Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Here's the evidence: Black voters DO provide unfair advantages in key states
Yes, Geraldine Ferraro may be right. I've looked into some key states Obama won in the primary and the numbers don't lie. Just look at the unfair advantage he held in those states based on the demographics:
Percent of state population that is African-American:There's more though. It's clear that many white voters across America are excited by the prospect of supporting historic black elected officials. This is patently unfairly to other qualified candiates.
Wisconsin: 6% (Obama won +17%)
Minnesota: 4.5% (Obama won +34%)
Washington: 3.6% (Obama won +36%)
Iowa: 2.5% (Obama won +9%)
Wyoming: 0.9% (Obama won +24%)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ and
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/
For evidence look no further than the United States Senate. Long a bastion of the elite, times have changed because of the demand for more black officials from America's voters. Between 1881 - 1967 there were no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate. But since 1967 there have been 3 black Senators - and Barack Obama is one of them!
While this does mean African-Americans make up only 1% of the U.S. Senate, they've also seen a tripling of their number in that body since 1967. This clearly demonstrates that black politicians have an easy road to success in modern American elections.
It's a fact: Voters across America just want to elect black people - regardless of their positions or the issues they stand for. You can argue with me about my opinion, but you can't argue with the math!
Important author note: this was written with obvious sarcasm and snarkiness. I'm mostly just blowing off steam because this is all kind of sad really. Those numbers are correct though. I think Josh's points about this are right on.
If you enjoyed my sarcasm, please click the "recommend this" link. Please add your sarcasm or snark to the comments below.
Advertisement
Comments (101)
You know what's interesting about this? Ferraro's comments could just as easily be applied to Clinton.
Think about it. She also said that had her name been Gerald Ferraro she wouldn't have been on the '84 ticket. So couldn't we also say that Clinton is only where she is because she's a woman, thus logically breaking even between the two?
Sorry, I just wanted to take this argument to it's illogical conclusions.
March 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that was Josh's point on the frontpage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182937.php
And it's just sad. I mean, are we seriously going to get into a debate about whether blacks or women have more hurdles to overcome in America? Let's just say they've both gotten a raw deal from this country and are both slowly making progress towards equality and justice, ok?
This really is just a pattern of playing victim by Clinton or people in the campaign though.
Here's my short list of their complaints:
It's not fair: Florida and MI delegates should be counted.
It's not fair: caucus states are undemocratic.
It's not fair: Obama has support from non-Democrats voting in a primary.
It's not fair: Obama has so much money and a motivated volunteer base, we can barely keep up.
It's not fair: Obama is a great public speaker.
It's not fair: Obama wasn't in the Senate when he opposed the war.
And now, it's not fair: Obama is black.
What's next?
It's not fair: Obama is the nominee and we were supposed to be.
March 11, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your original post and this riff are brilliant, urbinato. Great stuff. :^ )
March 11, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot:
black people (LA)
activists (caucuses)
rich people
unemployed people (Sen. Clinton said that her supporters work).
March 12, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to include *addition*. It seems like everytime Obama wins a contest, those results are *added* to previous contests. This is patently unfair, too. These are independent races and we shouldn't be mixing them up.
March 12, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM reader Genghis recently did a piece on the bizarre witchcraft known as "math":
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/math-shmath.php
March 12, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a white working-class 46-year old male who's only supporting Obama in a desperate attempt to simultainiously bolster my P.C./street cred and relieve some of my whiteman's guilt by finally getting the hip black friend I've always secretly wanted........................(snark alert)
March 12, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't want to wade into the legitimacy of Ferraro's comments here, but just a note that you're setting up a straw man here Urbinato with your flawed analysis.
1. Percentage of AA population isn't a good metric for these party primaries. AAs tend to be democrats, and they tend to be more likely to vote than other ethnic groups.
2. Let's look at one of the closest races - Missouri. Obama won by 1%. According to that census data, Blacks make up 11.5% of Missouri, but 15% of Democratic primary voters. They went for Obama 75-22, meaning that without the black voting bloc he would have lost by 7% or so.
It's obvious that Obama appeals to a wide variety ethnic groups and ages, and you can't point to a single factor to explain his success. However, it is true that if he wasn't pulling in 70-90% of black voters, a significant proportion of whom are voting based on ethnicity, he wouldn't be doing nearly so well. Crucially, black women and black men are indistinguishable in their voting patterns, suggesting that race is more important than gender in their view, which cuts into a core Hillary demographic.
One of the big successes of the Obama campaign, in my opinion, is that he's managed to monopolize the black vote without alienating the white vote - a great achievement.
March 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that seems to be lost in the TV punditry about African-Americans voting en masse for Barack Obama is the potential that we're engaged by his message and/or turned off by hers... That is very offensive. It's the racial version of the "kool aid drinking cultists" comments.
Let's be honest, between South Carolina and now, HRC has almost been running as though she didn't want the African-American vote. I live in Maryland and I know lots of loyal African-American Clinton supporters. When you bring up the things that have gone on in the HRC campaign in the last month, they can't really respond. If you want to overcome the perceived automatic advantage that Barack Obama has in the Black community, guess what? You have to WORK for our votes. You have to communicate that you value and respect us and you appreciate the overwhelming support we gave you in the 90s when your husband's name was on the line. Surely she hasn't forgotten...
March 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner:
You say that I have flawed analysis and then use a state I did not cite, Missouri, to make your point. My entire analysis is based on Obama winning states that have little significant AA populations.
You say though that in those states AA voters would be significant in a Dem Primary. So let's take Wisconsin as an example, primary state and the state with the highest % AA on my list. Accroding to MSNBC the voters in the Dem primary were 8% AA and 87% white. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226015/
You're seriously arguing that Obama has some sort of demographic advantage in a state like Wisconsin? White women made up 50% of the electorate.
Whites are an "ethnic group" too and they vote proportionally higher rate and in greater numbers than any other group - especially older white women, Hillary's core group.
