home

How Obama Supporters Can Hurt Obama

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

We at Talk Left have always really liked John Cole and his site Balloon Juice, even when he was still a Republican. But I think he and other Barack Obama supporters do Obama no favors with these type of statements:

Anyone who is remotely surprised by this has not been paying attention:

Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

Now I don’t want to throw the state under the bus (since that is so fashionable these days) because I love it here so much, but anyone who is surprised by this simply is not paying attention. Racism is alive and well in central PA, SE Ohio, and much of WV. . . .

Cole protests that he was not saying that all Hillary Clinton supporters in West Virginia are racists:

I am not claiming that anyone who refuses to vote for Obama is a racist. I just am not. But there are a number of things working against Obama in WV, and chief among them is the presence of a number of people who will, under no circumstances, vote for a black man.

Indeed John. There are many. Many sexists too I would bet. Most of them vote Republican. That is why no Democrat will win in the South whether the nominee is an African American man or a white woman. West Virginia can be won by a Democrat, perhaps even by Barack Obama. I guess it is inconceivable to John that West Virginia Democrats support Hillary, as did most Democrats in ALMOST EVERY STATE. Maybe the insulting explanation is NOT the first one you should reach for John.

< McCain Aide Suspended For Pushing Obama/Wright Video | Obama "Passport Information" Breached >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    i am not claiming that john cole (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    is a fool. i am not.

    False logic is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    A lot of Americans are racist.

    A lot of Americans choose to support HRC.

    Nobody would suggest that these groups are mutually exclusive, but it sounds awfully like some people are suggesting they're coincident.

    I think that Obama is rapidly losing any credibility he may have owned as a racial "uniter," and his surrogates are not helping.

    That wasn't Cole's argument though (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    he did walk it back...to his credit...but this is not thickly veiled

    Now I don't want to throw the state under the bus (since that is so fashionable these days) because I love it here so much, but anyone who is surprised by this simply is not paying attention. Racism is alive and well in central PA, SE Ohio, and much of WV. . . .

    The bolded THIS refers to:

    Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

    He IS saying what he was accused of saying...that the reason Hillary is doing well is because she has the support of racists...he walks it back...but he said it.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    A big factor in Hillary's support (none / 0) (#57)
    by Friday on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    is fear that Obama is unelectable because of Republican attacks on his black pastor (Wright videos!!!) or just a fear that others won't vote for a black man.

    Truth is that people who won't vote for Obama because of his color are voting McCain anyway. They've been the core of the Republican "Southern Strategy" since 1964. They are the core of the 27% percenters who still think Bush is a godly man.

    No candidate will have them voting D.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by dk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    even if you meant well, this statement is likely wrong, or at least completely unsupported by any actual evidence.

    Perhaps the really "big factor in Hillary's support" is that people actually like Hillary or, at the very least, support her campaign promises and ideas for this country.  Or perhaps a "big factor" is that people do not like where Obama has positioned himself on the issues.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    Obama has worked so hard to convince Democrats that nothing good happened during Bill Clinton's presidency his followers naturally jump to the conclusion that anyone supporting Hillary is racist.  

    Parent
    yes... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    but lets just say true logic doesn't often prevail when people are reacting viscerally (and claiming it as logic)

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    can we extrapolate from this that:

    BARACK SUPPORTERS ARE MISOGYNISTS?

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    A big factor in Hillary's support is fear that Obama is unelectable because of Republican attacks on his black pastor (Wright videos!!!) or just a fear that others won't vote for a black man.

    Because it has obviously been the deciding factor in  many primaries and caucuses since Wright's stuff hit the MSM...

    This theory is off the wall...

    Parent

    reminds me of how folks (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    talked about Kerry toward the end--hedging their bets in case he lost.  "He appeals to the educated voters."  "He is the antidote to stupidity."  So, if he loses, then it's not the smart peoples' fault.

    Same here.  If Obama loses, it's because everyone is racist.

    Actually, it makes me feel kind of good to hear this kind of utter sh*t coming from Obama supporters, because it tells me that they have felt the shift in momentum, too.

    Hope they are having fun up there on that high horse.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#150)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    the hedging does show the underlying momentum shift...

    It is clear, Obama has some big problems, his campaign seems unable to deal with not being handed this nomination, they don't seem ready for a fight (not to mention his advisers have never seemed ready for prime time)...

    I don't think the Obama free ride is over though, but I think it is clear something needs some tweaking.

    Parent

    And let us point out (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    the findings of Paul Lukasiak on the role gender may or may not play in this election.  Complete with ANALYSIS.  GASP.

    Paul

    I'm not exactly sure what a Democratic racist looks like, in terms of broad primary numbers.  But I'm beginning to get a picture of what a Dem sexist looks like.  Maybe it's the a-holes who wrote "Hilary [sic]:  Shouldn't you be cooking Bill's Dinner?" on a poster when she came to their school.  
    But anyway, it's hard to turn 4 jerks into 400,000 without EVIDENCE.  And it is indeed stupid to create commentary suggesting that states that Obama hasn't won are racist, en masse.  
    They give sociology a bad name.  Which is why I'm basically unimpresed with the blogosphere as a whole.

    This, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    is the kind of thing a lot of people mean when they say they want to have a "dialog" about race. What they really want is a sermon given by them to all of those "other people" who don't see things the way they do.

    I'd give Obama credit because his speech did adopt an attitude of willingness to actually have a dialog and to attempt to understand other people's points of view, without surrenduring his own perspective.

    I haven't seen much from his supporters that would entitle them to the same credit.


    We Are Getting (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    A rare chance to talk about racism and sexism in America. It is no wonder that people are sounding stupider than they normally are. Hopefully with practice and lots of adjustments the level of awareness will rise and the discussion will continue.

    It is refreshing (and awkward for some) not to just have a bunch of white guys to pick from.

    Rare chance? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    I think the chance is there every day right?

    Parent
    Sure Is (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    And just in case anyone forgets that, we have a historic situation going on right now that can remind everyone how awkward we are now, for not having taken that chance every day.

    Parent
    right on (none / 0) (#32)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:52:45 PM EST
    I've actually heard and read quite a few very (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    intelligent comments with regard to racism lately.  Not everyone is stupid.

    Parent
    Cole is not stupid either (none / 0) (#21)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    And I would probably venture that you could find many intelligent racists...(Rev. Wright seems to be intelligent, but he holds apparent racist views...as does Dr. Watson of DNA fame)

    but the position/statements/beliefs are obtuse, narrow minded, etc...

    Parent

    still waiting (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    on an intelligent dialogue about sexism and misogyny.  

    Parent
    Me, too. But please don't hold your breath. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    Oh boy, here we go. This is going to be very, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    very, ugly.  

    Cole is another guy (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    I used to read every day.
    Then he pretty much denied sexism in this
    campaign, and I stopped.  Oh well!

    Thanks BTD. (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
    To be fair, the Republican party in West Virginia is so deeply moribund that all but the most conservative people tend to register as Democrats and/or independents.  There are still parts of WV where the primary essentially determines the outcome of local races.  (That said, there are significant parts of SE Ohio where the REPUBLICAN primary determines the outcome of local races, which tells you something about the respective histories of the states, even taking into account the deep cultural ties the whole Appalachian belt shares.)  

    West Virginia has a very unique labor history, and the entirety of the state is within the Appalachian region, unlike - well - every other state with an Appalachian region.  

    I'm sure there are racists in WVa, and I'm sure that there are some in the Democratic party in WVa, but broad accusations of widespread racism based solely on stereotypes (and perhaps a need to excuse one's favored candidate's poor performance) is 1. stupid; and 2. unfair.  

    I am sure there are sexists in West Va (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    and all other other states. They do not constitute the totality of Obama's support.

    Parent
    Feel sad tonight (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    though I can't lay any claim to being an Obama supporter.  My spouse came home mad as heck about the typical white woman thing.  Soldiers tend to be a bit protective over those they feel loyal to and their favorite candidate happens to be a white woman.  He says that Obama is washed up and done, no way to come back from this now and Clinton will be the nominee no matter what must be done to make it so.  Can't know if he's right or wrong but it is sad to see people so ticked off at other candidates in the party over words like these having been said.

    this seems to be resonating (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    that remark has caught the attention of people very quickly... Hmm, Lou Dobbs was just covering it and played the clip.  O'Reilly just led with it.

    The right wing media still drives narrative.  Bad times for Obama.

    Parent

    That remark bothered me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:05:34 PM EST
    But I am not happy about the wingers running with it and trying to divide us further.

    Parent
    What remark? (none / 0) (#48)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:38 PM EST
    What remark are you speaking of?

    Parent
    This comment (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    she's very proud, and that she's not like that anymore, and she's just a typical white person, who when she's on the street and sees someone she doesn't know has a reaction that's been bred in them that due to our experiences comes out the wrong way

    Apparently that is beyond the pale.

    Parent

    That's what happens (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    when you go outrage on Ferraro.

    the timing of this "controversy"'s launch by the Right Wing is obvious. Axelrod played the outrage card on Ferraro - Olbermann made a FOOL of himself with the worst Special Comment he has ever made and then blam - they dropped a bomb.

    Parent

    This stuff was going to come out (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    The race stuff was going to come out sooner or later anyway.  Wright was in the backpocket of the RNC and Hillary whenever it was necessary.

    I'd imagine that the RNC is a little disappointed it came out now.  They would have much preferred this came out in August during the convention.

    I will stick to my belief that this stuff will fade away.  When it's all said and done the Wright stuff isn't changing anyone's mind.  If you were the type to be offended by that stuff you weren't likely voting for Obama anyway.  

    Parent

    Of course it was (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    The timing by the Right Wing was brilliant though.

    Parent
    hey BTD, did you catch Daschle on CNN? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    Trying to justify the opposition to Michigan revote by resorting to that pathetic excuse of "we would be disenfranchising the voters who voted for the Republicans and now would not get to vote again"

    Parent
    Speculation is (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    that there are at least 100,000 people who voted in the GOP primary because the Dem one wasn't contested.

    Parent
    Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:43:55 AM EST
    didn't necessarily crossover because of the delegate situation.

    Among the Democratic activists I know there was a feeling that any Democrat could win and that only McCain could possibly spoil election day. They voted in the Republican primary to saddle the Republicans with Romney.

    Remember that this was in mid-January, Edwards was still in the race and the very high level of acrimony was still a bit down the road.

    Parent

    better timing for the right wing to let it out (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nycvoter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    would have been after obama had sealed the nomination

    Parent
    It was brilliant timing (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by suskin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    and it shows that the Republicans are still playing us.  They waited until Obama used the racism victim weapon to win enough states to become the presumptive lead, then the Republicans dropped the bomb and turned Obama's weapon against him.  Obama had one chance to salvage himself - to salvage the Party - instead of giving a dissertation on race he could have united the party.  He could have said the Clintons are not racists, what Bill and Ferraro said wasn't racist, let's heal the party.  But instead he repeated the racism charge and played the race victim card again, and had the audacity to cast himself as the person who could heal the divide by virtue of his race.  Obama had the chance to be the uniter he says he is, but he failed.

    Parent
    You think so? (none / 0) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    In all honesty this seems to be the perfect time for Obama to let this story come out.  

    There is still another month before there is another primary.  After the Miss primary, race was at the forefront.  I honestly can't think of another time during the race that would have been better for Obama.

    The cynic in me accepts the possibility that Obama was the one who "broke" the story.  The cynic in me thinks the timing is almost too good for him.  The cynic in me is amazed that Obama could have such a fantastic speech ready for action at a moment's notice.

    Parent

    the speech didn't move the needle (none / 0) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    did you see the InsiderAdvantage poll?  I mean it sounded like a great speech, but maybe it didn't quite have an effect.

    Also, about timing...  You think this was great timing?  Really?  Just when he was about to start being calld the presumptive nominee?  How about this: a much better time would have been before the campaign got underway.  What would have been a better time?  Maybe during his winning streak in February.

    This is actually a very awful time for it because the media has not much else to talk about and there's still a month to Pennsylvania.  He can't win a caucus in Idahio to distract and get the glow back.

    Parent

    We'll have to disagree on that (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    IMO, had this come out before the campaign started it could have killed his campaign before it even started.  Actually the Right Wing people DID throw this out last year but no one really knew Obama so the story didn't go very far.

    Feb would have been very risky.  He couldn't afford to lose any of those states and a big story like this could have changed any number of those states, particularly Virginia or Maryland.

    The only other time that would have been better, perhaps was in June or July after Hillary conceded assuming she did.  But even then, this story plays differently in the GE than it does in the Dem primary.   And I think that Obama really wants to avoid making the GE a referendum on race relations.

    Parent

    well one last thing (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    This came out during the longest gap between primaries/caucuses.... it was the worse possible time for a story like this because it will have plenty of time to sink in and for buyer's remorse to fully materialize (if it does)

    But I acknowledge we disagree.

    Parent

    Too soon to tell (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    And, actually, both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed Obama doing better against Hillary in the polls that came out today....

    Obama has bottomed out and the slide in the polls is most likely over....

    Parent

    Obama figured that (none / 0) (#100)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:39:43 PM EST
    race would probably be raised at some point in his candidacy.  He'd have to be an idiot not to. He's been working on the outline of the speech for good while and just fleshed it out recently.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    But he had a lot of details regarding Rev Wright in that speech.  He was ready with a speech specifically designed to counter the Wright Stuff.  

    Parent
    I suggest a career as a novelist, specifically (none / 0) (#109)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
    Fiction.

    Parent
    You are calling him a liar (none / 0) (#121)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:05 PM EST
    in those interviews where he said he never heard anything.  Wait, he did that to himself in his speech.


    Parent
    Atta boy (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    I was wondering who would be the first to chime in with a gross distortion of my comment.  The smart money was always on you.  

    Parent
    Big chunks of the speech (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    so I've read, were lifted pretty much word for word from campaign speeches and the book/s.  Obama was so clearly taken aback by the whole Wright flap, I don't think there's the slightest possibility his people were responsible for it.

    Parent
    I don't think so either (none / 0) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    It was more a speculative comment based on what, IMO, was very good timing for Obama.

    Parent
    define "fade away" (none / 0) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    It's going on 2 weeks now.  I guess if you wait long enough, everything fades away in some fashion but this story has been the longest ball and chain for any candidate this primary season.

    Parent
    1 week so far, and looking like it's going into 2 (none / 0) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    that's more of what I meant.  It "broke" on March 13th.

    Parent
    Right. (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    So far it's a one week news cycle story.  Might roll into 2.  IMO, worst case is 3 but I doubt it.  

    Part of the problem for both Hillary and McCain is that you can't just pound away at this story.  There is a serious risk of blowback if they keep beating up on the black minister.  Go to hard at him and he turns from scourge of the nation to sympathetic old man being relentlessly attacked

    This is why both of them have shied away from it and are letting the media and blogosphere run with it.

    Parent

    Please note and give credit (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    Hillary has been silent on this. Not a word. She did not break this story, although she certainly knew about it long ago. You cannot lay this at her feet. Far from "pounding" it, she hasn't even mentioned it. And she won't.

    This is between your guy and the media. Leave Hillary out of it.

    You have to believe it will go away if you like Obama. IMO, that is not a realistic belief.

    Parent

    Hillary is lobbying (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:36:38 AM EST
    super delegates based on Wright's comments...

    Lanny Davis, a prominent Hillary surrogate, had a big article on Wright on Huffington Post....

    My prediction:  If Obama's drop in the polls stalls or reverses, Hillary will raise Wright overtly herself.....

    Parent

    Among centrists you could run this story (none / 0) (#112)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    for a year and there would be no blowback.  By the way, due to the timing, personally I think this is just the tip of the Wright iceberg.


    Parent
    Ralph (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    I think this is just the tip of the Wright iceberg.

    What do you mean--more videos?

    Parent

    3 sermons (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:38:42 AM EST
    There are 3 videos and it has been at least a week since the first one came out.....

    It would seem reasonable they have already published the worst ones....

    Parent

    I'm sure you do think that (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    But you've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on Obama for about a year now most likely.

    Remember the good ol days when plagiarism was the reason why we couldn't trust Obama?  Good times indeed back then.  

    Parent

    an abundance of shoes (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    shoes raining from heaven.

    No one notices at first, but then, eventually, someone looks at the ground and says, "hey, lookit all these shoes."

    And of course for everyone that's left, there's always a Wright.

    Parent

    eeGAD (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    How many more shoes have to drop on Obama? He's swimming in Hush-Puppies!

    Granted, Hillary is awash in them too, since the 90's, but she's built an island nation on top of them. Let's see how Obama fares.

    Parent

    And Penn isn't until April 22nd. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:24 PM EST
    and Ferraro is a FOX News contributor (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    They don't like when one of their own is attacked.  Fox News security might even come and get you!

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    saw a clip of the Olbermann tirade for the first time today.  Unbelievable.  I've never seen anyone outside of conservative cable news embarrass themselves so badly.  

    Parent
    i can't help but think the ko fell for the (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    idea that he was the second coming of murrow and thinks we should all fall down when he opens his mouth. keith, you lost me and many others with that attitue.

    Parent
    It is (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    also what happens when the candidate is an amateur.

    Parent
    Sen. Obama talked about his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    and her racial views today and called her a "typical white person."

    Parent
    oooooh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    That's not going to sit well.

    Parent
    Check out Politico (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    for the quote.  It was Obama's radio interview.

    Parent
    Crazy Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    Yeah how bout this Obama supporters comments....

    And one other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

    Clearly he must know that is just going to make things worse.  Oh wait, that was Mike Huckabee who said that.

    This is totally different (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    Gov. Huckabee is saying resentment is understandable. I agree with him. Sen. Obama's words implied the typical white person has racial fear. I don't agree with that. He should have been a little more careful in how he stated his point.

    Parent
    This discussion is OT (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    but the typical middle class person has racial fear specifically racial fear of poor blacks and latinos.  

    Some middle class people allow that fear to flow over into their views on racial groups in general.

    This isn't a shocking revelation, although I'm sure many people would prefer to not talk about it at all.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    Well that settles the political import of the Wright situation.

    I like you flyerhawk but your comment is off topic. I'll leave it though cuz it made me chuckle.

    Parent

    Yeah I know (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    it was a little OT.  But I thought it surprising that Huckabee would say it.  

    Parent
    A fair number of Obama supporters (in other (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    places, not this site) have started acting strangely and making odd arguments. For example, at my old stomping ground people seem pretty jubilant. They seem to think that the most recent poll numbers are great for Obama (he's down by over 100 electoral votes) and that Clinton needs to drop out. They think that the fact that 57% of the people believe Obama doesn't share Wright's views is great. That's actually a horrible number. It means that 43% think Obama agrees with a man who screams "God D**n America".

    It's the greatest cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Compared to DK, the above post is mild. By the end of this campaign though, ever voter in this country is going to be considered a racist.

    I (none / 0) (#84)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    just read a poll that said 57% of voters are less likely to vote for Obama since his Great Speech.

    Parent
    I wouldn't mind a link (none / 0) (#90)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    eom

    Parent
    Here ya go (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    Link

    Barack Obama's speech about race on Tuesday impressed many who witnessed it or read it. But most of America did neither, and many of them  -- white and black -- were less persuaded of the speech's capacity to heal racial wounds, or to put the issue of race behind Obama as he continues his quest for the White House.

    That's according to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion.

    First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama's pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama's speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, "Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?"

    Less likely (52%)
    More likely (19%)
    About the same (27%)
    No opinion (2%)

    The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama's speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation.

    (more at link)

    Parent

    John Kerry's comment (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    Because he's African American. Because he's a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. We only broke the back of civil rights, Jim Crow, in the 1960s here.

    What oppression did Obama face in Hawaii?

    40% Asian
    28% white
    20% mixed race
    2%  black

    There was no Jim Crow in Hawaii and Jakarta, Senator.

    This morning (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    I had a woman tell me that Hillary is indeed the "conventional" candidate. Other than the fact that she's a woman, which is nothing, and I should not complain that nobody notices my candidate is a woman.

    This is a white woman in her late 60s from the south. She "knows that she's considered more "conventional" than a black man." She "knows that she has it better" than a black man.

    I reminded her that Obama is not a southern black man. He is from Hawaii and Indonesia. His ancestors were not slaves. He graduated from Harvard law, is a U.S. Senator, and lives in a mansion. She isn't better off than he is. She can stop scourging herself now.

    Her reaction? "That's your opinion."

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kayla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    racism is about what you look like, not what your background is.  I think Obama received the same treatment from the typical prejudiced white person as a 100% black man who dropped out of school and became a janitor.  That's the problem.  Racism has nothing to do with who you are.  Sexism doesn't either and I think it's awful that it seems people don't realize that it's a struggle for women too.  Sometimes I think that the imagery of the civil rights movement is so embedded in our consciousness that it can't be shaken, so we're more sensitive to it.  Most of what was done to women happened behind closed doors, in our homes, so it's easier to push it under the rug.  I kind of want Hillary to make a big speech about women's rights in America, but it would just look like she's copying.  I think what Obama said about his grandmother was just as much a gender issue as it was a racial one, really.  I think all women, whatever their color, feel a bit nervous if they're alone and a strange man is walking towards them.  I hate that he failed to go a little deeper there.  Everyone always says Barack is such an intellect.  But he seems like a pretty lousy one.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#130)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    that most of those "mixed race" people don't look like Obama.  Also, Hawaii, like many parts of America, has had a complicated relationship with race.  Successive waves of Japanese, Chinese and Fillipinos were brought over to Hawaii as cheap labor to work the plantations (taken from the native peoples).  They were often discriminated against or set against each other.  Hawaii, today, is much more racially harmonius, but it hasn't always been that way.

    Parent
    Almost every country which (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    imports racial labor has a "complicated relationship with race".  

    Jim Crow is disntinctly a Southern USA group of oppression laws against AA's.  Obama did not experience Jim Crow oppression laws.

    Parent

    I don't desire a dream ticket (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM EST
    I am voting for her because of what she represents, who she'll stand up for and her experience. I am not asking for a two fer. If I wanted to vote for him I would.  I am not voting for him for reasons.

    Why would those reasons change in a General Election? If I don't like what he represents now why would I expect him to change.

    I'll save my dream ticket for the Nominee and who they select as their running mate.

    BTW- John Edwards on Leno and some think he may have a few things to say about both candidates.

    Ohwell (none / 0) (#1)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    It really makes you wonder...it seems the racists aren't the only obtuse folks...

    I guess I should also add the disclaimer...I don't think John Cole is obtuse, but many that make similar statements/arguments are...John made the statement, realized it was obtuse, walked back the "meaning" but not the statement...

    So now (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    we are holding Obama responsible for everything people post on websites?  Have a look at some of the "diaries" at mydd before you decide if this is a good idea.

    Again (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

    Parent
    Actually, no (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    I admire the positions Obama has taken on race - they're more conciliatory and realistic than my position would be if I were him. I admire his campaign's use of race a lot less, and admire his supporters' use of race little, if at all.

    Perhaps you can point out where BTD held Obama, and not John Cole, responsible in this post?

    Well, no, you probably can't.

    And as always, what's posted at mydd or anywhere else doesn't make John Cole any less wrong.

    Parent

    He says that most of the racists he has (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    known are Democrats. I doubt that Democrats in West Virginia are that different from the ones in Tennessee. My experience is just the opposite.

    Everyone's experience is different (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    That is an absurd statement from John.

    Parent
    No one is saying that all or even most (none / 0) (#17)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    of Clinton supporters are racist.  That said, you have to admit that some of the white Clinton voters in the MS primary were voting against the black candidate (while many black Obama voters were voting for the black candidate).  In MS, Obama's results were helped by identity politics but probably hurt by some racism.

    It's pretty hard to argue that Obama's blackness helps him (or doesn't affect his chances) in the WV primary.  Is it the only reason or even the major reason why Obama's not doing well there?  Probably no, but it would be hard to argue that it has no impact in the race.

    I'm sure it will somewhat but I think (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    the major difference will be Obama's message. People in some states are more likely to vote for the kind of policies that she proposes rather than for the hope/unity/change candidate, no matter what his race is. I'm not saying that's all Obama stands for, but it is the impression that many voters have.

    Parent
    But you and Cole both conveniently ignore (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    that Clinton's gender affects her chances in WV or anywhere else too.

    But of course not all Obama supporters are sexists either.


    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by abfabdem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    Have you read the posts on DK?  A huge percentage have sexist overtones.  It is very disheartening.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#40)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    I'm sure that, electorally, Clinton is both help and hurt by her gender.  I, personally, believe that the sexism Clinton faces is probably spread across the country while the racism Obama faces is more prevalent in the South (and, in my ignorance as a Yankee, include Appalachia as well).  If you have any data to disabuse me of these notions, I'd be happy to see them.

    Parent
    Appalacia is the South (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    but there is some umbrage I must take with the sentiment...Oregon and Washington are said to have more obtuse racial views outside of the cities...upstate New York same thing...PA (ain't considered South), OH, the Dakotas, Mass is also known for being surprisingly obtuse...I think people are confusing "red state" with "racist state"

    Parent
    black people in (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    MS, GA and SC are southerners, too.

    Parent
    Tennessee also (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    and it went to Hillary. Tennessee is called racist an sexist yet we have more black elected officials than most states and in higher ranking positions.  

    We also have the radical right though.

    We also have many female African American elected officials.  You may have seen their campaign signs in my front yard or seen me at their victory celebrations. I am a middle aged white gay guy.

    People of ill intent inhabit all corners of the country. It can't be forgotten how many AA voters are going with Barack. When they do so it is pride.  When other groups do it is racism.

    We each get a vote so we select who it goes to. Nobody can take it away from us.

    Parent

    The "Red States" in the South (none / 0) (#108)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    are "Red" largely because of the Southern strategy that took advantage of racism.

    WA and OR, outside of the cities, are largely rural.  I've never heard it said that these places are any more racist than comparable rural areas around the country.

    Parent

    They are not Red (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    because of racism.  They are Red because of Fundamental Christians, many of whom are black Evangelicals.  They are Gay haters more than racists because they can hide behind God and get away with it. They are anti- abortionists and not for woman's rights.

    I love how racist the south always get portrayed. There are more people of mixed race or of minority status than in most other states. It's the radical Christians, many black that make the south Red.

    Parent

    The South was a Democratic stronghold (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    until LBJ began supporting civil rights and Nixon used the Southern strategy.  Today, gay-baiting may help keep it Red, but it isn't the reason it became Red.

    Parent
    This opinion is based out of (none / 0) (#144)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    the opposite extreme of ignorance...

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#53)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:12:00 PM EST
    No, I don't have any data at hand, and though I think I've seen some, I don't recall what it concludes.

    But I do think both are factors in the Democratic and Independment segments of the electorate. They're probably a bigger factor in the GOP segment, but no Dem is getting those votes anyway.

    Parent

    A factor entirely ignored in this (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    is one that is significant for Clinton next door to WV, in Pennsylvania as well:  She comes from miners there.  I have WV relatives in mining country, and I'm told they do anything for their own.  And they look at her as one of their own -- not because she is white, but because her ancestors were immigrant coal miners in Scranton.  Why does Cole want to ignore that?  Coming from WV, he must know that.

    I'm several generations away from the mining Molly McGuires of the West as well -- but still, when someone comes from a mining clan, I was raised to perk up and pay attention.  I hear that it's the same in cops' families, firefighters' families, etc.

    Parent

    It read like that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Of course afterwards Cole denied the obvious import of his original words.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    but that is just exactly what Barack Obama said in his speech, or maybe you didn't hear all of it.

    Parent
    The race polarization is killing Dems chances (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:40 PM EST
    see this POLL that Hillary would only get 55% black support in a general (which would probably go lower if she succeeds in her superdelegate strategy).

    Obama supporters calling Hillary supporters racist don't help.

    I pray (as an Obama supporter and Dem) for an Obama surge in PA and an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    Obama's white support is probably 35% in that poll.

    I saw that poll cited at the Big Orange Satan and I noticed the flip side was not noted.

    This is ALSO stupid for Obama supporters to raise.

    Parent

    Stupid and Divisive (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    I'm trying to remember when having a bunch of supporters who won't vote for the Dem you're running about became something to brag about.

    But there you have it.

    And it's true there is some reciprocity here.

    In the end I've always felt being a Clinton supporter who is smart enough to vote for Obama in the general election was a liability to my candidate.

    So I stopped being that smart.


    Parent

    I didn't catch the flip side (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    All the more reason for a Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Parent
    The flawed logic (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    is that WOMEN will be happy with an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Many won't.

    Parent

    i just 'love' the reasoning that we are supposed (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    to be satisfied with that ticket by many comments i see online. and oh how they try and explain away to you as to how happy you should be as a woman, lol!~ especially when the glass ceiling is supposed to be broken for women this way. of course this goes along with the assumption we are voting for her because we are women, ahem.

    my next fav line of reasoning is the 'any woman as a VP will satisfy the women'.

    Parent

    Can't Please Everyone (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:01:12 PM EST
    But the two together will win more votes than they lose, imo.

    Parent
    Cool! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:04:22 PM EST
    Clinton/Obama '08!


    Parent
    Either Way (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    Works for me.

    Parent
    But not for (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    Obama.


    Parent
    Your Spin Of Course (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:33:41 PM EST
    In fact, he did not say that.

    Parent
    He didn't rule out (none / 0) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    Being VP?

    Cool!

    Sorry I mis-heard that or mis-interpretted or something.

    Glad to be wrong about that.


    Parent

    no, he definitely did rule it out (none / 0) (#120)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    "you won't see me as Vice President" or something like that, he said.

    Parent
    No one runs for VP (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:56:16 PM EST
    until they realize they can't be P.

    Parent
    Something Like It? (3.00 / 1) (#131)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    You are misinformed.

    "No, you don't run for second," Obama said. "I don't believe in that."

    A clever truism, to a loaded question. No one ever runs for vice president.

    Parent

    Sorry squeaky, he gave another interview (none / 0) (#132)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    Here is extensive coverage of the quote I mentioned on Google:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+%22you+won%27t+see+me%22

    Just a sampling of what you will find:


    Digg - Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate"Today Sen. Barack Obama ruled out the possibility being a vice presidential candidate during an interview with CBS' Montana affiliate KTVQ.
    digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_You_Won_t_See_Me_as_a_VP_Candidate - 82k - Cached - Similar pages

    Obama: "You Won't See Me As A VP Candidate" - Politics on The ...Obama: "You Won't See Me As A VP Candidate" - The Huffington Post.
    www.huffingtonpost.com/_90560.html - 476k - Cached - Similar pages

    Political Radar: Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate"Obama said you won't see me as the VP candidate because he thinks he will win the nomination, not because he would refuse to accept Clinton's offer. ...
    blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-you-wont.html - 645k - Cached - Similar pages

    TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo |"You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate," Obama says. Sounds pretty definitive. Has anyone asked Hillary whether she's open to the idea of being ...
    tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_you_wont_see_me_as_vice.php - 261k - Cached - Similar pages

    Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate"Obama: "You Won't See Me as a VP Candidate". All that says is he is not going to run for the post of VP. No one has run for the post of VP in over a hundred ...
    www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982510/posts - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

    I am one of the least uninformed people following this campaign, I will tell you the truth--modesty aside.

    Parent

    What He Said (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM EST
    Well, you know, I think it's premature. You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate -- you know, I'm running for president.

    IMO he was clearly brushing off any doubt that he will not win the nomination. For me this response does not rule out being the Veep should he not gain the nomination. But you can read it as you like.

    Parent

    did you see the part I bolded? (none / 0) (#138)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    Apparently many people took it that way.  Anyway, we've cleared this up now.

    Parent
    Yes And (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    That is the quote I remember. In others he said no one has ever run for vice president. At that point, and this point responding in any other way is a concession. He is clever to make it ambiguous.
    The press has run with your take. I do not see it as anything other than a clever answer to a loaded question.

    Pol perfect.

    Parent

    HE ABSOLUTELY SAID IT (none / 0) (#142)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:23:13 PM EST
    He said it, and said it again.

    Parent
    Maybe not (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:17:35 PM EST
    but you might want to please 57% of the electorate (women).  

    Clinton/Obama makes a whole lot more sense than Obama/Clinton.


    Parent

    That should be a new campaign slogan (none / 0) (#70)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    "Clinton: For HER pleasure"

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:24 PM EST
    We know Obama's already ruled out a Clinton/Obama ticket.


    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#55)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    why you'd want the "Dream Ticket" if Obama has such high negatives amongst whites or if he lacked sufficient CIC credentials.  It wouldn't be a simple exercise in (black/white/female) identity politics, would it?

    I think both candidates are small, well-qualified people who would make great candidates on their own. Given the dynamic of the race, however, I think enough has been said, on either side, to make the combination, in this election cycle, unworkable.  For Obama, it would seem like a sell-out of idealism; for Clinton, it would seem like she was enlisting an underqualified candidate because of identity politics.

    Parent

    Recent polls suggest (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    that the average Dem voter respects each candidate more than you suggest they do.

    The desire for a dream ticket, and the ability to make it a wonderful thing, is certainly within our reach.

    Parent

    I honestly don't get (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:42:41 PM EST
    why Obama/Clinton or the reverse is a "dream ticket" for anything but the Dem. primaries.  It would make some Dems swoon (and plenty flinch), but I don't see why the combination of the two would be more powerful with independents and wavering Republicans than one or the other of them combined with, shall we say, a more "traditional" politician (ie, white male governor type).

    Has there been any polling to suggest this would be a big winner in the general?


    Parent

    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#97)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    that both candidates are strong and well-respected by most average Dem voters.  I just wonder why many people say, at the same time, that Obama is unelectable and toxic but should be part of the ticket.  One argument seems to undermine the other.

    Parent
    i've noticed the Clinton campaign is talking a bit (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:17 PM EST
    different on the Obama experience. I saw it yesterday. Can't remember which one of her 'people' said it, but it was the "he's qualified, but she's more qualified' angle that Rendell (sp?) had trotted out a couple weeks back. so they seem to be cracking that door quietly again. which isn't a 'bad' thing to do. and they have also (Clinton and Obama) have started back on the we're friends/respect each other sprinkling in the speeches again. so even with the back and forth going on, there seems to be a mindful attempt to sprinkle civility through out  ;)

    Parent
    Clinton herself (none / 0) (#110)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    already said that both she and McCain had passed the CIC threshhold but Obama hadn't.  They may be walking it back now, but it's a comment that could definitely hurt a joint ticket.

    Parent
    but she left it open for Obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    to counter. she's very good with her wording. while everyone was getting upset with her, if you looked at what she said, you could see she didn't cross the no-return line for future options. she did the same with her McCain statements.


    Parent
    she didn't say he hadn't (none / 0) (#170)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:29:47 PM EST
    but she didn't say he had.  she said why don't you ask obama about his qualifications.  you are distorting her comment by saying she claimed obama had not met the threshold to be commander in chief.

    anyway, i will say it.  he hasn't met the threshold to be commander in chief.  so there.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    Democrats typically get something like 90% of the black vote and maybe 45% of the white vote in the general election, right?  Going from 90% to 55% of a demographic is a lot different than going from 45% to 35% of a demographic.

    Parent
    Depends (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    35% of 10,000,000 = 3,500,000

    10% of 40,000,000 = 4,000,000

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    You refute your own argument. A-A vote CAN be won back by a Dem. White vote much harder.

    Unless you REALLY believe that 45% of the A-A vote will go GOP in November. I think that is rather insulting to A-A voters myself.

    Parent

    what logic? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    It would be insulting (none / 0) (#63)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    for African Americans to vote Republican?  I don't understand how that works.

    Also, I disagree with your contention that "A-A vote CAN be won back by a Dem. White vote much harder." and wouldn't mind seeing some evidence that supports it.

    Parent

    BTD doesn't want to spell it out (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    so I will.  It's insulting to suggest that African-American voters, who have, IMHO, long been the savviest voting bloc in the country, would be so miffed that Obama didn't get the nomination that they'd actually come out and vote 180 degrees against their own interests and values.

    African-Americans by and large, unlike those vaunted "creative class" voters and very young voters, are too smart to sulk when their bread-and-butter interests are on the line.

    If by some miracle Hillary ends up the nominee, she would have to do some major repair work with the black community, but she's certainly capable of it.


    Parent

    Going out on a limb here... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    with a thought I had today, after hearing about the "typical white woman" remark, and continuing to think about how race and gender are playing in the campaign.

    Barack Obama, as the child of a white woman and a black man, had a unique opportunity to discuss race from both sides of the divide, and it would seem like he was perfectly positioned to bring people together; the opposite is happening, and it is getting worse by the day.  After being disappointed that he and his campaign have used race as a wedge, I was hoping his speech would seize the opportunity to address both sides of his heritage in a way that would stop the accusatory atmosphere - but that did not happen.

    I have not read either of his books, and maybe he addresses these issues in them, but it bothers me that he seems unable to acknowledge his white heritage without being negative, both specifically and generally.  It is hard for me to understand how, as the son of a white woman, raised by white grandparents, he could listen to and accept the pretty severely negative attitudes toward whites held by his pastor and spiritual mentor.  

    I know I'm rambling here, but I used to think that as a bi-racial person, Obama could have used it as a real bridge, and I am beyond disappointed that he has pretty much turned his back on half of his heritage and used the other half to pull people apart.

    Hillary Clinton is a woman, and even though a lot of people think she has a bigger pair than some men, she does not have the ability to speak about gender from both sides.

    As for the AA vote, should Clinton be the nominee, I guess we will see what kind of person Obama really is, because that will present him with an opportunity to bring the AA vote to the polls in November, or to take it, along with his bat and his ball, and go home.

    From everything Clinton has said, I have every confidence that should she not get the nomination, she will campaign just as hard to get Obama elected as she would work on her own behalf - and may be more gracious about doing so than a lot of her supporters - myself included - will be about it.

    Parent

    Brilliant (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    and I am glad you pointed that out.

    Parent
    BTD DId Spell It Out (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    Catherine Cowans is a black supporter of Barack Obama who is disappointed by the Clinton campaign's recent attacks on her candidate. . . . But she doesn't think that the New York senator's jabs add up to an irredeemable sin. If Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, the 48-year-old hairdresser said, she will vote for her. "I'm not angry at her," Cowans said recently during a lull at her beauty salon in this sleepy Delta city. "I still like Hillary."

    Here

    Parent

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#160)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:14 PM EST
    Obama could pick up the load of repair work - if he turns out to be a real Democrat - because he is the one that made it necessary.

    Parent
    If you do not understand how that works (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    then I can not help you.

    Parent
    Close. Obama gets 36% of whites (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    against McCain there.  But that's about what he's gotten so far in many other states.  So it's hardly a sign of racism in WV or only in WV -- not unless someone is willing to say that the 80% to 90% of the black voters that Obama gets is because they're racists.  

    To be clear: Of course, that's not what that statistic means at all -- or else, with a bit more than a majority of women voting for Clinton, we will be left with the inevitable conclusion that only white men are neither racists nor sexists.:-)

    Parent

    For the timeline on all this (none / 0) (#37)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    read Sean Wilentz.


    Denial (none / 0) (#68)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    is a wonderful thing.

    One can't deny the (none / 0) (#71)
    by fkperiera on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:22:07 PM EST
    undercurrent of race in this campaign and how it has been exploited.  It's 'divisive' to talk about race (and gender, for that matter) but clearly race is affecting the coverage of the candidates and the arguments made for either candidate.

    These new comments about all Clinton supporters being racist reminds me of this parody site and its take on why white people like Obama.  (This is a joke, please don't be offended.)  Some truth in humour?

    Flipside of WJC's Jesse Jackson gaffe (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:22:45 PM EST
    which at least had the virtue of sounding better in context.

    And, well, there's a lot of racism even among Democrats.

    For the last time (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    there was NO WJC GAFFE. The Obama camp and the press manufactured it.  Read, will ya?  Or at least watch video footage from actual interviews. He never said anything negative about Jesse Jackson, he complimented his campaign in SC.

    Parent
    Look up the definition of gaffe (none / 0) (#113)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    in Michael Kinsley's dictionary.

    Parent
    I usually use Webster's. (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
    No Gaffe? (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    You opinion is with the minority on that one, and hardly the last word. Have you read this?

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#101)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:41:59 PM EST
    Did you see CBS's new poll out yesterday on gender and race in the election?  Here is the link to the article and another to the complete poll results.    

    Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.

    But the kicker was what appears to be an issue with the voters being more willing to be straight forward about other people they know being sexist or racist than their own self reporting.

    More Americans report having recently heard what they consider racist remarks from people they know than sexist ones. Forty two percent of all surveyed, including 65 percent of blacks, said people they know have made racist remarks in the last few months. Thirty five percent, including 33 percent of women, say they have heard sexist remarks from someone they know recently...

    There continue to be differences in how voters judge their own voting instincts and the instincts of other Americans. Just 6 percent of white voters say that all things being equal, they would prefer to vote for a white candidate, but 34 percent of white voters say that most people they know would not vote for a black person for president. And 29 percent are not sure that American is ready to elect a black president.


     

    People tend to think worse of others (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Redstar on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:42 PM EST
    Survey results about attitudes often look like this.  For example, Orlando Patterson of Harvard has a ton of survey data in his book, The Ordeal of Integration, about black and white attitudes about their quality of life, and how it's relative to others within their own ethnic group and against other ethnic groups.  (Ethnic=race here, per Patterson's usage)  Survey results were consistently like, "my life is good, but i think other [blacks/whites/insert social group here] have it bad."  or "I've never been the victim of affirmative action, but [a high percentage of my social group] has been discriminated against because of it."  It went on and on like that, where people believe life/policy outcomes were a lot worse than they were.

    Parent
    My first reaction to that (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:17:12 PM EST
    is that most people are not aware of what remarks are sexist, because sexism is so ingrained in our culture. Even in women. MUCH more so than racism - you know when you're being racist. Most people are totally ignorant of sexism.

    So I would say that sexism is underreported, both in respondants' views of themselves and their friends.

    Parent

    I had similar thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:32 PM EST
    I think it was obvious when some of the MSNBC remarks were made that sexism is so institutionalized that many don't recognize it for what it is these days.  And the other point that was clear in the survey was that people are much more sensitive to racism too.  

    Parent
    Must be listening to the Wright videos (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    More Americans report having recently heard what they consider racist remarks from people they know than sexist ones.


    Parent
    I understand all (none / 0) (#133)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:06:55 PM EST
    the critiques of Obama and of most of  the people who support Obama. What I don't understand is in what way Big Tent favors Obama or how he could given the steady stream of praise for Hillary and steady critique of Obama.

    Isn't the argument on Talk Left, when it is political,  always that not only that Hillary is a superior candidate, but that Obama is nothing special?

    I am asking with respect as someone who thought I was for Hillary. I even voted for her, and then realized I was tired of The Clinton's. I think this blog, which I read because it is sane, is deeply tired of the Obama people and Obama himself.

    I know Blogs don't have all that much power, or Lieberman would not be helping McCain prove that McCain, like Hillary but unlike you-know-who has passed "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold", but why doesn't Big Tent say, "Look I used to back the  the guy reluctantly,  but he does too many bad things and he is unelectable"?

    It might even sway some super, or plain delegates to sign on for Hillary. According to Taylor Marsh, half of Hillary's voters will not vote for Obama.

    John McCain is a disaster and maybe only Hillary can save us from him. It seems to me from the arguments here that many people believe that to be true. If they do, the sooner we all say so, the better.

    I don't agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:06 PM EST
     
    given the steady stream of praise for Hillary and steady critique of Obama.

    He criticizes Clinton and praises Obama when he thinks it's merited. I don't think he's biased, just hardnosed about the realities of politics.

    (I do not always agree with his critiques of Clinton)

    But I too am curious about just how much worse Obama has to get to lose BTD's support. He's obviously losing media darling status daily - and media darling status is the basis for BTD's support. BTD thinks that makes him more electable. Or so I understand.

    I think his electability has been irretrievably damaged and it's getting more shaky every day.

    Parent

    Today's comment wasn't the worst one (none / 0) (#151)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:58 PM EST
    A couple of days ago John Cole pointed out an article by Ron Fournier calling Obama "arrogant."

    According to Cole, Fournier was calling Obama an "uppity negro."

    Seriously - the title of the post is "Uppity Negro Alert."

    Cole has called me a troll several times and threatened to ban me for saying he was a "HillaryHater."

    I don't understand this (none / 0) (#153)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    and maybe you could explain it to me.  How is Obama being more "arrogant" than any other candidate?  Even if he were more confident, why is it such a bad thing?  I've heard it said quite a few times by Hillary supporters that Obama is "arrogant" and I don't really understand it.

    Parent
    The first time I considered (none / 0) (#154)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    Obama "arrogant" was when I read he said his supporters would not vote for Clinton, but that Clinton supporters would vote for him.

    Parent
    You missed the point (none / 0) (#155)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    It doesn't matter if Obama is arrogant or not.

    The point is Cole equating all criticism with racism.

    Parent

    I'm not defending Cole (none / 0) (#156)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    I just want to understand what you're saying.  How is Obama "arrogant"?  Why is this so bad?  Would it make any difference if he was white or a woman?

    Parent
    Ron Fournier said it (none / 0) (#157)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    Ask him

    Parent
    Ok, I missed that. (none / 0) (#159)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    I found Fournier's column titled "Obama walks arrogance line". It includes such gems as
    But if the young senator wins the nomination, even the smallest trace of arrogance will be an issue with voters who still consider him a blank slate.

    and

    But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

    I wouldn't call Fournier a racist, but there are racial connotations to saying a black person is "uppity" (or arrogant) and this column drives home that point in some pretty harsh terms:

    Nobody expects Obama to be perfect. But he better never forget that he isn't.

    and

    . . . Barack Obama better watch his step.


    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#176)
    by kayla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    The Obamas seem arrogant and have a sense of entitlement to me too.  I saw Michelle on S-SPAN the other night, stumping for Barack.  She a really good speaker, but she basically spent 20 minutes talking about how awesome she and her husband are.  

    Barack is brilliant!  Barack was the best law student in the country!  Barack is multi-cultural!  Barack is awesome!  Barack could have been a millionaire!

    There's nothing wrong with it, of course, but it's just kind of annoying.

    Parent

    where does Balloon (none / 0) (#158)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    Juice equate "all criticism of Obama with racism"? That wasn't Big Tent's point.

    Big Tent argued that Cole seemed to imply that much of Hillary's support came from that segment of the electorate which will not vote for a black man. Big Tent further wondered why the racists would vote for a woman.

    Parent