Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
With Democrats like these, you don't need racists
I really want to do a trade with Sean Wilentz. I will give him 10 bucks and I expect him to give me 24 dollars back ....
It
seems the racist attack on Obama has now started in full force ... from
within the Democrat party itself. The Republicans, including their
court-jester Tucker Carlson, (who in 2004 expected comedian Jon Stewart to be critical of John Kerry, while he himself gave Bush a free ride), just sat back relaxed and enjoyed the show, while Clintonesian Sean Wilentz accused Obama of playing the race card.
Now,
accusing someone of playing the race card as a means to hide your own
racist attacks ... this is like rednecks neocons accusing Susan
Sarandon of being a nazi.
First the expansion of the Lyndon B. Johnson helped Martin Luther King meme, and now this stuff about wether Bill Clinton made covert racial comments about Obamas South Carolina win
Bill actually wanted to peg Obama as black, by saying: Hey Obama is black because he won like a black man, just like Jesse Jackson
SW argues that Bill Clinton was right about that, because Obama won with the same percentages as Jesse Jackson, 55 percent.
He tries, in passing to paint Bill Clinton as humble, since he won SC bigger than any Democrat, but BC didn't mention that.
Obama's win was of course very different
from Jacksons since he won with 24 percent of the white vote. and 75 of
the black vote. Jackson barely managed 10 percent in 1988 and even less
in 1984.
So, Obama didn't win like a black man, he won like a man who got more of the white vote than any other black man before him.
Just like he did in white states.
Therefor, linking him with a black candidate was despicable race tactics.
These sort of diversion ploys, trying to push Obama on the defensive, by accusing Obama of racism, this are the most foul, the most despicable, the most vile and vitriolic sort of attacks, especially because it comes from within ...
We expected them to slither from under a kkk slimy rock, not from within the Democrat rank and file, which has the chutzpah to label himself as an independent.
Comments (18)
And if I were running against Al Sharpton for Governor of New York, would it be racist to say he might do better than me in Harlem and Brooklyn?
Is it racist to point out that Jesse Jackson ran a very similar campaign, with very similar themes of inclusion?
Is it racist to point out that Jesse Jackson actually got a lot of enthusiasm in colleges, especially in caucuses (where I remember a large crowd for him, something more than 1/3 of the room).
And that was 1984. Is it racist to point out that Jesse Jackson wasn't just a flash in the pan - that unlike John Edwards say, he won a load of primaries and caucuses and then in 1988 he came out and surprised everyone by doing even better. Unlike say Ross Perot.
Dude, your problem isn't that your candidate is black. The problem is you have a campaign that preaches that race doesn't matter and then when someone says something related to race, everyone freaks out and whining, some even going so far as to start mouthing, "but his mother's white, but his mother's white".
What did James Brown sing? "Say it LOUD! I'm black and DON'T COMPARE ME WITH OTHER BLACK PEOPLE!"???
Maybe Jimmy Walker should write his campaign slogan: "I'm BLACK, I'm WHITE, I'm OUTTA SIGHT".
How should Obama have answered about Jesse Jackson? "Bill Clinton, God love him, sees only part right, only his little bit of the past. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina and a lot more states. He broke new ground. But it wasn't enough. But this campaign has the power, coast to coast. We have the will, we have the message, we have the unity, young and old, black and white, man and woman. Our message is of hope and change for all Americans, that doesn't stop at South Carolina and Iowa, but continues across the whole land. And you can tell us we have to stop at this line, that's this is as best as you ever did before. But we know we're better than that - that we can go farther, reach new heights, break new barriers, even bring some of our long lost Republican brothers back into the fold. Because we're preaching the message of America - unity, ability, possibility, not divisiveness, limitation, fear. And one day when people talk about this campaign, the campaign that put the first man of color in the White House, the first that represented all shades of people, they'll point to Rev. Jackson and say, 'that was an important step along the road. But thank God we didn't stop there - that we had the faith, the faith to keep walking all the way to the finish line."
February 29, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, who's the one freaking out again?
February 29, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watch this clip, Desidero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmE1VWUlOD0
And then tell me that Bill Clinton was not bringing up Jesse Jackson to diminish Obama's achievement and marginalize him.
More importantly, Watch the clip and tell me that Obama said ANYTHING that could be construed as playing the victim or race-baiting. Tell me he said something that wasn't gracious; tell me that he said something that didn't in fact attempt to DEFUSE racial tensions. For that matter, look at ANYTHING the candidate has said regarding Bill Clinton's SC comments. If you can find me some example of him "freaking out," or "whining," then we'll talk.
If you can not find anything like that from Obama; if you can not quote the candidate himself and instead find yourself relying on assumptions and guilt-by-association, then that is probably a good signal that you should STFU.