I also would take issue when you say that Obama "managed to monopolize the black vote." Your comments and Ferraro's comments read as a subtle dig at AA voters, essentially saying "Obama is LUCKY because blacks just look at him and vote for him because of his race." But remember, one of Hillary's strengths before Iowa was that she was polling extremely well with AA voters. She has/had prominent AA endorsements, from John Lewis to Sheila Jackson Lee. Obama has earned his votes by running an excellent campaign. (maybe that Iraq war vote caught up with Hillary, since blacks have been much more opposed to the Iraq war than any other group in America).
But why aren't white politicians and voters held to the same critique when they very often won't vote for a person of color? If black voters have so much power in Dem primaries, why don't we have more AA in the Senate, Congress, White House, Governor's mansions, etc.
In your analysis of Missouri you cite the black vote for putting him over the top. Couldn't you cite young voters as the reason since they have backed Obama in huge numbers and by large majorities from coast to coast?
March 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Urbinato:
I don't think we disagree as much as you're making out, as you're mis-stating my argument.
1. The reason your analysis is flawed is unrelated to my using Missouri as an example. It's flawed because, in general, blacks are democrats, and democrats mainly vote in democratic primaries. Thus blacks represent a higher proportion of potential voters in a democratic primary than census figures would indicate.
2. Urbinato: "You're seriously arguing that Obama has some sort of demographic advantage in a state like Wisconsin?"
Ummm... No. Don't know how you got that from my post. What I did say, was that "It's obvious that Obama appeals to a wide variety ethnic groups and ages". He's clearly not a one-trick pony, but it's still true that black voters have been crucial to his success.
3. Yes, you can cherry pick some states where he hasn't needed to rely on black votes to win. You can also point to plenty where he has. I used Missouri as an example because it was a close race, and quite close to national averages in terms of black population. You can also point to plenty of states where he won big, mainly because of black voters, eg Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina.
Then there are the relatively close states, where the black vote put him over the top.
4. Urbinato: "Your comments...read as a subtle dig...essentially saying "Obama is LUCKY because blacks just look at him and vote for him"
Again, no, that's not what I said. Luck has nothing to do with it.
5. Urbinato: "If black voters have so much power in Dem primaries, why don't we have more AA in the Senate, Congress, White House, Governor's mansions, etc."
This is illogical on two fronts.
A: it isn't only Democrats that vote in the above contests, so the enhanced power of the black vote is greatly diminished - a worrying sign that Obama may not do as well in the general election.
B: As I said, the great strength of Obama's campaign is that he hasn't alienated the white vote. Many non-white politicians (not just black) haven't been able to do that.
6. Urbinato: "In your analysis of Missouri you cite the black vote for putting him over the top. Couldn't you cite young voters as the reason..?"
No. Here, again, you're showing your misunderstanding of these statistics. Age and race are not particularly related metrics. Although Obama has tended to win the youth vote, it's been nowhere near the 80-90% mark, suggesting race is much more important than age in determining who you vote for . Why Obama has been winning the youth vote is also worthy of discussion, but it's off topic here. I just checked, and apparently the median age for blacks is 30.2 years and 27.7 years for whites (only 22.7 years for people of two or more races). This could, in fact, mean that the race-based vote partially accounts for Obama leading in the youth vote.
Hope that clears things up for you.
March 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, typo there - average age for whites is 37.7.
March 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do you agree or disagree with Ferraro's comments?
March 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Hillary on this one:
"MSNBC reports Hillary was asked about Ferraro's comments. "I do not agree with that. It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," Hillary said."
I think it's interesting for us to discuss why Obama is doing so well, but it's not helpful for either campaign to discuss voting demographics on matters of race, as it's so easy for people to irrationally accuse them of being racist, or to pounce on a single word taken out of context. Unfortunately, when you're a politician it's safest to ignore racial divides than discuss them out in the open.
March 12, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner where did you get that?
March 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
From here on TPM:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/top_obama_adviser_hillary_must.php
Which links to the quote from MSNBC here:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/11/755677.aspx
March 12, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness, amid all these claims of Obama's unfair advantage among black voters (gag!), does no one remember how high the pro-Clinton AA polling percentages were before South Carolina? She LOST the AA vote by trying to pigeonhole Obama as the AA candidate--whether you call that a legitimate campaign strategy or intentional race-baiting is beside the point. Echoing ondioline's point, Clinton pushed potentially receptive voters away with her campaign's rhetoric, period.
What is the obsession with these "racially polarized" results, anyway? The Clinton campaign is trying to frame things this way, and the MSM (and TPM, might I add) seems to be all about it.
March 12, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harriet:
1.Who's claiming the advantage is unfair? Not me, at least.
2. I don't think Hillary ever tried to pigeonhole Obama, and I don't believe you can fully explain her losing the black vote because of how Obama tried to make her look racist over the issue of Obama comparing himself to MLK and JFK. I think that Obama *won* the black vote because, after Iowa and New Hampshire, black voters saw that, for the first time, there was a viable black candidate.
March 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
They saw a viable black candidate so they switched to Obama midstream? What do you base that on? It is a bit insulting to black people to assume that. Did you ever think that maybe they, like other demographic groups, began to get to know him and liked what they saw?
The Obama surge happened across ethnic and gender lines if you look at the polls.
March 12, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really... Care to name another group that surged to 80-90% Obama support since Iowa? A group that *suddenly* got to know him over the period of a week? Hmmmm....
If you take away the switch of black voters from Clinton to Obama, the supposed surge in support for Obama is actually pretty small.
March 12, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
youre a racist - it is clear you have contempt for the black electorate. Go back to freeperdom where you belong.
March 13, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made a valid point. If Clinton's name were Klinton, she might not be in today's position. But head to head, Clinton, by her more than 13 years experience on the earth, has accomplished more than Obama. Except for his one speech, you would really have a hard time citing any of Obama's personal achievement. His resume is thin, even for someone of 47 years old. Look at Spitzer! He has accomplished much more than he.
