So, once again, black folks in Maryland got chumped by the Democratic Party.
. . . This year, two black Democratic candidates ran for statewide office. Former congressman and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume ran for a U.S. Senate seat. Stuart Simms, a former Baltimore state's attorney who headed both the state departments of juvenile services and correctional services and public safety, ran for attorney general of Maryland.

. . . The rejection of both Mfume and Simms should provide Maryland's black Democrats with some food for thought and prompt some questions. And the first question should be why white Maryland Democrats don't vote for black Democratic candidates for statewide office in the same proportion black Maryland Democrats vote for white candidates for statewide office.

I think the question asked - why white Democrats support black Democrats in smaller proportions than they do white Democrats is a fair one generally. Indeed, the question can be asked for all minority Demcrats. I do think a significant art of it is due to false racial stereotypes - the minority as less intelligent and competent than the white. And yes, Democrats have, in some measure, internalized this stereotype.

But was the Mfume-Cardin race the best example of this?

Cardin -- a 10-term veteran of the House who previously served 20 years in the state House -- was the front-runner to win the primary since he entered the race last year, running up a long list of endorsements from the state and national Democratic establishments and amassing a vast campaign fundraising advantage over nearest rival Mfume. But Cardin had trouble pulling away from his rivals and was unable to make the race a foregone conclusion. Although his campaign avoided serious stumbles, Cardin himself was often characterized as having a bland personality that paled when compared to his competitors.
Mfume's campaign was a contrast to Cardin's in both the positive and negative sense. Emphasizing his dramatic personal story of a rise from a difficult youth on the streets of inner-city Baltimore, Mfume moved audiences with his charismatic personality. He also had the potential to build upon a base among the state's large African-American population, a key component of the Democratic primary vote.

But Mfume's campaign was hobbled by problems from the start. The first candidate to enter the race, Mfume harshly criticized Democratic leaders in Maryland for not supporting his campaign, accusing them of trying to anoint Cardin as the nominee before the primary election was held. Mfume was also dogged by accusations of favoritism during his tenure at the NAACP, and his campaign was never able to launch a fundraising operation to rival Cardin's.

Cardin and Mfume, who were elected to Congress in the same year and worked closely together until Mfume left to lead the NAACP, often talked on the campaign trail about being friends. Although the race was close, it never got nasty, and both candidates hesitated to point out significant differences between each other.

Observers largely expected the primary vote to split along racial lines, even though both are liberals and neither ran an ostensibly race-based campaign. Most polls showed Cardin, who is white, winning the majority of the white vote, while Mfume led among black voters.

Based on this reporting, it appears that Cardin ran a bland, but honorable campaign, never stooping to the race baiting seen in some other Democratic primaries. Mfume lost. Apparently he had some problems with his campaign.

Cardin and Mfume seem to agree on the issues. Why the backlash? Matt says:

I supported Mfume in the primary because I never bought this line, and while I don't expect Steele to win this, it's important to realize that the resentment that Steele is playing on is very real. . . . Cardin's a good guy, and a real progressive, but he's an insider who is tied into the Hoyer machine and isn't the heroic candidate-type that plays well in 2006.

. . . What I expect in Maryland going forward is that Steele will run two campaigns, . . . One campaign will be targeted at African-Americans, and will involve discussions of ethics and independents. It will hinge on the narrative of Democrats taking black voters for granted, but will largely skirt substantive discussion of what Steele would do in the Senate. . . .

I pose the following questions: (1) Did the Democratic Party "take black voters for granted" in Maryland? (2) Did white Democratic voters act racially in the Maryland primary? (3) By the way, did black Democratic voters act racially in Maryland? (4) Is this a legitimate beef?

My answers? 1. Yes. But not more so than in the past. The Party establishment backed Cardin over Mfume. Were there good reasons for this? I dunno, but clearly Mfume was not the perfect candidate. 2. Yes, but not more so than in the past. 3. Yes, and I imagine along the lines of the past in such races. 4. Yes, but . . .

The but here is important - Cardin ran for office. He ran a clean campaign. I don't think it is fair to make him a scapegoat for long term institutional problems in society.

Steele is a Republican who backs an agenda that hurts African-Americans. Will African-Americans in Maryland vote for a Bush supporting Republican and against their own interests? Even now, the answer is no. In the latest polling, fresh off the hurt of the primary loss, blacks support Cardin by 66-33%. The number of African-Americans supporting Steele is too high, and at least 20 points above the support Bush garnered. But that number will go down.

Yes, there is a problem of race, including in the Democratic Party. But Maryland and Ben Cardin seems an odd place to draw a line in the sand. At least to me.

DISCLOSURE - I have worked for African-American political candidates in the past and am a minority.