same policy agenda, it was easy for the folks in Altoona and Scranton to say, "Heck, they're both for universal health care, they're both against the war, they're both against the Bush tax cuts, they're both promoting 'green jobs,' they're both saying the same thing! I'm gonna vote for the white candidate!" The convergence of views between Clinton and Obama has fed the racial dynamic; when there are few policy differences, matters like character, leadership style, gender, and race, become paramount. Such a choice, however, becomes far more difficult when the voter is confronted with a stark contrast in policies between John McCain and Barack Obama. In the battle between Obama and McCain there will be real issues to sink one's teeth into.

2) In the general election, all of the political leaders--Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia, will be stumping for Obama, making it more likely that their blue-collar supporters will come around. Nor will we have Hillary, stoking racial divisions by implying that Obama can't win the vote of "hardworking... white Americans." Obama having the backing of the entire Democratic establishment will change the atmosphere in these states considerably.

3) Finally, I believe that this will be an election where Obama's vice-presidential choice will matter. His choice will have both practical and symbolic value in terms of muting the racial issue. A Tim Kaine, an Ed Rendell, a Ted Strickland will go a long way toward reassuring blue-collar white voters that "the blacks" are not "taking over." Ironically, however, Obama's most creative option would be to choose Bill Richardson, the hispanic Governor of New Mexico. This would be the equivalent of throwing a thirty yard pass downfield, scrambling the electoral map, and putting the Southwest, Florida and Texas in play like never before.

A black/brown/white progressive coalition? Heck, in this primary season of hope and surprises, why not?