Putting everything aside. Ferraro's words are not as bad as you guys want to frame. What's wrong being lucky? Being lucky does not mean you are not good. For anyone to achieve anything, one normally has to be both lucky and good. You and I know there are many people in the world who are as good as Bill Gates, but he is lucky enough to be in America and catches up with the wave of PC and become the most, not anymore, the second richiest man in the U.S. Is he lucky or not?
Saying Obama lucky does not mean he's not good. You can ask yourself a simple question: 90% of black voting for Obama, just because he's good or he happens to be one of them. Pointing out Obama's taking advantage of racial pride is not racism. it is a fact! You have tried hard to difuse her comments by pointing out Obama's success in Iowa and Idaho. In fact, his wins at those states do not refute her points at all. Obama's success is based on an unusual alliance of the black community and liberal elitists. In the South, his success has a lot to do with the huge black population. Think about it. Jesse Jackson beat Al Gore handily in MS in 1988. Was Jesse a much better candidate than Al? Obama's wins in Lily white states are fueled by the anti-war fevor of ultra-liberal elitists, who happen to think voting for a black man is cool as well.
Everybody is doing the right thing. Don't be so ready to question other people's character or morality. Would you please have an open mind?
March 12, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Ferraro are right. It's lucky - wait, a BLESSING that he's a black man with an African name running for President. Because guys like that have SUCH a long history of success in Presidential elections.
If being a black man were so lucky then why has one never even been nominated??
Do you not see what was offensive about her comments? And, as Josh pointed out, just plain wrong? She's essentially saying that it's affirmative action that's gotten him to where he is, not his skill or vision or charisma. As though Hillary had to claw her way up through local politics herself and really work hard to put her name on the public's collective psyche. Please.
March 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
These caucus margins are so high that defy the word "laughable". Anyone seriously thinks that if primaries but not caucuses were held in MN and WA, Hillary would have lost by such a huge margin? You and I know the party activists who do not worry about making a living are single issue voters: they hate President Bush and are fervently against the War. That's it!
March 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm embarrassed for Ferraro. I feel sorry for her - I think she's lost her mind.
March 11, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems odd that there are more gays in the senate than AA's.
March 11, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, didn't you know that gays have it REALLY easy in America. Especially when they run for elected office.
March 11, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gays are so goddamn lucky.
March 12, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
white gays
March 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about black irish? Are they all voting Obama?
March 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You bet we are even though Obama is a prostitute - er, Protestant. We just pretend he is a Muslim.
Best, Terry
March 11, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of your best. :-D
March 12, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great post!
Sinbad knows that the doors to fame and fortune were opened to him solely and simply because he is an African-American.
Thus has it always been!
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Feeling the seething resentment in our very bones!
March 11, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four words: America needs more Sinbad.
March 11, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad/Clinton would be a sure winner.
Eat your heart out Al Franken.
Best, Terry
March 11, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards? Richardson? Gore? Pelosi? Dean? Reid?
In the words of Princess Leia:
"Help us Obi-wan-superdelegate-obi, You're my only hope"
My plea to the superdelegates - End this now.
March 11, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to feel that way. But I'd guess we'd see some pretty severe blacklash if a decisive number of SDs moved now, simultaneously. The same sense in which it seems unthinkable to O supporters that the SDs could rally behind HRC and deny O the nomination in spite of his wins would have a pretty strong effect on HRC supporters if she were knocked from the race by SD movement now (before all the states left vote) and HRC herself not choosing to withdraw. We need some serious back room pressure to either end these un-Democratic tactics coming the HRC campaign, or to somehow, convince her to leave the race. We can only hope we'll get the former, because I think the latter is highly unlikely.
March 11, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee. You forgot Alaska. African-Americans: 3.7%. Obama ahead by: 49%.
I guess it's because of black racial chauvinism that white Democratic candidates have always had so much trouble getting our votes.
March 11, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! For those who would say that AAs are only voting for Obama because he's black, consider that the tide turned on HRC when her surrogates started making racially-suggestive statements. Before then, polls indicated that HRC was supported by a much higher percentage of AAs. Sure, one could say there's a racial element if black voters really are only voting for Obama because he's black. But what's much more likely to be going on is that black voters are voting against a candidate who would condone race-based tactics. It makes perfect sense that AAs would not choose to vote for a candidate perpetuating racist stereotypes.
March 11, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just telling my husband this. He's European and hadn't really been paying attention until he got tired of my railing against Clinton. I was telling him that at this point last year, blacks were overwhelmingly supporting Clinton. Something, I never understood.
Now, look at where we are...and the Clintonistas want to pretend that we're supporting Obama because of skin color?
Like they had nothing to do with it?
If the Clinton's and their surrogates acted like Democrats, hell like humans I would probably still be on the fence between these two. December and January race-baiting shoved me into the Obama group after Dodd dropped out.
March 12, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Senator Clinton had fought against the Bush-Cheney regime with ONE-TENTH of the energy and passion she has put into fighting against Senator Obama, why this would be a better country and she would certainly have clinched the nomination long ago.
She's no leader; she is a thorough-going egotist; and if she ends up being the candidate, then McCain will be elected; then die or get incapacitated, and Hucklebee will be the President. It is God's will.
March 12, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
TRUTH:
Thank you for putting it down like this. This needs to be said far more often.
March 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
here here!
March 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zing of zings. Dead on. Obama should 'plagiarize' this one.
March 12, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews: "...the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around."
Wasn't there a big uproar about this? So much that he publicly apologized on TV for these words?
If Hillary's camp can see the errors of this statement, how come they can't see them in Ferraro's?
I see both statements as parallel!
This is her Pensylvania "kitchen sink."
March 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops!
I forgot to say: Great post, Urbinato.
March 11, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some Truths:
AA make up about 12% of the national vote. White males make up about 30%.
If Obama cannot hold the white male vote in the big states, he will lose.
AAs nearly always vote Democratic. White males, especially Catholics, swing both ways.
McCain will be very strong with white males in the swing states.
