The Myth Of The Black Racist Voter
One very foolish meme that's made it's way into the primary is this notion that black people voting for Barack in large margins is the equivalent (or on the scale of racism, arguably worse) of white people breaking for Hillary in similar margins. I doubt that anyone who reads this blog thinks like that, and truthfully, I haven't seen it in any of the blogs I read. It's one of those notions that you hear from beefheads like Joe Scarborough or in the Huffington Post comment section. I know, I know, those sources are roughly equal in credibility, but I just want to venture a quick response.
Blacks have been voting for whites for president since they've gotten the vote. There is no question about black people's ability to vote for a white man for president. Even in cases when blacks have a so-called black leader in the actual race, they still--in crucial times--have voted for the white guy. This is why it was patently foolish to infer that Latinos voting for Hillary were racist, when in fact Latinos had supported black candidates on several occasions.
Whites enjoy no such record. Whereas we have several anecdotal reports of folks categorically voting against Obama because he's black, I've yet to hear a black voter say she couldn't vote for Hillary--under any circumstance--because she's white. Part of that is function of numbers--there have been way more white candidates than black. But white Democrats rarely have to worry about being able to attract the black vote when running for national or state-wide office, it's black Dems who have to worry about the white vote. The lone exceptions are in mayoral races in big cities where whites are a minority. I imagine a white Democrat running for mayor of Atlanta or D.C. would be at something of a disadvantage. But nationally, white Democrats haven't worried about the black vote in probably half a century.
Furthermore, the black support of Obama hasn't been knee-jerk. Whereas Obama would likely never have competed for the white vote in West Virginia, Hillary actually was competing for the black vote in several states. This Time story, beginning with the phrase "There is no doubt Barack Obama can appeal to white audiences," (Oh how things--or media narratives--quickly change), goes on to note the reverence black women hold for Hillary Clinton, and shows Clinton's support among blacks as nearly DOUBLE Barack Obama's. Some of this was unfair. In that piece, you'll see a lot of weak, opportunistic, short-sighted machine pols talking smack. Furthermore, the support for Hillary really reflected a sense that Obama wasn't serious. Listen to this laughable bit of defeatism:
Robert Ford, a South Carolina state senator, said supporting Obama was too risky for the Democratic Party. "Obama would need 43% of the white vote in some states to win, and that's humanly impossible," said Ford.
That isn't the statement of a loyal Clintonite, as much as the foolish musings of political hack. Ford is the wise-guy who claimed Obama's candidacy would cause everybody else to loose. Obama, of course, responded not by talking, but by beating Clinton in Ford's district. Anyway, Hillary's problems began as soon as Obama won Iowa. It was basically a wrap after Bill Clinton's made that foolish Jesse Jackson remark.
Now, all of that said, I want to say something in defense of white folks. I know I don't do this much, so guys gather around. White voters are not all the same. It's really been enlightening for me to watch Obama's share of the white vote change state by state. It's really obliterated this idea that all white people everywhere think the same about blacks. It's even obliterated the only slightly more nuanced idea that white voters in the South are somehow more racist than white voters in the North. What does it mean that Ohio and Wisconsin whites voted so differently? What do we take from the idea that Obama lost the white vote in Pennsylvania but won it Virginia?
Well, quite a bit as my super-intelligent commenters have pointed out. It seems that it isn't even a matter of poor whites versus rich whites, or educated whites versus non-educated whites, although all of that factors in. We've seen that the percentage of black folks doesn't really make a difference either. There is something beautiful in this, because you see a complexity in the great monolith that is often simply labeled White America. It's a complexity that, as a black person, I often miss. Even the one simple fact buried inside is beautiful--the biggest predictor of the white vote seems to be age. The point? The racists aren't the future. We are.
UPDATE: Fixed formatting. Sorry guys. Told you I was a novice.
UPDATE 2: Sorry more code. There's a link to Sharpton's numbers in 2004. And a piece on Latinos backing black politicians.
Cross-posted from www.ta-nehisi.com
Here in NYC, I walked into a shop, and TWO AA radio stations
were blasting hate rhetoric against HRC.
It was a call-in, and black people, AA people or whatever
is the politically correct label these days were calling
in, understandably angry with HRC.
Blacks have been manipulated to vote in a block.
You ARE voting in a block.
HRC states correctly that her voting demographic
is white, and suddenly SHE, not Obama, is as
racist.
What's the deal?
May 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has gotten away with running the most
racially charged campaign I have seen in my
lifetime.
He had the HRC supporters exterminated from all
of the high profile, interactive democratic blogs.
You'd better believe we are angry, dude.
As generous as Clinton was to blacks like Jesse Jackson,
and Donna Brazile. Giving them unprecedented high
profile positions. And they turn on the Clinton's in
a flash.
Calling Clinton racist. He only raised millions to help
get rid of Aids in Africa, has HIS OFFICE IN HARLEM - which
has helped development bigtime.
SICK SICK SICK of this crap Obama is pullling.
May 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Present
"generous"? Are you kidding me, massah?
I think you're an idiot. That's me being generous to you.
Consider removing the quotes from your user name if you'd like people to be able to reply to you directly.
May 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Coates, this is a ridiculous statement:
"One very foolish meme that's made it's way into the primary is this notion that black people voting for Barack in large margins is the equivalent (or on the scale of racism, arguably worse) of white people breaking for Hillary in similar margins."
First of all, Blacks are voting for Obama by MUCH more lopsided margins than whites are for HRC.
Beyond that,since when is voting for the candidate with more experience and the better health care plan racist? Is it racist to note that Obama voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill? To note that Hillary actually wrote legal scholarship and everything Obama has ever written has been about himself?
Obama is, as has been noted everywhere, the "wine-track" candidate. The white people who support him come from the same demographic that liked Dean, Bradley, Tsongas and Hart.
What else do these candidates have in common? Negligible black support, even when (as in the cases of Tsongas and Bradley) they had no black opponents.
But because Obama is Black all of a sudden Black voters are flocking to the wine track candidate.
But white Democrats voting for Hillary are thereby racist?
May 12, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not saying that white people who vote for Hillary are racists he is saying that he has heard several anecdotal reports, which he links to, in which white voters have said that they would not vote for Obama because he's black.
Then he goes through great pains to point out that he doesn't hold all white people monothically responsible for it and that those white voters tend to be older and will have a waning influence on future elections.
May 12, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
My father in law just waves his hand and makes a farting noise whenever Obama comes on television. He's from that generation. They're a dying breed, but they'll have an influence this election. I'm guessing most of the women of that generation will get on the Obama Express once Hillary is out of it. That is, unless their husbands order them to go in the basement and stay there until the election is over.
Here's my solution for racism: stop using the terms black and white. Instead, let's refer to people by their REAL skin color. It's a lot harder to feel superior when you're a pink person, rather than a white person. "I met the most charming pink man the other day. His skin was the color of a kewpie doll."
In not so many years, pinks and beiges will be in the minority in America. An Obama presidency will be a good transition for pink America. Sort of ease them into the idea that it's time to stop acting like a bunch of superior a-wipes. When Obama becomes president, the whole world will look at us differently. And we will see ourselves differently too.
May 13, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note the non-absence of reverse-racism talk. We're not immune, here. And it is infuriating to hear people equate white racism, with its history of lynching and similar, with black separatist or self-help liberation churches. The former meant slavery and killing, the latter means self-esteem.
The above poster missed the news that blacks did not immediately flock to Obama until he showed real contender status. He also doesn't get the obvious, that saying she is more popular with whites is not a way to win friends among other groups. Slumlord, alias "Present", is unfortunately not a solitary phenomenon.
Enjoyed your piece in The Nation.
May 12, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only was Obama not outpulling among African American voters until he proved himself, but he wasn't outpolling until the Clintons turned on a community that had once embraced them. The African American vote was Hillary's to lose. Well, maybe Penn's to lose. It was certainly lost.
May 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slumlord, Present was originally an Obama supporter, dude.
One of the first.
After being thrown out of a democratic blog for asking why
he supported Nuclear Power, I started having missigivngs.
I started wondering if this guy wasn't saying one thing, and
letting operatives work "Chicago style" in the blogs.
Slumlord, Present did a little back checking of all of our
candidates and caught on early.
Slumlord Present found that John Edwards was progresive talk
with a conservative record.
Stuff like that.
Slumlord Present's boss at work is one of the finest anyone
would ask for. She is a black lady with 3 brains in her head.
You start pinning people racist you piss them off.
You Obamazoids are sickening.
May 12, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
they FLOCKED to Obama when his campaign played the "race card" on Bill Clinton and then every life long civil rights activist thereafter who mentioned the word "black"!
Better listen up Obama ... what's pissing people off is NOT that you are black. It's that the black community skewed this race between two good candidates by voting based on race...not qualification.
And I too as I note here, am more than a bit miffed at the treatment of the Clintons by the boneheaded people who subscribe every evil intent to them while engaging in messianic dreams about Obama.
Hell, I didn't even like Hillary until this campaign but watching the rabid behavior of Obama supporters, the pointy headed media and the dirty tactics of the Obama campaign, it will be a nasty experience voting for Obama in the fall.
It won't be forgotten soon.
May 12, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm
Sorry to keep pasting these same percentages in every thread on this subject, but here is how the African-American presidential vote split through the years between the Democratic and the Republican candidates:
1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%
As other commenters have noted, Obama did not start pulling massive AA support until he had proven he was a viable crossover candidate. And after Iowa, c'mon, please give me a break, we ALL became fairly sure he was gonna ultimately win this thing after beating the biggest name in Democratic politics ...
Anyway, I think the percentages from previous races are pretty clear ... black folks are paid-up members of the Democratic coalition in good standing, and shame on anyone who dares suggest otherwise. What did Josh call it the other day? 'Subprime'? Exactly. Some folks are treating years and years of party loyalty as something to take for granted. If Obama wasn't winning this thing, you dissenters might have at least some kind of argument, but he is, and you don't.
May 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chino,
You miss the most telling stat. I posted some time ago the 2004 Democratic primary result from Mississippi. Perhaps even more relevant than the GE numbers you quote.
At the danger of sounding repetitive, I am re-posting an excerpt here:
I would like to bring attention to one small component. Several sources (including Ferraro and former President Clinton) have put forth the notion that African-Americans in states like Mississippi have cast their votes for Senator Obama with no supporting reason other than his race. Temporarily ignoring the racial overtones of such statements, the simple truth is that this viewpoint is not supported by facts.
Looking at data as recent as the 2004 primaries, the three leading candidates in Mississippi received 78%, 7% and 5% of the Democratic vote. Considering that Al Sharpton was one of the candidates still running at the time of Mississippi's primary, surely he must have been on the winning end of these results?
Kerry: 78%
Edwards: 7%
Sharpton: 5%
But even these aggregate percentages don't tell the whole story. Looking at exit poll data we find:
Percentages of African American votes:
Kerry: 80%
Sharpton: %8
Now I would like to try to refrain from disparaging Mr. Sharpton, so I will begin by pointing out that he himself has said on numerous occasions that he does not necessarily run for office with the foremost goal of winning. Hopefully, with that exemption in place, I can claim without slighting Mr. Sharpton that the vast majority of Americans would be terrified at the prospect of a Sharpton presidency. Mississippi voters would seem to agree - despite the fact that Mr. Sharpton is, in fact, black.
The notion that a majority of voters, including those in the AA community, are casting ballots for Senator Obama simply because of his race is not only insulting and divisive, it is simply untrue.
May 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd not seen your numbers from MS before. Good work, thanks.
May 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sharpton does a lot of good.
It would help his image if he would pay his bills.
He is one of the most brilliant speakers, and I totally
love this guy for taking a stand against Don Imus.
The media crucified him for that.
I'm also proud of him for rallying for this inexcusible
killing in Queens by the police.
He hurts his image when he thinks he's above having
to pay for stuff like the rest of us.
May 12, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like it's impossible to reply to "pressent". I bet that's due to the quotation marks in his username. They probably break this goofy javascript.
Not that it matters, he's a pathetic troll and replying would be a waste of everyone's time anyway.
May 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Present is an a-hole. He put quotation marks around his name so no one can reply to anything he says. He's a chickenshit sniper, and he's exploiting a bug in the message board to stay in the conversation without really being in it. I usually just skip over his posts without reading them.
May 13, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you're geeky enough to have firebug installed, you can recreate the link and click it.
tpm needs to check for quotes in user names and throw up a no no.
May 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Blacks were initially not telling pollsters they would vote for Obama. He wasn't as well known and even among those who were quite familiar with him many African-Americans believed he could not win and another symbolic candidacy like Jesse Jackson's didn't seem to have much appeal. People of all races hesitate to "throw away" their votes. Absent a viable black candidate many wanted to support their preferred choice among remaining options.
But as soon as it appeared Obama could win Black voters were overwhelmingly for him. Because he was a Black candidate who could win. NOT because they liked his health care plan or his energy plan or thought that nominating a candidate with less experience than anyone either party had nominated in over 50 years was in principle a good idea.
Bill Clinton's much-maligned factual statement that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too came AFTER Obama won black voters there overwhelmingly, not before. The terrible race-card playing comment before that was HRC's factual statement that LBJ played an important role in the enactment of civil rights laws.
May 12, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama would just stop running such a successful campaign, and allow Vito a few weeks to bring all the facts to light, a great disaster might be averted.
/snark
May 12, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because he was a Black candidate who could win. NOT because they liked his health care plan or his energy plan or thought that nominating a candidate with less experience than anyone either party had nominated in over 50 years was in principle a good idea."
I guess you must have asked them why they switched from Clinton to Obama? I don't suppose the thought that maybe they decided he was more electable than Clinton had anything to do with their decision? After all, quite a few white people think he is the more electable candidate as well based on his appeal to independents (moreso than Clinton can claim). But no, they didn't reason that way. They just started voting for him because he's black, according to you.
May 12, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Thank you for noticing.
May 12, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
... that is to say: noticing that voters will decide for themselves who's appropriate for their selection. In this instance, Obama had to introduce himself and inform his electorate about his character, temperament and perspective.
May 12, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
nominating a candidate with less experience than anyone either party had nominated in over 50 years
This is ignorant crap. Um, how about George W. Fucking Bush? In what parallel universe did he have more experience in 2000 than Obama has now? Because that certainly wasn't the case in *this* universe.
God damn, but the stench of desperation is foul.
May 12, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, he even has more experience than Clinton (unless a divorce judge says you can take the resume, being married to a person with experience doesn't count)
May 12, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Coates,
I have been voting for white men, white women, black men, black women and the common denominator is that they were the best candidate for the job. I listened to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama with an open ear after John Edwards dropped out. I was prepared to vote for former Sen. Edwards.
In past presidential elections, I clearly voted for John Kerry, Bill Clinton twice and Michael Dukakis. I could have stayed home and let each persons race or gender stop me from voting; but I know better.
If I had a chance to vote for Alan Keyes, Condelezza Rice or Ken Blackwell, I would surely decline.
May 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he was a Black candidate who could win. NOT because they liked his health care plan or his energy plan or thought that nominating a candidate with less experience than anyone either party had nominated in over 50 years was in principle a good idea.
How does one explain Ken Blackwell's loss to Ted Strickland in Ohio?
May 12, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very simple:
1) Strickland was a gentleman
2) Blackwell ran a religiously bigoted, gay bainting campaign
3)Blackwell turned moderate GOPers to Strickland, the gentleman
and
4) The GOP in Ohio was miored in a corruption scandal that ultimately, saw four of the top five statewide offices go to the Dems from the GOP.
Remember, Blackwell had been elected to two different statewide offices before -- treasurer and secretary of state.
May 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those reasons are valid but some people nevertheless feel that black people will vote for any black person because that candidate is black.
May 12, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very disappointed in you. The attitudes expressed in your article are divisive and will not help Obama among the people who are on the fence. Your implicit suggestion that racism is a one-way street is absurd. And you failed to spot the obvious when you asked, "What do we take from the idea that Obama lost the white vote in Pennsylvania but won it Virginia?" The obvious answer is that the Virginia primary was on February 12th, and Jeremiah Wright's emergence in March raised doubts among white voters about Obama's racial attitudes and judgment. His comments about his "typical white person" grandmother did not help either. Nor the fact that he refused to disavow his self-described "important mentor" until eventually forced to do so for political reasons. Obama himself called Wright a legitimate political topic, and white voters should not be judged for having justifiable doubts. You also overlooked the impact of Obama's use of Hillary's LBJ comment as a bogus wedge issue.
Feel free to respond to my post. Since you are new I will let you know that I don't read the comments because I am not into back and forth arguing on the blogs.
May 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.M.G. That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Cheers.
May 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to me. Blacks who don't give a damn about health care, the economy and the war don't get up to vote in the primaries. Most of the people who went to the polls actually do give a damn about politics and I'm sure listened to both candidates before making their choice. Are some blacks voting for Obama just because he's black? SURE. We've never had a black president. Just like we've never had a female president which is WHY WOMEN are voting for Hillary Clinton like they are. Even if they don't agree with her policies, they'll vote for her. Why? Because we've never had a woman for president. So yes Barack Obama might be benefiting from his race but instead of comparing his success with black voters against Hillary Clinton's success among white voters, compare it against how she does with white woman.
May 12, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. 5.
May 12, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that white folks vote differently on Obama in Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina mean that we actually do look at who we are voting for rather then simply a gut reaction to skin color? I'd like to think so.
May 12, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact is Louisville your somewhat right. All that matters is the spin. I also would like to add that sometimes there are things that are going on in the political arena at a certain time, that may not have been apart of the fall out equation after people vote. So when pundits or people sit here and say look at dukakis, or this or that to me I ask what was the spin in the media at the time, so its always hard for me to compare old campaigns vs now! I like to keep it simple in this regard....Rev Wright should have been a disaster for Obama in Indiana. People can play with numbers, put this spin or that spin on it. She had a 14-16 point lead and won by two points, after the Rev Right and the media chorus of how obama was losing traction. I dont think that is spin.
May 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As generous as Clinton was to blacks like Jesse Jackson,and Donna Brazile. Giving them unprecedented high profile positions. And they turn on the Clinton's in a flash."
Wow, Present. Why don't you just come right out and say it. Those uppity blacks really don't know their place, do they? Did it occur to you that maybe, just perhaps, the Clinton's didn't "give" them anything, that they weren't being "generous". Maybe, just maybe, Jesse Jackson and Donna Brazile worked hard and earned those positions? Hmmm? Possibly?
May 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make it all about Race, Obama.
Way to go.
May 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dosn't it seem like "Present" and gotalife are the same person? They have the same stilted writing style, and have all these totally non-sequiter attacks on Obama that they post all the time, even when they don't make any sense in the flow of the conversation.
May 12, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the quotation marks spare Peasant our replies.
AAAaaaaaandrew! Since you're not busy could you either fix that bug or ban grammatical marks in names until this can be fixed?
May 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just post here what I posted on DU on a similar thread:
"Any black person that votes in this country isn't going to make it through a single election before having to decide which white person to vote for.
Statistically, every vote cast in a General Election by a black person in the history of America has been for a white person.
And many black people have voted for white people OVER black people. Ask some of these recent black Republican losers. Of course, identity politics happen with blacks, too--we're human, but it takes more than just black skin. And that becomes more true everyday.
Black people have PROVEN their willingness to vote for white people.
So would it be okay with you if we (along with millions of other people) voted for the black guy that represents our interests, for a change?"
May 12, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, chrisrob!
There are a million reasons for voters to conclude that Obama is the best candidate the Democrats have seen in years. If a white politician showed the skill, integrity and commitment that Obama has shown restoring faith that America can and should live up to its noble ideals, I'd be inspired by that politician, too. Sure, Obama's racial ascription is a significant plus factor for many black as well as nonblack voters. It does send an important symbolic message about America to see that the Presidency is no longer restricted to white men.
Remember Langston Hughes? "By what sends white boys I ain't sent/I know I can't be president." Wouldn't it be great if that were no longer true? Is it wrong for many African-Americans -- and many nonblack Americans -- to be delighted to see that maybe this is changing?
If a President Obama were to pull America out of the ill-advised imperial adventure in Iraq, close Guantanamo, and stop torturing prisoners, how would that affect the way other countries view us? Might America have greater credibility in claiming moral leadership and telling other governments, like Sudan, Burma and China, to change their abusive ways?
May 12, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, scofflaw.
If I recall correctly, in the last 30 years, blacks have voted for the Democratic candidate by 80 percent or more.
Or MORE.
So. Is it really so strange that they voted for what is arguably the best candidate, that happens to be black, by 90 percent?
Is that so bizarre? So clearly racist? So obviously wrong?
May 12, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only wrong when we choose a black Democrat over a race-baiting white Democrat. Grrr.
May 13, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take it the author hasn't looked at any primary exit polls recently.
May 12, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Coates:
Early on the Latino's in my family told me, well not me, my girlfriend, they would never vote for Obama because he is Black. Now, does that mean all Latino's back then felt that way, HELL NO! At the same time, being that I like Latina women so am around latino's allot, there is a true problem going on between some Latino's and some Blacks. Im trying to say this is softly as possible, there are some real problems going on between Latino's and Blacks (not to be redundant).
I personaly have whitnessed it in my family, and theirs. What happened initially should not be dismissed in my opinion, rather acknowledge and maybe put on the table for future conversation. While I cannot say for sure what it was early on racism, or not, there was a notion of race involved with people I know and talked to!
Excellent post and I absolutely agree....the racists are NOT the future. There in Lies the Hope.
I cannot state how at a panicked time before the North Carolina and Indina primaries I was about how white people would vote after Rev Wright. Sometimes things take time, and what happened made me proud of them. I think they are turning the page.
May 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
why are you debating these republicans here? they are not making any salient points whatsoever and seem content to respond to every post with more unsupportable facts. this is all part of a long-term propaganda war launched by the right to sew doubt in the minds of obama-supporters.
it won't work. don't take the bait. you don't have to convince people like this of anything.
remember the final line from this very insightful post - they are the past. we are the future.
ignore them. they belong to bush, anyway.
May 12, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently even to discuss the race of a candidate and the voting preferences of the African-American population is itself a racist act.
That's what I get out of the above discussion.
Has anyone noticed that Hillary has run a severely flawed campaign, while Obama has run one that has been almost flawless? Except for her vote on the invasion of Iraq, Hillary was the candidate to beat. Obama has taken that one chink in her armor, built on it, and run a campaign that will be discussed for decades. Compare this article in Time on Obama's management style with Karen Tumulty's article on Hillary's mistakes. Ignore for the moment that Time seems to have decided to take sides and recognize that there is a lot of truth in both articles. Obama has performed very well while Hillary seems to have chosen to trust Penn and other like him and let the internal conflicts mess her campaign up.
Then let's ask if it is unreasonable for Democrats to choose to vote for the person who they think most likely will understand their positions and represent them - African-Americans for Obama and older White Women for Hillary. Of course it is reasonable - when the vote is for the nomination. But put either candidate up against the aged Imperialist who never saw a war he didn't love or a bribe he wouldn't take under the table (starting with Keating who bribed his wife to get him) and who are those Democratic voters going to vote for?
I don't think it is racist for a white older woman to vote for Hillary rather than Obama, nor is it racist for an African-American to feel that Obama would be more likely to better represent him or her.
But now that issue is past. Now it is Obama vs. McCain. How many of your remember in January saying that we Democrats had two extremely capable candidates running. (I said three, and I'm still disappointed at Edwards dropping out.)
With Obama in the running there will ALWAYS be a question of race. That's because we Americans are sensitized to race as an issue whenever we see a dark-skinned person of African heritage. If we do not consider selves racist extremists we still flinch at what we expect the extremists to do and try to avoid the issue.
I consider that flinch to also be a racist reaction. And this whole damned thread has been one long "flinch" brought about just by trying to discuss the issue of race as we see it playing out in front of us. It will remain thus until we can start discussing the issue without the strong emotions, a condition we will never reach without discussing the issue with the strong emotions.
I'd guess that most of us writing here are White, or at least not African American. Some of the reactions above are highly emotional. If you don't think that those emotional reactions flow over into the way American Blacks are treated in the country then you really don't understand people very well. The African American reaction to such high emotions merely caused by their presence or the discussion of race will cause defensive reactions. It has to.
And for right now all we can do is recognize the problem and continue to confront it instead of ignore it. When Obama is elected President we are going to have a lot of chances to confront the issue. Which is why, I'd guess, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote the article in the first place.
May 12, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, there's nothing more boring and tedious than reading and listening to Americans talk about race. People don't listen or read what's been said; they have already marked off their positions.
Race is always easy to talk about because race is in everyone's face and you can always have an opinion about that even if it's not based on anythig substantive.
Everyone has an opinion in America but it always winds up basically being the same opinion.
Race is the great zero-sum game in America. If blacks get X, then that means whites must have lost Z. This is probably one of the reasons why we can't progress as a nation, as Americans; we have no sense social solidarity, a willingness to make sure that we all, for the common good, have same basic things (health, education, equal opportunity) and then let our talents achieve the rest.
As Coates observed, most blacks don't have a problem voting for whites; however, given the paucity of blacks in statewide and national offices, a number of whites may have a problem—racially—with voting for a black candidate.
If people doubt the unwillingness of some white pulling the lever for a black candidate, please go and check our sordid labor history where whites refused to work with blacks and then got pissed off when black worked as strike-breakers. This is the sordid history of America, which goes back to the founding of the AFL-CIO.
Remember, Reagan Democrats are such because the politics of race, from liberal and conservatives vantage points, posits that if X gets something then it must come at the expense of Z (which usually means it comes at the expense of working and middle classes).
People get ticked off at what Wright said about America, but ignore the fact that he never shot a person, didn't burn people out of their homes, or called for any group's eradication based on race, ethnicity or religion. Sure, he said some stupid things, but he's also housed and fed the poor, as is is required of a Christian.
I'll be glad when this election is over; it has really made Americans, especially the media, stupid, just indulging their worse instincts about race, class and gender.
American ought to know what the military teaches our service pepople: you may not like each other, but you need to depend on each other for unit cohesion.
May 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response: Race is the great zero-sum game in America. If blacks get X, then that means whites must have lost Z. This is probably one of the reasons why we can't progress as a nation, as Americans; we have no sense social solidarity, a willingness to make sure that we all, for the common good, have same basic things (health, education, equal opportunity) and then let our talents achieve the rest.
I've certainly observed this attitude, both with skin color and with gender. I agree with your conclusion, and look forward to its resolution in the near future.
Kathryn
May 12, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has gotten away with running the most
racially charged campaign I have seen in my
lifetime.
How deep is denial anyway?
This is another example of HRC pursuing a particular tack, and then one of her supporters making a bald-faced accusation that Obama is doing
We've seen this time and time again. HRC's tactics are excused, because her supporters will accuse Obama of the same behavior, but that he's being even more egregious in his (imagined) violations. Even though, the accusation is completely false.
I don't think I have ever seen such balls out hypocrisy and slander, and baseless accusations as they have been tossed about on this board by Gotalife and "Present". I can't determine if they are merely trolling for replies or else mentally ill. I suspect the former is a troll, but I'm worried about the latter. The rage he expresses in "SICK SICK SICK of this crap Obama is pullling." is very worrisome indeed.
He's taking Hillary's tactics and a classic case of transference, he's attributing all of these hateful tactics to the person that is being targeted with them.
I would say that this is disgusting, reprobate behavior, but they are obviously coming from a very troubled mind.
May 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The racists are not the future as long as we have people that fight for justice for all! All of you, and you know who you are, please keep it up!
May 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geography is not everything in determining the attitudes of white Americans toward black Americans, but it is still significant. Mr. Coates, you seem to obscure the North/South formula by showing the contrasts between Wisconsin and Ohio, and between Virginia and Pennsylvania.
I have a one word answer for you: Appalachia.
Obama has done very poorly in the Appalachias, and those states with large populations in Appalachia are where he has had trouble. Pittsburgh is bordering on the Appalachian mountains, and Obama lost the entire western (read: Appalachian) side of Pennsylvania. Obama lost Ohio because of southern Ohio, especially southeastern (Appalachian) Ohio. Obama won Virginia because the vast majority of that state's population is around the D.C. area, far from the mountains.
This is why Obama will get blown out in West Virginia and in Kentucky. He has no chance in either of those states. Too many hillbillies. And the hillbillies like to vote for Hill and Bill Clinton.
May 12, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Coates,
Thank you very much for your contribution to this site. I believe your conclusion is correct, that racism can be shown to have a generational component, and will therefore diminish in the future.
It is an odd coincidence that I first read your website only yesterday, following a thread on Michelle Obama. I very much admired your expert demolition of the arguments of Christopher Hitchens in his Slate article. At that time I had no idea you were black - based on your name, I thought you might be a woman. Maybe it is a basic lack of sophistication on my part, but I found your arguments compelling and frankly overly considerate of Hitchens, but nothing you said gave me an inkling that you were fostering any racial or feminist agenda.
Thank you for your common sense.
May 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Each new generation seems, on balance, more tolerant than its predecessor. We're now 20 years past 1988 when Lee Atwater made Willie Horton a household name.
Certainly some voters are racist, and would refuse to vote for an African-American because of it, just as some voters are sexist, and would refuse to vote for a woman. But the numbers of both are slowly dwindling with each passing generation.
And I'd add that we have our own prejudices that our children and grandchildren will sweep away when they come of voting age. But the trend is in the right direction. That was the takeaway I took from Obama's Philadelphia speech: we are not now, nor will we ever be, perfect, but we've improved ourselves throughout our history, and we will continue to do so.
May 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think black voters find it very easy to say of Obama, "he gets it! He knows what we are looking for in a President!" (which I doubt they would say about Condaleeza Rice), and furthermore feel a sense of renewed optimism and pride in voting for him. So of course they vote for him in large numbers. Are youth "ageist" to vote for him too? I think his youth vote is so high for almost the same reason, he "gets" it!
Now, if vast numbers of black voters were saying they could never vote for a white candidate, then you could say there's a powerful racist element there. But I haven't heard any evidence of that. Just because someone votes FOR someone like them doesn't mean they are prejudiced AGAINST someone who is not so much like them.
But we all know that this particular accusation of racism is a silly, desperate ploy, doomed to fail in November, and now. Prejudice is not dead, but it's a lot less powerful than it was, more of a bogeyman to scare the credulous than the unquestioned underpinning of American life that it was when I was a kid.
May 12, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing what one finds under the rocks.
Fun to think about Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan as President. What could either possibly do to damage the interests of the white majority? Make them serve the same sentences if convicted of cocaine posession?
And can we please not hear about the oxymoronic "reverse racism"? Even "reverse discrimination" is a stretch, since any programs to aid minorities is ameliorative of past crimes.
May 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Even the one simple fact buried inside is beautiful--the biggest predictor of the white vote seems to be age. The point? The racists aren't the future"
LOL. Blacks voting 90-10% for Obama = not racist.
Older voters voting for Hillary in a much smaller proportion = they are all racists.
Keep it up, this kind of stuff is really going to help Obama in the next 6 months.
May 12, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good article and very provocative and sometimes substantive discussion. Thank you.
One quibble: I don't think it was Obama's viability that caused so many AAs, particularly women, to switch their initial alliegence from Hillary to Obama. The critical fact was the racebaiting in SC by Bill. At first people thought they must be misunderstanding, for the Clintons, though imperfect, were good, sometimes great people, and long-time friends of the Black community.
Once many Blacks(and white educated liberals spanning the economic spectrum) realized that they were essentially being used in a degrading way to for "the Clintons" to wedge some white votes for Hillary, the shift was massive. Hillary could have had something closer to half the Black vote.
The Clintons got frightened by Iowa and decided that they had to do anything, anything to win, no matter how hurtful to others. If she had built "her coalition" out from her base without playing the race card, she would have been the nominee.
May 12, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's tragic; theirs to lose. The invincible machine, but...
May 12, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Coates, You shame some of the shameless HRC supporters here by hitting a key issue on the head: None, or very very few of the Blacks who are supporting Obama are doing it because they will not or do not support Hillary for being White. Nearly all of those AA folks have voted for white people, most of them many times. No, what some of Hillary's supporters are saying is that they are voting for Hillary because they will not vote for a Black.
So, sorry, the racisim is all on the side of and has been stimulated by HRC.
I was a Clinton supporter. I admired both of them. I supported and donated to Hillary's campaign. Then she decided to throw the kitchen sink at her opponent. Ironically, she had a better and cleaner chance to win be standing up for what I know are her heart-felt values. The things she attacked Obama for in Philly--Ayers, the Reverend, etc.--were things she should have defended him on. Then she would have looked Presidential. Instead, she saw a chance or two to strike low blows, and she took it, thinking it might give her an advantage.
May 12, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just so much self-serving bullshit.
Anybody who votes for someone based on race is a racist.
Period.
May 12, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F
I took the liberty to respond to some of your comments ...
*** "Jeremiah Wright's emergence in March raised doubts among white voters about Obama's racial attitudes and judgment. "
Not necessarily -- it did not did raise doubts about his racial attitudes, instead it raised doubts (for some) about his patriotism ... and because he does not wear a stupid flag lapel pin. The pundits tied the two together and played endless loops of Rev Wright infamous 3 words. And questions (actually by the media and of course HRC's talking points whisper campaign) about whether he agreed with his pastor's words "the chickens came home to roost" on 911. Well they did come home to roost-- the CIA called it blowback. Every action has a reaction. And what America does overseas has consequences.
*** "His comments about his "typical white person" grandmother did not help either."
His grandmother grew up in a different era. And typical white people do say certain things and hold certain beliefs. This is what Ta-Nehisi Coates is talking about.
Older people tend to have a different attitude toward people of colour -- no matter if Latino, African American, Asian, etc. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Obama's statement; it is true. Granted how it was said ... some took offense, but they misinterpreted it. I say "some" because each person uniquely interprets the world based on his/her perceived reality. Remember reality is always subjective and can become easily distorted by outside influences.
Take for instance the media's influence on people who were
1) forming opinions based on comments taken out of context
2) forming opinions without considering the historical context -- the conventional mind-set at that time was different.
3) Double-standards... Why is Obama being held to higher standards than the other candidates?
If you believe in guilt by association How do you feel about McCain getting endorsements from tele-evangelist Hagee and others who spew hatred against gays, make public anti-Semitic statements, and suggest killing all Islamists? Or is it okay because they are white preachers and Wright is an African American? And there is the matter of Clinton's "secret Bible Group" with allegedly cult-like leaders.
Double-standards are equivalent to bias. Generally speaking, most of us (myself included) often overlook our own biases. It is easier to see it in others. As individuals and as a collective we can overcome our shortcomings thru tolerance and acceptance. Put yourself in another person's shoes -- imagine what it is like to see from his/her point of view. By doing so we become better people and a better society.
Every one of us, at one time or another, have said something before thinking. We say things without realizing our words could be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. How would you feel if your words were played ad naseum on the airwaves and given a different meaning than what you were trying to convey. Sure Obama could have said some things differently or better, but after all he is human, too.
*** "... he refused to disavow his self-described "important mentor" until eventually forced to do so for political reasons. Obama himself called Wright a legitimate political topic, and white voters should not be judged for having justifiable doubts."
Okay but what else can he do? He denounced Wright's words, rejected his pastor's words, and told us he does not hold the same views. His speech on race was beautiful. What other hoops must he jump thru to satisfy you? Have you even listened to what Wright said -- the entire sermon -- or any of his sermons? Have you done any research on Wright? What he has accomplished during his lifetime? There is a wealth of information on YouTube.
The media's propaganda keeps people from thinking ... for themselves.
Judge Obama on his merits rather than trivial issues blown out of proportion by MSN.
May 12, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precision, gratefully acknowledged.
May 12, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that's been ignored is that Edwards never saw any opposition from the African American community, and actually received a large portion of the African American vote if I remember correctly. The reason for this is that he, unlike Clinton, never made any racist statements and supported positions advantageous to the socioeconomic profile the largest portion of African Americans.
Also, do the descendants of white South Africans count as African Americans?
May 12, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't remember correctly, Scalfin. Edwards received a minimal black vote, 6% in South Carolina, notably LESS THAN CLINTON in that state. This was true even though no one is alleging that he played any race card and it is generally accepted that he had the most progressive economic policies.
May 13, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgh!!
What is it with you white people! I guess it's my fault for reading these posts... Stop trying to analyze black voters and this election. This election is about you white America. It is and always has been about you... your own psychosis and about who you (think) you are.
Everyone is calling Obama black. Hmm why is that? Because if you got some black in you that's what you are to us. He's got a white mother but...you know...he's black. Yea, that's some old slave America sh*t that just won't go will it. Even for the people that support him they still accept the dominant view that he's black. I guess if you all agree to treat people that way then it is a fact.
I'm brown actually. Some Germans, Irish and who knows what else are in my past from several generations ago. Few of the people in my hood are black. One could view this as a living mosaic of America's historically forced and consensual racial mixing...but maybe that's just me. But I am black because you say I am.
All these lefties who say the country is screwed up got offended by Rev. Wright and suddenly got ultra patriotic. How can he say that about 'Merika? A black guy talking about why its screwy to him is somehow unfanthomable. Why is that guy so angry? He's scary. Do some real research on Tuskeegee Experiments, Iran Contra, powder vs crack cocaine sentencing, prison rates, Sean Bell, etc. then listen to him again.
Speaking of Sean Bell and Diallo. I thought how many times can you shoot a black man and get away with it. 40 for Diallo - 50+ for Sean Bell... we still don't know. I do know that if you get shot that many times and you're white. You get a movie. Bonnie and Clyde.
Black people were and are overwhelmingly against the war (myself included). Should we use your cluster logic and say what... they're unpatriotic or love Iraqis. No. Maybe its because we've seen what its like to be on the other side of false assumptions by a gov't and media in lockstep to expand their money and power.
Black people see the real possibility for change in Obama because of his black experience, not just because he's black. We think and hope he might understand that there are many issues that are not being addressed and our country is completely out of balance, aggressive and criminal. The people (especially blacks) want change. He embodies that. Before the primaries I assumed I was going to hold my nose and pull the lever for Hillary until I heard Obama's and Edwards' Iowa speeches. I liked what they had to say. Oh and one of them happened to be black.
I appreciate those writing in defense of black voters but please look inwards before writing too. I prescribe 30 min a day of Tim Wise essays until the fear subsides.
From Soccer Moms to Security Moms, White rural, white men, college voters, latte sippers to eggheads, these elections have always been about you white America.
peace.
May 12, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't make white people into one big group. Jewish voters are quite distinct, and you can split Jewish voters up by ethnicity (Ashkenazi, Sephardi), sect (reform, Hasidic), and baseball franchise (Yankees v. Red Sox).
On the shooting, even members of the Boston Massacre got away with it, so let it go. Of course, an African Britanian was among the fallen, but let's not get into that.
May 12, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So was that. Stop. Just stop.
May 13, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's right. Obama is half white and half black. It is old slave America to call him Black. He could equally be called White. But he isn't. Why? Because slavery was reserved for those with dark skins.
During the period when Texas was an independent nation it was against the law for anyone with African dark skin to live in the nation of Texas without being someone's property. By law a person with such dark skin was legally a slave.
Calling Obama Black continues that same attitude.
Face it. America isn't over the traumas caused by the slavery of Africans. Slavery was severely damaging to whites as well as to blacks. America's culture was severely damaged by the attitudes and practices required to subjugate the African slaves, and it has not recovered yet. Legal slavery has ended, but the attitudes remain.
May 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every election in this country since 1964 has been about black people.
The south is Republican because of racism. Obama lost PA and OH because of racism. And the upcoming election would not even be a contest but for racism.
In that sense, it is all about black people. If Obama was white, he's be winning a landslide. As LBJ predicted, the Dems lost the majority of whites when it endorsed voting rights.
This country is all about race. Always has been.
May 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt it’s all and only about race for some people. God damn racist white America!
May 13, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Period The End M.J.!
May 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
May 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with you white people! As a white person I ask myself this question: What is it with you black people
so there is symmetry in the way we don't see each other’s point of view. That's the nature of the problem in America: we don't see eye to eye.
May 13, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ta-Nehisi...it ain't a myth. The polls are all there is to go by and the polls show the shift of, basically 67-43 to 90-10, from Clinton to Obama in Obama's turbo race-pimp mode. Let's not pretend, OK?
May 13, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I read that differently than you did. See, what I got from those polls was that Hillary sucks, and that black voters are simply too intelligent to fall for her idiotic pandering. To me, poll results like that PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that people of African descent are vastly more intelligent and less gullible than people of European descent.
Makes sense, right?
May 13, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't really so hard to understand, though, is it? Racism isn't a race thing--it's a cultural thing and a dog thing--or maybe better, a fish thing. It's about a small minority leading the tribe, the flock, the school, the pack. And if that small minority decides to pull a Jim Jones and poison the whole group, they'll probably get away with it, because most of us just want to get along. We blend into the woodwork because that's how we get survive. We stay in the middle of the school and let the fish on the outside get eaten.
When I was in junior high school, I went out and bought me a pair of zip-up-the-side Beatle boots. They looked cool as hell. When I got to school, one of the higher-ups in the dirtbag bully tribe called me a "fag." Since I had never been called a fag before, I knew it was because of what I was wearing on my feet. I just put my back to him, and for the next three or four days, I was the school fag. But here's the weird part: even some of the kids who weren't part of the bully group started calling me a fag. Pretty soon everybody was calling me a fag. Because I'm a troublemaker, I responded by pegging up a pair of pants and wearing the boots on the outside.
Anyway, after about three days, I was in the locker room after gym class, and the tension was really getting serious. I knew I was about five minutes away from getting shoved around. The guy who called me a fag was a few lockers down, and I could feel his eyes on me as I zipped up the boots. He said, "Hey, faggot--nice boots, faggot." Out of nowhere, I heard someone say, "Hey--I think his boots are cool."
It was Mike D. King of the Bullies. The only kid in school who had a beard because he'd failed out twice. And that was the end of it. A few days later, everyone in school started buying Beatle boots, and the whole thing was over. I went into the women's section at the local department store and bought myself this pair of fucking awesome high-heeled women's clogs. They rocked. And I knew none of those suckers would dare follow me there.
But that's the thing about racism, or sexism, or whatever ism. There's always a bully or a handful of bullies behind it, and the rest just go along. Adolph Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Jim Jones, Bubba Free John--they're all the same. They're all just bullies who stood up and told the crowd where to go. And the crowd followed.
That's why Barack Obama's candidacy is so compelling. Because for once--and it only happens every few generations--we've got someone who wants to take us where we already wanted to go. He appeals to our better angels. And we're more than happy not only to follow him, but to grab the wheel and take on some of the responsibility of getting us there. Obama has created a new tribe where race doesn't matter. Because it's not about that. It's about telling the bullies that they can ride, but they've got to ride in the back.
It's a good thing we're doing.
May 13, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Racial does not equal racist. For African Americans to choose the darker-complected of two politically aceptable candidates makes perfect sense to me. I (not African American) see Obama's heritage and racial mixture as a big positive in terms of how he can lead an increasingly beige America and relate to the rest of the world. Does voting based on race make me a (selfhating) racist, or is a partly race-based decision legitimate and even politically correct?
Can we please disregard the nuts on the blogs and the inflammatory snippets that the MSM love so much and focus on how great (and getting greater) the new ruling coalition can be when Obama helps usher in a post-racial polity?
May 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My take on the race and race and the polls that drive me crazy....
http://indepthleft.blogspot.com/2008/05/stupid-talk-race-race-and-polls.html
May 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh i get it now....so you didn't like whitey hillary until AAs decided to cast their support towards the blackie obama only after they felt slighted by the almighty bill C. ...
isn't it just like a hrc supporter to blame the whole world except for the ones at fault, namely Bill C, HRC and her loud-mouth surrogates?
so, was west virginia racially motivated? of course it wasn't! as long as hrc benefits, throw all arguments out the window.
let me school you--if i being latina always cast a vote for a white democrat and one day there is a viable hispanic who i dont know well and i decided to stick it out with the whites i know, but much to my dismay, the white man/woman i support says one negative thing about the hispanic candidate that marginalize him/her, i will switch so fast that dems wouldn't know what hit them. my guess is that's what happened to hrc. AA support was hers to lose and she lost it. as a latina, i am pissed at their treatment of bill richardson and i imagine the way i feel is the way AA's feel everytime HRC promotes the hill billy white vote over theirs. one doesn't trump the other! they are all important.
so when is hrc and the media and superdelegates make hrc prove that she can carry the AA vote? a voting bloc that is vital to the success of any dem candidate. please do not repeat her flub by stating that AA's will cast that vote for her simply b/c they have always been dems.....that was then, but now that the clintons and surrogates and some super d'S by turning a blind eye to the obvious, have all but endorsed HRC's belief that rural white votes matter more than black votes, i think irreparable damage has been done.
i don't know what it is, but these people do not respect obama and his supporters one bit. make no mistake people---obama need hrc supporters as much as she need his. if he has to prove he can win rural white voters and he has, but it just so happens that if hrc lost that state, it doesn't count, she should have to prove that she can satisfactorily carry the black vote. she has yet to prove this.
please do not delude yourselves into thinking if she steals this away, everyone will come out and support her pilfering!
May 14, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink