I found a nice article that addresses race that i think you and your readers might be interested in… I know I am sick of this whole racial divide thing!
Posted by Aseba on Mar 31, 2008 at 5:42 AM
One might wonder if black voters are racist for voting - almost exclusively - for Obama.
One also might wonder if there is sexism going on.
That said, i would NEVER vote for Hillary, but hope to vote for Obama in November.My vote has NOTHING to do with his race, rather that he is an apparent outsider with integrity (but then again, so was Carter, who turned out to be a horrible president, although a good man).
Posted by wolf on Mar 31, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I am tired of everyone who assumes that the Clintons are somehow playing the racial thing on purpose; that they have somehow calculated this as a game plan. The white community is voating in a much less polarizing manner than the black community. There is a big difference in the 90/10 black vote split than the 45/55 white vote split. Who has really benefited from the ratial polarization? Could it be that Obamas campaign has been so quick to claim racism because it knew it would benefit from highlighting race in the campaign?
Posted by tyvigh on Mar 31, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The New York Senator’s last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the “Race Chasm” and the trampling of democracy.
The whole idea of superdelegates was designed and intended to trample democracy. Left to their own devices, the Democratic Party comes up with some real lulus when it comes to picking presidential candidates; after the McGovern disaster in 1972, the superdelegates were to make sure the party did not stray so far into blatant Socialist orthodoxy that the Party would again be humiliated.
The plan did not work too well: Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton and/or Obama. It was obvious sixteen years ago that the Clintons were dishonest, abusive, and dysfunctional, and this seems finally to have sunk into Sirota and prominent Democrats, who are now calling for Hillary to bow out. Fat chance.
And this year the Dims came up with three, count them, solid brass Socialist candidates, two of whom had built-in constituencies in identity politics. The odd person out was Edwards, of course. Edwards’ Socialist credentials were fully equal to the other two candidates, but he had neither estrogen nor melanin to recommend him: OUT!
My horseback estimate is that the superdelegates will come down on MagicAl who, with no knowledge or credentials, became rich and famous fighting global warming. Al was so successful that this last winter featured historic cold and snowfalls. With a record like that, plus an Oscar and a Nobel, Al is the obvious choice over Hillary and Barack, who have no discernable records at all. So what if democracy is trampled again? That is what superdelegates were intended to do.
I am sure that the Blacks and the ladies will go along with this plan for the good of the Party. After all, Party loyalty is a Dim characteristic.
Posted by scorp on Apr 1, 2008 at 5:03 AM
“My horseback estimate is that the superdelegates will come down on MagicAl “
Surely you jest? I put the odds at less than 100-1 that Gore will be the D candidate this year. Perhaps 20-1 he will ever again be the a candidate for national office.
The election is the D’s to lose. If Hillary bowed out, i think they would almost certainly win. The odds of Hillary bowing out are about the same as Gore stepping in, sadly for the D’s.
Posted by wolf on Apr 1, 2008 at 7:11 AM
Well now, Scorp had a lot of hate to spew, so let’s deal with this:
First, they are called DEMS and not DIMS. “Dims” is a code word for “Dhimmi”, which is arabic for those who are dumb enough to cave into the islamic ideology and pay “jizyah” (head tax). This word is often used by the extreme right to try to portray democrats as unpatriotic and somehow dangerous to this country.
Well, Scorp, I have news for you: a hell of a lot of soldiers out their in iraq come from democratic families, and I doubt they want to hear this kind of crap out of your mouth. So, cool the DIM stuff. It was a neo-con administration that got us into an unnecessary war, the longest war we have ever fought and without a doubt, the most expensive. It was a GOP controlled congress that didn’t put forth enough money to equip our own troops with body armor and the situation over there has been so piss poor that our own government has had to rely on private companies to help police the entire thing - they call them security firms. So, if anyone has shown a “dhimmi” mentality, it has been this neo-con administration.
“And this year the Dims came up with three, count them, solid brass Socialist candidates, two of whom had built-in constituencies in identity politics.”
A good old page 57 out of the right wing playbook. Call them all socialists and scare the hell out of the country. Won’t play out this time. Nice try. And every candidate has a built-in consituency, if you haven’t noticed.
But I am glad you posted here. This type of rhetoric is exactly the reason why the GOP is going to get a terrible pasting in November.
Now, as to Sirota’s article: great article, and it proves that race is indeed an issue. Only Obama had enough grace to only brace the issue when it absolutely became necessary. In true american fashion. Something the right could learn, as soon as it takes down the 1952 calendar from the wall and realizes that the McCarthy era is long dead.
Posted by bonncaruso on Apr 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM
i BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE AND I AM SAD ABOUT IT, AS A WOMAN I THOUGHT FOR SURE THAT WHEN I WENT INTO POST IN ELECTION CHAT ROOMS LIKE AOL, CNN, FOX… THAT THE WOMEN IN THESE ROOMS WOULD BE MORE LIKE ME, I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE FILTHY MOUTHS , THE WAY RACE WAS THROWN UP EVERY FIVE SECONDS AND THOSE WOMAN WHO TRASHED THE SUPPOTERS NOT THE CANIDATE… I FOUND MY SELF THINKING OF THINGS MY MOTHER WOULD SAY ” DO YOU KISS YOUR MOM WITH THAT MOUTH” AND ” IM SURE WHAT YOU JUST SAID MADE YOUR MOM REAL PROUD!” IM ONLY 29… I THINK ITS A HORIBLE SHAME THAT AT 29 YOU FEEL OTHERS AROUND YOU ARE IMMATURE!!
Posted by OMMY4ALL on Apr 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Masterfully written article.
One of the best I’ve read yet.
I arrived here through a link over at electoral-vote.com.
Yesterday, he was linking to a Karl Rove Newsweek piece which I also read.
Rove’s article is a convoluted mess compared to this elegant piece.
Posted by chasemonster on Apr 1, 2008 at 6:42 PM
ANOTHER ARTICLE BY ANOTHER HILLARY HATER!!!
Ignorance and Venom: The Media’s Deeply Ingrained Sexism
Below the Belt: A Biweekly Column by NOW President Kim Gandy
February 14, 2008
The press have been brutal to Clinton, no doubt about it. Whether consciously or not, too many reporters, commentators, pundits and the like appear unable to critique Hillary Clinton without dusting off their favorite sexist clich
Posted by BARBBF on Apr 2, 2008 at 5:32 AM
One wonders if the message above is that if one is anti-Hillary does that automatically make them anti-woman in general? Perhaps we should rejudge Marie Antoinette or Andrea Yates as merely the victims of a sexist society?
I suppose this then implies that D’s will have to decide if they are anti-black or anti-woman. Since obviously one can only be against Obama if one is anti-black. . .
Falsely playing the “sexist” card is just as stupid and despicable as playing the race card (and sadly, perhaps just as effective). One thing seems obvious, at least to me: Hillary is fully a Clinton. Absolutely no scruples, will do anything at all to win. I think her choice of the Rocky theme is a good one - Rocky only wanted to go the distance and inflict as much damage on Apollo as he could. And, in the end, Rocky lost to the judges (superdelegates) decision (hmm, will her mantra be “selected not elected” next time?). One can only imagine that Hillary is hoping to do as much damage to Obama as possible, hoping to run again - against McCain - in 2012. I hope she fails and then fades to obscurity, quickly.
Posted by wolf on Apr 3, 2008 at 7:14 AM
I find this article interesting and there may be some merit in it.
I have no doubt the Clinton campaign has looked on a state to state
basis at the breakdown of women, blue collar voters, Latino’s ,
Blacks and so on and has strategized based on such but I am certain
the Obama campaign has also. We just watched Obama at a bowling alley having a beer who looked as out of place and as uncomfortable
as one could possibly look. This guy is white wine not beer and it showed. Both of these candidates are out to win so if Clinton takes into account the racial breakdown of a particular state and strategizes due to such, the problem is? Obama doesn’t? McCain won’t? I think we’re giving Clinton way too much power here. Clinton doesn’t need to remind us that Obama is Black . Clinton doesn’t need to remind us that there are some whites who will not vote for an African-American , we all know that. Clinton doesn’t have to remind us about the Wright tapes nor tell us if we are or are not offended by them. If we aren’t offended Clinton won’t convince us we should be just as if we are offended Obama will not be able to convince us we should not be. What is not offensive is that Clinton would point out to superdelegates that perhaps the Wright tapes could impact the general election or that she could carry some populations better than Obama . What is not offensive is that Obama could tell delegates he could carry the African-American vote better than Clinton can. I think superdelegates have pondered these possibilities or would ponder them left to their own devices. An honest dialogue would allow that these possibilities or probabilities could be discussed without fear of being branded racist.
Race is not being interjected into these primaries , issues of race are already there. It’s like the pink elephant- we’re supposed to pretend Obama isn’t Black, we’re supposed to pretend that people won’t vote along racial lines, we’re supposed to pretend that many people in this country may question whether Obama’s race had something to do with his quick rise to where he is today just as people question whether the fact Clinton is the wife an ex-President propelled her to where she is today. If someone does imply or question the impact the race of a particular candidate is having on what we are seeing playing itself out,
and opts to not pretend, they are quickly labeled racist as was the case with Ferraro. The immediate labeling of Ferraro as racist gave a strong message that there is no room for open nor honest dialogue when it comes to issues of race. If you do opt to do so then you need to proceed at your own risk. Any dialogue that could have come out of her statements she made was cut off ASAP once she was labeled racist.
The predominantly white liberal media certainly wouldn’t dare explore what she said any further but rather needed to reinforce that she had stepped out of line and violated the rule of pretend. This is white liberalism at it’s worst. While one may see, and appropriately so,
Clinton as being calculating I highly suspect if anyone understands the
dynamics of white liberalism and how it addresses issues of race it would be Obama and I suspect he has engaged in some calculation of his own, If we want open and honest dialogue on race in this country then there needs to be an environment that comments such as the one Ferraro made could be discussed and debated rather than just cut off and dismissed as racist and of no value in any dialogue pertaining to race whatsoever . I think the message the media gave in it’s response to Ferraro and the message Obama has given by interjecting Ferraro into a speech where he was supposedly addressing the inflammatory statements of his Pastor of 20 years - spoke for itself. There is no room for open or honest dialogue on race.
Posted by alpaig on Apr 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM
On April 1, 2008, I wrote the following:
“This type of rhetoric is exactly the reason why the GOP is going to get a terrible pasting in November.”
And see, exactly this happened.
Posted by bonncaruso on Jul 4, 2009 at 4:26 AM