If the Democrats don't put some one up who can compete with McCain, they will surely lose and we will get Republicans again.
March 11, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If the Democrats don't put some one up who can compete with McCain, they will surely lose and we will get Republicans again."
Sorry, but we are fresh out of white male candidates. Whom do you suggest?
March 12, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The times they are a changin'!
(and count this white male for Obama).
March 12, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Hussein Obama is the luckiest man in the world and it's all because he's black.
March 11, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I love your avatar with your screen name. I heard all of them "say" your post.
March 12, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keying in on Geraldine Farraro's keen insight, what we Dems really need is a black lesbian Mormon candidate. Who has become an atheist. Yeah, that candidate would be frickin' unstoppable!
March 12, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
...consider that the tide turned on HRC when her surrogates started making racially-suggestive statements...
You mean in response to his 'racialization' of the campaign in SC? It should be useful to bulimics that are following the campaign.
He's just so good it can make you sick.
March 12, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Racialization By Obama? Hillary's people started that crap back in New Hampshire lest we not forget. Remember the 'MLK gave great speeches but it took a President to sign the Civil rights Act" comment. Or Bill's 'Nelson Mandela showed great strength while imprisoned. But if I had to chose one person to get something done I'd choose Hillary." comment. Shall I continue? What about the surrogate comparing Obama to JFK then remarking 'well you know JFK got shot". *smh* At the short term memory of the Instant gratification generation.
March 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget that Obama called off the dogs himself by stating in one of the debates that he didn't think Clinton was trying to use race, even after all of the stuff Bill and other surrogates said. He took the high road, Indiex. The 'radicalization' of the campaign is only an advantage to Clinton. Obama has nothing to gain by being labeled the 'black candidate'. He MUST appeal to whites and others in order to win. Anyone with an IQ above 50 understands this.
March 12, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Math is hard...:) Well done on this one!
March 12, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, I think Clinton may be really hurting the next female presidential candidate's chances of being taken seriously...
March 12, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the next female presidential candidate might look pretty good compared to Clinton. Just like Clinton looks pretty good, at this moment, compared to the first female VP candidate.
March 12, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a misleading analysis. While your population statistics may be accurate, it is the percentage of democrats in the demographic that is most telling. These are largely white republican states. The democrats in the state are liberal and or black. Therefore the results of the democrat's primaries are indeed, statistically misleading. This reminds me of an old saying I heard while working for a municipality, "figures lie and liars figure."
I do not think the facts and figures disagree. It is the way people choose to spin them that causes the grief. Obama's wins in these states should be correlated to the percentage of Black democrats vs. all democrats in those states, if you do that, then your analysis tells the true story.
March 12, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If one would say African Americans provide an unfair advantage in some states, one could also say that women provide an unfair advantage in ALL states.
March 12, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's idiotic?
March 12, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama was white this race would have been over way before it got to MS.
March 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree!
Whites who vote for Obama are “mesmerized” by his blackness or his silver tongue, or are voting out of white guilt.
Men who vote for Obama are sexist.
Blacks who vote for Obama are racist, because they’re voting on the basis of race. Blacks don’t count, because getting their votes is “running up the score”; they’re like 4th-quarter touchdown passes when you’re ahead by 30 (except that Obama’s not ahead—see below).
Women who vote for Clinton are neither sexist, nor racist, nor “running up the score,” but rather are testimonies to “empowerment” and are “voicing their frustration.”
Obama must immediately fire anyone in his campaign who says anything bad about Clinton; however, if anyone in Clinton’s campaign makes racially charged comments, Clinton may merely “disagree” with that person.
Obama must both renounce and reject any black person who praises him, no matter the connection to his campaign. Clinton, however, need not renounce and reject what any woman or white person says about Obama, because “that’s not really the same thing.”
Only big states count in the primary, because, as Stephen Colbert says, “we all know that whoever wins the big states in the primary automatically wins them in the general election.”
EXCEPTION: every big state counts except Illinois, because that’s Obama’s home state. Clinton was born there, but that doesn’t matter.
New York, on the other hand, does count, even though it’s Clinton’s home state.
Red states don’t count, except Texas, because Hillary won the Texas primary. Obama won the Texas caucus, and thus more Texas delegates overall, but caucuses don’t count.
Small states don’t count either, especially red ones (see above) and ones with lots of blacks (see above), and Hawaii especially doesn’t count, because Obama was born there; Clinton was born in Illinois, but it doesn’t count (see above).
Florida and Michigan didn’t count, at least at the beginning, because they violated party rules, and all candidates agreed, but now that seating the delegates would be an advantage for Clinton, they do count.
When you take away all the red states, small states, states with lots of blacks (unless they’re big and blue states (and not Illinois)) and add Florida and Michigan, Clinton is ahead.
But really, none of the states count, because the superdelegates should select a nominee based not on the most delegates but rather “experience.” Clinton has a “lifetime of experience,” unlike Obama, whose lifetime doesn’t count. The primary examples of Clinton’s experience, however—the Iraq War vote, the botched Health Care initiative, and the train wreck of a campaign—don’t count.
All things considered, it seems clear that Obama should withdraw immediately.
Hillary: the “Heads She Wins, Tails You Lose” Candidate
http://iwillwalkaway.blogspot.com
March 12, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally! Somebody truly gets it!
:-D
March 12, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what percentage of white women Hillary has been bringing in...who has the numbers?
March 12, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
""If Obama was white this race would have been over way before it got to MS....""
HUH?
March 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What??!!! Some people are voting for someone because of something other than their stand on the issues!!!! in AMERICA!!!! this is unbelievable!!! I'm moving back home. This is just so crazy. I can't stand this. Why is this not on the front page of the NY Times day after day. When was the last time this happened??? does anybody know???!!!
ok, i'll stop now.
March 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Urbinato, you forgot to mention the all-important black governors bloc -- a whopping two in the entire history of the country! That is unbelievable. (Plus there is the possibility that we might add one more because of the unfortunate sex scandal we tricked Eliot Spitzer into. But David Paterson won't count officially because we'll sneak him into office unelected.)
Then there is the BET factor. Black Entertainment Television is a secret communication system that allows all black people to send coded messages about whom to vote for through predominately black cast sit-coms, and reality shows. Robert Johnson's South Carolina tirade was a Trojan Horse designed to further galvanize the black vote and confuse white people.
We already have our own President, Tom Joyner, who along with VP Tavis Smiley hosted the house party known as the State of the Black Union. There we talk about stuff in opposites. "Poor" means rich. "Jail" means free. "Job opportunity" means unemployment. "Unemployment" means high-paying Wall Street hedge fund jobs. "Drop-outs" are graduates. You get the idea.
Finally, we use sports stars, entertainers and Oprah to brainwash (educate) the American public into voting for us, considering ideas like ending the war, eliminating poverty, providing health insurance (without a mandate, even) to everyone, conoducting real diplomacy and not "cowboy" diplomacy, educating everybody's children, and providing good jobs as "mainstream issues" that they could support.
I've been able to reveal all of this to you now, because of course we are on the edge of a "crushing defeat" (victory!) at the hands of the Clintons (first "black" president and first lady (the whitest white people I know)). It is a plot to subvert the American government (win through democratic process!) and we black folk (all Americans!!!) are on the edge of unfathomable defeat at last!!!!
March 12, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jade -
That should have been a post!
March 12, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one cast a vote for Geraldine Ferraro to put her on the VP ticket in 1984. She was handed the slot without ever having run in a single primary. She is the one who got there just because of her gender.
Senator Obama has run in all fifty states, and earned every vote and victory that he has received, so Geraldine Ferraro is making a false comparison.
You Ms. Ferraro got the VP slot because you were a female.
Senator Obama has earned his victories on merit, despite being a Black man, and not because he is.
Stop your race baiting tactics now.
March 12, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have established that white men represent about 30% of the National Vote....
The Black Vote is about 12%......
For simplicity's sake, let's say there are 300 White Male Voters and 120 Black (M and F) Voters...
Let's assume "Blake Fleetwood" is correct, and McCain does very well (I'm being generous) with the white male group, winning 65%-35%...claming 195 to Obama's 105 Votes.
Let's assume current trends hold up, and Obama wins 90%-10% in the black voter group, winning 108 to McCain's paltry 12 votes...
At the end of the day that is 207 votes for McCain, and 213 votes for Obama. Obama wins!
Basically, overwhelming black support can counteract a less than stellar performance in white male support. This just leaves Obama with the task of winning women (not black women who are already counted), and all non-white men (Hispanic American, Asian Americans, etc.)....I think he will be just fine. I realize the numbers in each state differ, and in places like Ohio, Mich, and PA, Blake's point may have some legs....however, I just have a hard time believing that latent racism is going to be enough to propel McCain to a victory in these economically beat up states, when he has no real plan for economic recovery aside from trickle down tax cuts for the rich....Once Obama has cleared the Clinton hurdle (and it is a big one), the country will see the differences between these two men, and they are striking. In a country that 70% of people consistently say is on the "wrong track", McCain's message of a continuation of the Bush Presidency will not go over well.
March 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The figures are still sound even under your framework. Take the case of Wyoming, the reddest state, with 59000 registered Democrats and 136000 Republicans, approx. 1% of population black. That translates to approx. 2000 black voters, with an advantage of +3% only in the Democratic primary. In contrast, Obama's lead there is +24% over HRC. The 21% you tried to explain away as white "liberals". It works out the same for the other states. Good luck ignoring voter trends!
March 12, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of an old joke. A line of people stretches around the block outside a bakery in Moscow. The baker comes out and says, "Not enough bread! All the Jews, get out of the line!" Several people leave the line.
The baker comes out a little bit later, and says "Not enough bread! Everyone who is not Russian, get out of the line!" Several more people leave the line.
A bit later the baker returns. "Not enough bread! Everyone who is not from Moscow, get out of the line! More people leave the line.
Again the baker returns, this time sending away everyone who is not from the neighborhood. This continues until there are just two people waiting in line. The baker comes out and says "No bread! Go home!" The first guy in the line turns to the other and says "The Jews get all the breaks!"
March 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who wants to deny that there are many white folks who are excited about voting for an African American has his or her head in the sand or is using Ferraro's unfortunate comments for partisan purposes. MJ Rosenberg has written that he is excited about voting for an African American, and that is one thing about MJ that I have no problem with. On the other hand, when MJ Rosenberg wrote that HRC's talk about Obama as VP was like sticking him in the back of the bus, that was race-baiting in the most base and unambiguous sense. But I digress.
Personally, I remember being excited about voting for David Dinkins for Mayor, twice, and more recently in '02 it felt good to vote for McCall for governor of NY, and for David Patterson, the soon-to-be governor of New York in '06 (in NY you vote separately for governor and lt. governor). I don't think it was wrong for me to feel that way, and I also think that's what Ferraro meant (although I do wish she would have said it differently). Dunno, I never lost any sleep over feeling good that my votes were helping to bring African Americans into the fold. And this time I feel pretty darn good about supporting a woman for the same reason.
Partisans can claim that Geraldine Ferraro meant that Obama is unqualified and is where he is because he is black, but that will ignore that Geraldine Ferraro also said that Obama is qualified to be President. Indeed she has also repeatedly said that she was nominated in '84 because of her gender but that she was also qualified for the job.
I'm 48 years old; I remember how proud I was when Ferraro was nominated to be VP in '84. I am not ready to throw her out of the progressive coalition, and those of you have done so already are making a terrible mistake in the long-term. I hope that cooler heads prevail for the sake of all of us in November. But I also understand politics, so good luck to those of you who honestly think that Obama is going to get a net benefit out of this brouhaha. Unfortunately for Obama, I think this is flawed political calculation.
Obama supporters really do not want to get to the point where they will vocalize a presumption that anyone who supports HRC is a racist. It'll roll off me, but try saying that to the millions and millions of ardent Hillary Clinton supporters in this country.
March 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cannot be better said!
March 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this comment on an earlier thread:
I have no idea whether or not Geraldine Ferraro’s recent comments are evidence that she is a racist. She may well be, and that’s sad. But do I believe that these comments, while much more than a little troubling, are not per se racist. To suggest that Sen. Obama would not be where he is today in this presidential primary race were he not black is not to denigrate him, or his successes, or his qualifications. It is simply recognition that his race has played a big part in who he is. If we like him or support him for who he is, then we have to allow that his race is part and parcel of the man Barack Obama has become.
It is not racist to suggest or to accept that Sen. Obama’s race has brought him to where he is, both in his personal life and in his political life. Sen. Obama celebrates his African-American heritage and his successes as a black man. (Check out his books.) His campaign website boasts that he “was born in Hawaii…[h]is father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.” At Harvard, “he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Soon after, he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer…his advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate,…he became the third African American since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate.”
Again from the Senator’s campaign website: “It is an exciting time for African Americans, who will play a pivotal role in this election.…There is no better advocate for African Americans than Barack Obama. Barack knows your story, because it is his story. The causes that you hold dear have been the causes of his life.”
Sen. Obama is not the only one who celebrates his African-American heritage and his successes as a black man in a white world. Biographer, Steve Dougherty, writes that Sen. Obama’s personal story is basis of his political desire to unite. He “grew up in Hawaii, forever an outsider, a black kid abandoned at age two by his father,…raised by [his white grandparents] in a white neighborhood and looked at askance by all of a more definable hue and tribe, who struggled mightily to find an identity and purpose in life,…has risen to become…a voice whose call for a union undivided by liberal and conservative, red state and blue, or black and white, springs from his own struggles to find a way to united his own divided heart….” (Source: “Hopes and Dreams,” by Steve Dougherty, p. 34 Feb 15, 2007.)
Publisher’s Weekly describes (excerpt at Amazon.com) how Sen. Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” came about. “Elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama was offered a book contract, but the intellectual journey he planned to recount became instead this poignant, probing memoir of an unusual life. Born…to a white American woman and a black Kenyan student…. So Obama's not-unhappy youth is nevertheless a lonely voyage to racial identity,…. He slowly found place and purpose among folks of similar hue but different memory, winning enough small victories to commit himself to the work.”
Audio File (excerpt also available at Amazon.com) makes similar comments about “Dreams.” . “Throughout the book, the U.S. Senator looks at race from the point of view of someone who has seen and been part of a variety of cultures, and he explains how his perspective shaped his views.”
From an Editorial Review (at Amazon.com) for “Barack Obama: An American Story,” by R. Edwards and K. Call: “Of mixed race and cultures, Barack Obama struggled for years with his identity and place in society. …[H]e has made history as the fifth African American U.S. senator ever to be elected. Now “the skinny kid” continues his political journey and strives to become the nation’s first black president. …Senator Obama’s life has been interesting and inspiring.”
Check out other titles on Barack Obama: “The Politics of Hope,” “The Improbable Quest.” Ask yourself — and be honest — would Sen. Obama’s story be as hope-filled, improbable, inspiring, poignant, powerful and compelling is he were not an African-American in an all-too-white world?
You also have to ask yourself: Would this little-known state senator (who lost his bid in 2000 for the U.S. Congress) have been given the opportunity to give the Keynote Speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention if he were not black? And isn't that where the country was first introduced to this inspiring man? Would his story be as inspiring and compelling if he had grown up as just another poor white kid — like say, John Edwards? Had Obama not been given the Keynote Speech and had he not done such a wonderfully rousing job of it, would Obama have won his seat in the U.S. Senate, and would he have been able to move on so quickly to put his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential election? And, given former Pres. Clinton’s popularity with black voters — i.e., “the first black president” — do you think that Sen. Obama would have been able to wrest that vote from Sen. Clinton to the extent that he has if he were not black? (Remember, his own campaign website states: “It is an exciting time for African Americans, who will play a pivotal role in this election.…There is no better advocate for African Americans than Barack Obama. Barack knows your story, because it is his story. The causes that you hold dear have been the causes of his life.”) And, would he be where he is in the primary numbers without that black vote?
This country is not color blind — would that it were. If Sen. Obama can use his color to his advantage (and to the advantage of his constituents, his supporters and, ultimately, this country), then more power to him!! But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that his race has not played a part in getting him (meaning pushing or driving him to find himself and to succeed, not pulling him along regardless of his abilities) where he is today. Not any more than Sen. Clinton can deny that her gender (and even her husband) has helped her. Whether Obama’s color and Clinton’s gender are viewed as burdens to overcome or to capitalize upon, or as benefits to take advantage of, color and gender are part of who these candidates are. And who they are is why we support them.
March 12, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You convey an interesting argument, but I'd draw exactly the opposite conclusion when looking at Ferraro's comments. You've gone out of your way to highlight Obama's unusual background and how it played a part in his search to lend meaning to his self-identity.
Ferraro didn't bother to look at "who he is," she simply took the prejudicial view that, because of his skin color, he should fit certain categories. Among the insidious categories implied: he got a leg up through affirmative action, that blacks are granted a certain deference that is undeserved, that African Americans would vote for him solely on the basis of skin color. None of these implications come forth with any nuance or recognition of Obama as an individual. And that is what is so twisted about her remarks.
I was appalled, if not suprised, to see this quote in the Archie Bunker article:
Anyone who has paid attention to Obama's campaign can see how absurd and utterly prejudicial this comment is. Obama is not a typical African American. He is not descended from black slaves. He is not generationally invested in the struggle for civil rights. His views on equality could as easily be ascribed to any white liberal politician. Obama is not campaigning on race or skin color. He is campaigning on equality and inclusion and shared sacifice. Those things are consistent with his mixed race background.