February 29, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think (fear) that if Obama is the nominee this campaign will be the ugliest in living memory. Maybe it will be therapeutic?
February 29, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
think/fear
odd you would combine those two. but then again, maybe not.
As to your point - it will certainly be a sight to behold.
March 1, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Desidero,
You're missing the point, which was that Bill was trying to pigeonhole Obama as irrelevant as Jesse Jackson, and that Wilentz tried to support that by using false and/or unlikely statements.
It's not we that don't feel proud, its Bill Clinton trying to put black people in their place, not by associating and pigeonholing to a black candidate but to an ultimately unsuccesfully black candidate, who never had a chance, and who no one expected to have a chance, including Jackson himself.
In short, Bill tried to insert the inevitability of Hillary again.
Your "be proud that you're black" comments are actually quite nauseating.
In some ways you remind of a cop asking a rape victim if she orgasmed during the rape.
This is not an analogy, but that's what you remind me of.
A good analogy might be this: you say to the man with one leg and on crutches running against a field of men with two legs: don't be ashamed that you have just one leg!
Being black is much more of a handicap in America than being white. Especially in a racially charged atmosphere which is now building more and more.
And you have the gall to suggest that WE should "see past that"? Gimme a fat effing break here.
We are proud. We are also not stupid or naive (like your fanfic about Jackson & Clinton) and see that others WILL make point of our colour and use it against us.
The CEO
February 29, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dividing Americans according to race instead of occupation or social class is the greatest obstacle to social progress.
February 29, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's funny, is that you actually epitomize your own comment, though I'd toss in age too.
February 29, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
except that everybody is doing it already. Another disingenuous remark by you.
Don't complain to me about it. Convince your white friends, like those who have been harrassing Lewis Hamilton, and Zaragoza's footbal-hooligan-racists and Luis Aragonés, not to discriminate and be a racist. Oh and maybe you can practice in the mirror?
February 29, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, TCEO, I didn't miss the point.
First, of course Bill was trying to pigeon-hole Obama as only able to do what the last guy did. If it was John Edwards, I'd say, "Hey, didn't do too well in 2004, did you?" About Obama I've compared him to Gary Hart and John Anderson - initially appealing as the young "alternative" candidate and flashing out. Now I'm not a poltician, so that wasn't just to dismiss him, it was an honest evaluation/expectation but politicians can and do make similar comparisons expressly to knock them down. It's a fight for the nomination. Obama was appealing to youth vote - others have tried and it's normally not a really strong tactic because of youth turnout rates. Is that racist to bring that up? Ageist? With Bill Clinton you might say, "well, he'll do well in the South, but can he carry anywhere else?" How many candidates have dismissed other candidates such as Dennis Kucinich as being a sure-fire loser like McGovern, too far to the left, or Kerry like Dukakis (or like Lurch from the Addams family)?
Second, no, you're not proud. You compare your color to being a cripple. But cripples have a problem. Blacks only have to worry about other people's problem (attitude, actions), while cripples have to worry about both. It's a big difference. WTF is "Yes we can" if inside you keep telling yourself, "No we can't"?
Women didn't get the vote until 88 years ago, and representation of women in government is worse than for blacks, even though women are more than half of the population and blacks are less than 1/8th.
Bill Clinton didn't marginalize Jesse Jackson as being irrelevant. He said "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." Great. A marathon has 26 miles. Obama finished 3 miles and was looking pretty good. Start patting yourself on the back when you get past heartbreak hill, mile 18. Here's what Jesse Jackson Jr. advertised for Obama: "“Once, South Carolina voted for my father, and sent a strong message to the nation,” the younger Jackson said. “Next year, you can send more than a message. You can launch a President.” Do I have any problem in the world with Obama using Jesse Jackson and his son to promote the idea of a black president? No. So if Obama's going to throw out the Jesse analogy, why are people annoyed with Clinton making a straight-forward comment about this analogy?
My Flash Player is down so I'll look at Obama's comments himself on the issue, but the press and his followers - including you - certainly got bent out of shape over it.
And again, if you and Obama think that LBJ didn't help MLK and that MLK's work was more important than what a President can do, why is he running for President? Why not go back to being a street activist where his heart is? Forget black poverty coming down from 33% to 21% under Clinton - it's all a "fairy tale", and the only thing that matters is street action like the Million Man March, not Clinton appointing 16% of White House staff positions to blacks.
And is Obama going to be my President as well, or just the President of a few people and interests he recognizes, seemingly the correct kind of progressive plus a few Republicans? Because STFU isn't a campaign platform that appeals to me.
February 29, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
But how would you feel if he said that Obama runs like a woman?
March 1, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being black is much more of a handicap...
And there it is. You yourself consider blackness a handicap, something unfortunate one must struggle against to continually prove one's worth to people who ultimately don't give a damn (and why do they need to? Because we expect them to. I would recommend reading "Awareness" by Anthony DiMello to see just how much baggage we saddle ourselves with by getting mired down in "expectations".)
How is the above excerpt supposed to change anyone's mind not to be racist, exactly? I'm not without empathy to your deeper point, but think for a moment how powerful subliminally the language is that you choose.
Being a queer American, I would never publicly go out and berate my innate nature as a handicap, because that invites everyone who reads those words to similarly consider me as damaged and worthless. And I don't label myself any of those things - quite the opposite.
Just something to consider...
February 29, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your Uncle Bastard - I think you seek an honest debate on this issue whereas David and Desidero are doing exactly what Clinton is accused of doing and that is to use racism as a tool.
Desidero, whether Bill helped blacks is not the question here. There is a reason people are turned off when someone says "but, I've got black friends". It's the bigots excuse.
There is a difference between seeking to extinguish prejudice in our personal interactions and removing discrimination in the public sphere. YUB argues that someone elses prejudice is not your handicap. Agree completely. Handicapped people stand up for their rights to have access to buildings. It can't be ignored and it doesn't make them weak to fight for equal treatment. Just as gay Americans should fight for the right to marry.
The issue here is how we deal with prejudice in the public. If my boss said the only reason one of my colleagues was hired was because they were handicapped or a minority that would be unacceptable. If they listed why a person was not qualified to do a job for which they were hired this might be fair.
Along this same line I find it unacceptable for Hillary's campaign and supporters to insinuate that Obama only won because he is black. Anyone who wants to see an end to racism would feel the same. If you honestly feel Obama used racism first, which I do not, than qualify it but do not use it as an excuse for the Clintons. If you want to talk about why he's not qualified than his race should not be part of the discussion. If you want to talk about the reasons why people voted for him, than talk to the people who voted for him as they are individuals. It might burst your bubble to understand that his qualifications and comparison to Hillary were part of the equation. Ignorance will not be bliss for Hillary supporters who assume it is only because he is a black man.
February 29, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Michelle Obama clarified her meaning in her notorious gaffe, she never talked about racism or race as a factor in what she meant, although many here felt that it was pertinent to project that meaning to her words, and to justify that meaning and bring up the whole race issue in the campaign.
Race is not a major issue in the Obama campaign, and it is worth noting that the Obama campaign itself shows no indication of acknowledging the racial nature of these attacks. It appears to be a level of debate that they consciously feel is not beneficial to the campaign, and it makes sense to believe that it could be distracting from the message of bringing Americans together.
So let us bear in mind that while here in this forum we may talk about racist attacks and the hardships in Michelle's life as a black woman, this is a discussion we are having that has nothing to do with anything the Obama campaign has communicated in its message.
February 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your Uncle Bastard,
What's a black? I keep asking and no one answers. The worst of the racists might be the "social construction" bunch that declares they are so color blind they can't even distinguish black from white.
What's that? Is there something in the genes that causes over 50% of males to indulge in homosexual activity? [No I won't look it up. It is based on some estimate or other in a very perceptive essay by Michael Kinsley years ago.]
Is the prejudice against gays (whatever gays are) a guilt trip or what?
Any social construction bigots doing harm to you, Uncle?
I think most here will admit that it would be far harder to elect a professed gay than a member of the imaginary black race. Maybe the social construction racists.
I think Barney Frank would have made a fine president.
Best, Terry
March 1, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you arguing that "black" and "white" mean nothing or something?
Help me here.
March 1, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Coloured European Observer,
I will try if you will tell me what a white is.
I am not having much luck with definitions.
I don't really know Barack Obama but, well you know, people think they know him - as with all public figures.
Is he one of the people you are talking about?
Or did you have something else in mind?
Best, Terry
March 1, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course my black skin IS a handicap, to deny it would be foolish. It is another thing altogether if I choose to be proud of it and embrace it; or, I could choose to be negative about it.
The handicap is NOT IN ME, it is in the perception of me by others, predominantly non-blacks.
One cannot say: Oh, but everyone is prejudiced towards everybody. That is a cop-out. I think, given the socio-economic status of African-Americans in America, they can claim being prejudiced against EXTREMELY.
To all demanding a definition of black or white: DISINGENUOUS!!! This is such low and vile question, so dishonest and hypocritical. You deny the existence of the one-drop-rule, while you know perfectly well it is still very much in effect.
Un-believable.
I call TROLL and I call BULLSH!T
March 1, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment