Generally, presidential candidates don't address race head-on. When a racial issue explodes, they tend to duck. The Los Angeles riots, for example, occurred early in the 1992 campaign, but after a few low-risk comments, the candidates let aching questions about racial conflict fade. More commonly, candidates deal with race indirectly through hedged statements about, say, affirmative action, or through code words about their policies on such issues as crime, welfare, or immigration. We're accustomed to the politicians' evasions, but the media's cooperation seems odd.
Journalists often note the nation's racial tension.
And in the last fifteen years, journalism generally has improved coverage of race and ethnicity, providing a fuller view of multicultural America's mix of hope and heartache. Yet when it comes to the presidential campaign, talented political reporters who pride themselves on prodding candidates often fail to explore the interplay of race and politics. In analysis pieces, they tend to ignore the campaign's often subtle racial dimension. The meeting apparently did not inspire reporters to ask the president to offer his own plans for narrowing America's racial splits. Similarly, when candidates talk about welfare reform far-reaching legislation that Clinton, after agonizing, decided to sign race is implicit.