Had Ferraro said Obama is where he is because he is of mixed race background and has had to develop a balanced view of equality by virtue of a society that continues to be bigoted, that would make more sense, ring more true, and wouldn't have resulted in the universal condemnation her remarks have received (well, except from the Clinton campaign). Ferraro played "the race card", plain and simple, which in this country is one of division and resentment and prejudice.
It's inexcusable, and all the more admirable that Obama has not responded in a way that would validate her remarks as legitimate criticism. Instead, throughout his campaign, and consistent with the world view he developed because of his unusual heritage, he has distanced himself from the tired old divisions. He has asked us to look ahead and to unite for change by living up to the promise that we can eradicate prejudice by moving past color lines and calling out those who would perpetuate them. Those of us calling out Ferraro are being true to Obama's ideals.
March 12, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Hillary's not racist. However, they ARE using/exacerbating race divisions in this country to gain power and win an election, and that I cannot stand for.
March 12, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think both sides are using race divisions to advance their candidate's campaign. I, too, cannot stand for it and that's why I wrote the post.
March 12, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't forget that Obama's tall, too. In fact, he apparently kills at b-ball, which everyone knows is what black people were naturally bred for back in the good old days when they knew their place.
Also, Americans always vote for the tallest candidate, blacks always vote for blacks, and now we've become obsessed by attractiveness. Speaking as a middle-aged desk jockey, I can say that women of a certain age kind of disappear socially, so Obama beats her on all the qualifications that really matter. How's a woman to compete with this kind of thing? Patently unfair; in fact, there should be a party rule that if a woman runs for office no male candidate should be allowed to run against her.
I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. (snark, snark)
Thanks for the author note--I was a bit too influenced by the title to read the post with a clear mind.
March 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is saying Hil has an "unfair advantage" when women, who make up a greater part of the Dem base, vote for her. No one is saying Hil wouldn't be here if she were a man. This whole thing is ridiculous. The identity politics helps Obama in some ways and Hil in some ways. The fact is that the overwhelming reasons either of them are where they are DO NOT have to do with their race or gender. In the case of Obama, he is primarily where he is because of his superior judgment on foreign policy, his track record of passing real ethics reform and making government more not less open, his skills as an organizer and campaigner, and his vast superiority over his opponents in clearly and persuasively arguing for a progressive agenda. On this last issue in particular, which is a key leadership quality, Hillary has admitted her inferiority. So I just don't see Ferraro's emphasis on identity politics as a primary factor when Hillary herself admits that Obama is superior in key aspects of leadership.
March 12, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Racialization By Obama? Hillary's people started that crap back in New Hampshire lest we not forget. Remember the 'MLK gave great speeches but it took a President to sign the Civil rights Act" comment. Or Bill's 'Nelson Mandela showed great strength while imprisoned. But if I had to chose one person to get something done I'd choose Hillary." comment. Shall I continue? What about the surrogate comparing Obama to JFK then remarking 'well you know JFK got shot". *smh* At the short term memory of the Instant gratification generation.
March 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bigger % of women vote for Clinton than Obama. It's the deciding factor in a lot of race, like California, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas (primary), and probably others. This is only a few of the exit polls.
Mississippi
% Total Clinton Obama
Male 42 38 61
Female 58 39 58
California
% Total Clinton Edwards Obama
Male 46 45 4 48
Female 54 59 4 36
New Mexico
% Total Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Unc.
Male 44 43 2 53 1 0
Female 56 52 1 46 1 0
Virginia
% Total Clinton Obama
Male 43 30 68
Female 57 39 60
Ohio
% Total Clinton Obama
Male 41 50 48
Female 59 57 41
Texas
% Total Clinton Obama
Male 43 47 51
Female 57 54 45
Wisconsin
% Total Clinton Obama Uninstructed
Male 42 31 67 0
Female 58 50 50 0
etc, etc...
Can one argue that women are what's keeping Hillary in this thing? Can one argue blacks are keeping Obama in this thing? Can one argue whites are keeping Clinton in this thing? Can one argue men are keeping Obama in this thing?
You can argue race and you can argue sex but what good does it do?
March 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deciding factor is not just women or black. It's the White women.
March 13, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My take on the shift in AA support in this election cycle from Clinton to Obama is that most of the AA community probably didn't think that Obama had a chance in hell when all this began because of a lifetime of experiences that told them that whites wouldn't vote for any black person yet. But when Obama won Iowa one of the whitest states around, they began to open up to the idea that it might actually be possible and when you combine that with the South Carolina race baiting from the Clinton camp many AAs switched allegiance to Obama.
Just my 2 cents.
March 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember this:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
March 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have we ever heard an Obama surrogate spout some garbage about how Clinton has come as far as she has mainly because she's a woman, or using some old sexist lines, or minimizing her perfromance by comparing her to a prior female candidate who won a battle but lost a war? No.
But we've heard many Clinton surrogates spout garbage about how Obama has come as far as he has mainly because he's black (Ferraro), or using some old racist lines (Cuomo's "Shuck n' Jive), or minimizing his perfromance by comparing him to a prior black candidate who won a battle but lost a war (Bill's Jesse Jackson comments).
There is a pattern emerging. McCain and the Republicans have already begun using the same tactics, where race is used by surrogates (Hussein, Somali robes, etc.) but McCain disavows the statements. Bush 'rejected and denounced' the Swiftboat adds against Kerry, too, lest we forget. So, let's be honest, Clinton is running the standard campaign which has traditionally worked: let surrogates do the dirty work and appear to remain above the fray. Many of us hate it and want something better from our candidates. Part of Obama's "change" rhetoric is about avoiding the negative, identity based politics which has reigned supreme for decades (centuries?), and that's what many of his supporters like about him, including myself.
But, while I support Obama, this is part of the campaign is becoming the real test for him. Can he fight the good fight and win? Can he be a game-changer, or will the old game chew him up and spit him out? What Clinton is throwing at him is soft compared to the bricks the R's will throw. If he can't pass this test, then he shouldn't be the nominee. So, to the Clinton camp, I say, BRING IT ON! Because if Obama can't handle it, I'd rather have Clinton in the WH than McCain.
That said, this 42-year-old white male is still sending another $25 to Obama this week.
March 12, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did NOT start out the primary season with the AA vote in his pocket. Clinton & the Dems had to CHASE those voters to Obama. In the black community, Obama was viewed with quite a bit of suspicion. My AA girlfriend, a staunch Hilary supporter says this: "Obama isn't black. He's half-Kenyan, raised in HI by his white grandparents..." In other words, O is not a "descendant" of slaves like black Americans, he is half-African and not African AMERICAN.
I don't agree, but I'm not black.
I have always liked the guy, but was not willing to support him because I didn't think he'd have a chance of winning because of his race and America's racist history.
Seeing the way he has run his campaign and the amazing gains he has made, my reservations are gone.
All of you haters who keep asking "what has he done???" LOOK AT THE TWO CAMPAIGNS.
You can debate the merits of the 2 candidates all damn day. But can someone explain to me how Hilary, who started out as the presumptive nominee with massive double-digit leads is now in the fight of her political life?
Sorry, but the myriad external factors thrown out by the Clinton campaign and their attack dogs don't account for her current standing.
She has run a train wreck of a campaign, and this campaign is really the only major undertaking by which we can judge her leadership.
If Hilary can't handily defeat a junior senator with a name like Barack Hussein Obama, how is she CIC material?
Seriously, HRC supporters - If he's such a lightweight, empty suit, prettyboy, speechifying, fairy tale, gave a speech in 2002, inexperienced noob, WHY IS HE PERFORMING SO WELL?
Because your candidate is blowing it big-time.
And now she's hurting the party.
March 12, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha. Nice post.
March 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess when America gets a crippled, black, gay Muslim running for President he'll win with 100% of the vote. He'll just be so lucky!!
March 12, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! Same for me. I want the best candidate and so far, all I've seen from Clinton is the kind of polarizing politics that Obama wishes to avoid. If he can survive this trial-by-fire, he'll do just fine against the Republicans!
March 12, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact of the matter is that Hillary has herself (actually, more like Bill) to blame for losing the black vote.
March 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had not seen the rest of this quote, which looks to me as if Hillary is allowing herself wiggle room, telegraphing that this is okay. And she is hardly condemning the comment, in fact her only criticism seems to be that you can't talk about race out in the open because people might irrationally accuse you of something.
March 12, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
End the Clintonian Drama. Vote for Obama!
March 12, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contacting the DNC:
Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000
(For questions about contributions, please call 877-336-7200)
Email form at: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
March 12, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worshippers of Lord Almighty Barack Obama will not accept that only Black people think of him as god. How dare you insinuate that. To all worhippers of Lord Barack Obama, don't forget to chant the following prayers before you go to bed:
"Hail thee Lord Obama, king almighty. Only you can cleanse this country of dirty politics. You Lord Obama is the God of purity, holiness and devoid of sins. We will worship you forever and together we will destroy the worshipers of politics of the past. How dare they use race and sex as an issue. You and your worshippers are above those. We love you Lord Obama. We are willing to sacrifice our life and soul for your success."
March 12, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The longer this campaign goes on, the more Clinton supporters start to sound like Dittoheads.
Strength of my convictions? Doing just fine.
March 12, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In light of it all - this is just a more targeted version of their race-baiting -- in that firing up PA's ethnic, eastern cities' part of the state base (which has a sizable working class, Italian-American pop & others of her favored demos) to counter Obama's favored demos of Univ. students (a state rife w/ them), urban AAs, better-educated & more-moneyed Mainline. What better way than using the words of a (formerly) esteemed Italian-American woman who made a historic run herself? They decided to 'fire that base up' baby.
Just what the Dr. ordered -- Ferraro in their minds can now 'claim' to be a 'victim' of PC. This is to try to stave off any potential Obama inroads and then to ensure that her margin of victory is huge. Just in case some likely supporters have started to see the delegate math as insurmountable, or are tired of the Clinton drama, or think that perhaps party unity should trump her ambitions. They're leaving nothing to chance - hence the continued scorched Earth tactics. Not a lot of Earth left.
March 12, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to note that Hillary did not say this, but it was rather a major fundraiser and high level establishment supporter. I'm not in the camp of people who believe this is all coordinated and that every thing that happens from Hillary supporters is with coordination from the campaign. I don't believe that Hillary's emotional moment in NH was some calculated move either.
Sometimes these things just happen and it is interesting to see the reactions and response in these times from the candidates. Obama has had to deal with people who support him who say boneheaded things too.
You might call this a crisis moment for Hillary. How did she do? Somehow Ferraro is still going on all the talk shows and looking like a complete idiot saying that she is the real victim in all this. It gets more pathetic each hour.
I'm wondering how Hillary can stand by - if it's me I'd be on the phone with her and saying "Gerry, if you want to help right now I gotta ask you to stop giving interviews for a while. This is getting to hot and you're fanning the flames and making it worse." I'd demand it. I'd get all of Gerry's friend scalling Gerry and telling her she's wrong and jsut needs to apologize.
Instead, she's on every network. EVEN after her so called resignation. How can you be ready on day one when your campaign still isn't ready to deal with a crisis on day 345?
March 12, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is lucky - but not in the way Ferraro meant.
He is where he is today BECAUSE of Hilary Clinton's stumbles from day 1 of this campaign season. That and his own campaign's strengths, and his own as a candidate.
Jesse Jackson never had a chance. He's black. Why didn't he win Iowa?
More recently, Al Sharpton failed to win even one state. He's black, last time I checked.
By Ferraro's logic, we'd be looking at the second Sharpton term right about now, after 2 prosperous Jackson terms.
Just like many "Conservatives" are phonies (Haggard, Craig, Vitter), there are fake "Liberals" galore in the Dem party.
GF is one of 'em. So is Clinton. It's the liberalism of patronage.
March 12, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
More black male voted Obama
More black female voted Obama
More white male vote for Obama
More white female vote for Clinton
Racism > Sexism
March 13, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment