Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Hypocrisy of Angry White Democrats Shocked at Black Voting
Some white Democrats (at least some who want Hillary Clinton to win, like Geraldine Ferraro) are shocked -- shocked! -- that black voters are voting en masse for Barack Obama. This is rank hypocrisy.
1. Didn't hear the white folks (I'm one, btw) complaining about the 92-8 proportion of black votes in the last several presidential election cycles. Weren't white Democrats offended? I mean, if black voters were open-minded, they should have voted more for W., or Bob Dole, right? We should give these votes back, right?
2. Please understand, angry white Democrat, that we won't win Pennsylvania or Ohio in the future, even narrowly, by alienating the black vote, which has been strikingly loyal over the last 45 years to the white Democrats we consistently nominate for President and Vice-President. While black Americans are often forced (I think unfairly) to justify to white Americans that they aren't antiSemitic because of wingnuts like Farrakhan, black Americans voted in overwhelming numbers for Gore-Lieberman. Let's show some respect for their loyalty to our party, its leaders, and its values.
3. Angry white Democrat, please understand that black voters favored Clinton over Obama as late as October 2007, if some surveys are believed. It was white liberals like me who got him going, and not because we hate whitey. His liberalism and appeal to uplift do speak to people independent of his race. Black voters actually changed their minds after a series of attacks on him they didn't like. Angry white Democrat, you may not agree with the black voter about their perception that Obama was attacked unfairly, but having taken the black votes to town in close elections (Gore and Kerry would have been blown out without the black vote, Carter doesn't win, and Clinton either loses in 1992 or squeaks by even in a three-way), please respect the choice of the black voter. You respect it when it goes your way.
4. Angry white Democrat, when our party made such a big deal out of perceptions that the 2000 election was stolen, and played in 2004 to fears of black America that black votes were blocked or not counted in Florida in 2000, you didn't mind that. You didn't complain. And, angry white Democrat, when Barack Obama gave the keynote in 2004, appealing to racial unity and in the process rallying black America to very white John Kerry, you didn't mind that.
Be honest, angry white Democrat. You're comfortable taking black votes, and black support, just not leadership from a strong black man. Geraldine Ferraro said the same things about Jesse Jackson in 1988 -- he's here because he's black -- that she now said about Obama. And race does matter to voters, just like gender does matter to voters. Old white women are 70/30 for Hillary, and that's fine too. The winner of the most votes wins. Right now, it's Obama.
But angry white Democrat, race and gender do help the Democratic Party in general elections, and this is a good thing. So play nice in the sandbox, and take a turn, for once in your life, with someone else, if he wins the pledged and popular vote, black and white in one pool. Like we tell our three year old, cooperation and sharing are fun. Anger is bad.
Comments (54)
Why do you hate white people?
March 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, Bev, it's just the hypocrisy of "progressives" complaining because some people can do math and spot obvious trends.
Sssshhhhhh, we mustn't mention that black people tend to vote in blocks - that would be accusing them of identity politics. Unlike Cubans, Irish, Jews, Southwestern Hispanics, Catholics, Southern Religious Conservatives, etc. But of course you can appeal to black issues, just don't call them that. But if you're not a black candidate, don't presume you really understand what black people go through.
And please don't start trying to find "women's issues". We don't need the gender card played, and all those issues really affect everyone, so it's unfair to place them on women and women alone.
March 13, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Open season on women...as usual.
March 13, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, not an open season on women. Rather, older people with even older ideas have been rejected.
March 13, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can talk about the black vote, that is fine, you can talk about demographic trends until hell freezes over, no one is attacking that. That is not what Ferraro was guilty of, so don't play stupid and try to pretend she wasn't saying what she said.
March 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mind these two. They are incapable of independent thought. All they know how to do is defend Team Clinton, no matter what they do.
March 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
To BevD: Who said anything about hating anybody?
The point is that black voters liked Hillary and the Clintons in general until around South Carolina. Then the Clintons started pulling the racial stuff then they realized that all the talk of Clinton being the "First Black President" was ...well..just talk. So they went to Obama en masse. Even Toni Morrison who originally utered the phrased backed Obama.
So I don't think a vote for Obama by a black person is necesarily a vote against white people. It is a vote for Obama the same way a vote for clinton is only a vote for clinton and not against Obama. Mind you there are bigots out there in both camps who see it otherwise. But I think the majority of the voters are simply making a choice based on personality, character and issues.
March 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean it had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson, Jr. comparing Obama to his father for months in South Carolina, and backhanding Bill Clinton with "some politicians call themselves our friends" and telling him to "butt out", helping Obama's audience ignore that Clinton had in fact lowered black poverty from 33% to 21% under his tenure? Good to know.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/jesse_jackson_jr_cuts_ad_for_b.html
March 13, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean eactly that. African-Americans are not stupid sheep Desidero. And I resent the implication in your words that we are. What turned the tide against the Clintons with me and millions of other voters was Hillary Clinton's comments on MLK day followed by Bill Clinton's comments after the South Carolina primary the photo sent to Drudge, the 3:00 am ad, and most especially the John McCain endorsement. Geraldine Ferraro was just confirmation of a conclusion already reached.
To the extent that we vote as a block, it is because we vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. And I will not deny that there is both pleasure and pride in being able to vote for a highly qualified and inspirational black candidate for President this year. BUT, if African-Americans did not find his politics appealing, we would not vote for him. Condi Rice, running on the Republican ticket, would not get the level of support Obama is getting. Republicans have supported African-American candidates for election to major offices without success. In 2006, the Republicans supported African-American cadidates running for governor in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Both states have large African-American populations who voted overwhelmingly for the white candidate, a Democrat.
When African-American voters cast a nearly unanimous ballot in an election, it is important and meaningful. It is a statement of what voters think is good for themselves and their families, for the Democratic Party, and for the country.
March 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
To BevD: Who said anything about hating anybody?
The point is that black voters liked Hillary and the Clintons in general until around South Carolina. Then the Clintons started pulling the racial stuff then they realized that all the talk of Clinton being the "First Black President" was ...well..just talk. So they went to Obama en masse. Even Toni Morrison who originally utered the phrased backed Obama.
So I don't think a vote for Obama by a black person is necesarily a vote against white people. It is a vote for Obama the same way a vote for clinton is only a vote for clinton and not against Obama. Mind you there are bigots out there in both camps who see it otherwise. But I think the majority of the voters are simply making a choice based on personality, character and issues.
March 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman, I agree with everything you're saying but you're having an argument that doesn't exist.
A minor objection: Clinton's supporters aren't monolithically "white" for one thing. Narrowing us down to a bunch of angry white people ignores the fact that Clinton counts a large and growing Hispanic community among her backers.
A major objection: Clinton voters are not angry at black voters. Or any other voters for that matter. We are angry at the way Clinton has been treated in the press and we're frustrated by how that treatment has played out at the polls.
I'm personally a little miffed at people who want Clinton to drop out for the good of the party because I think they're trying to stifle a debate that needs to continue.
Anyway, good post. But I think you're talking to the wrong people.
March 12, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
I think you're bending over backwards to be nice to this blogger. The title and continued address to an "angry white Democrat" is a blatant straw man ploy. The purpose seems to be to convince that there are a lot of angry white Democrats out there, without citing a poll or some kind of evidence, just based on an interpretative reading of one women's words. Thankfully, I don't believe the Obama campaign is using such a fantastical creation of enemy forces to plot course.
March 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, thanks for putting what many feel into words. BevD, you missed the "angry" descriptor. Destor, this argument does exist....or have you missed this whole Ferraro thing?
March 12, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't miss anything - I just think this post is bullshit.
March 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD,
It's clear you don't "get it." I don't know that any of us who do are able to help you see where we are coming from. Let me at least give it one try before giving up on you.
Let's reverse the roles and see what that illustrates, shall we? I know you won't get it, but let's try.
Throughout this campaign one segment of Hillary's so-called base -- that is white women of a certain age and political temperament (self-described feminists like Gloria Steinem, Erica Jong, Katha Pollitt, Joan Walsh (of Salon.com) and others) have proclaimed that women should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Before the New Hampshire primary, Gloria Steinem wrote an essay to that effect, portraying the NH debate as one where Clinton was "unfairly attacked" ("piled on" went Hillary's commercials) by the men in the contest (John Edwards and Barack Obama.) Hillary, famously, teared up, found her voice and miraculously won.
Now the men in the contest (Edwards and Obama) did not complain that women had voted stereotypically as a bloc for the sole "woman" candidate. They did not declare her candidacy to be fiction: "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen. They did not rush off to their alma maters to declare that those hallowed halls had prepared them to take on and take down their opponents in the rough and tumble world of co-ed politics.
In South Carolina, the men in the contest did not denigrate and belittle Hillary, they did not use surrogates to bring up the "sex-capades" of her husband during his White House years, they did not embark on a whisper campaign to falsely characterize her sexual orientation, and they did not compare her loss in the primary to the overwhelming and stunning defeat of the first woman vice-presidential candidate in 1984, who took a 49-state shellacking. They did not marginalize her with, "Well, Geraldine Ferraro ran a good campaign in South Carolina too. She lost and Hillary lost, but it was a good campaign. They didn't patronize her by saying "how proud they were that there was a woman and an African American and white man all on the same ticket. Isn't America swell?"
When Hillary has won contests, you don't see pundits and talking heads complaining about how 65% of women (or whatever the percentage is) are all voting for Hillary, simply because she is a woman -- and somehow that is wrong. Or worse: sexist. You don't see them beating their chests over her "inability" to capture the "men's vote" in traditionally "men's states."
You don't hear a man on her opponent's finance committee "explain" that she would not where she is today if it were not for the fact that she is a woman. And that she is lucky to be a woman. You don't see remarkably similar -- almost word for words -- comments about how "lucky" her most identifiable predecessor (Ms. Ferraro) was to be a woman also, because she was just "too feminist" and not "mainstream."
BevD, I know you don't get it, but Geraldine Ferraro was wrong. There is no comparing being called "monster" to what Ms. Ferraro said. Monster has no gender or race. It really describes a behavior or personality. What Ferraro said was all about race. And white voters now angry at black voters for supporting Obama assume that it is some kind of black solidarity, rather than affinity for ideas, plans, purpose, style, or message.
What this blogger has said very well, is that this is an argument (blacks sticking together) that just doesn't add up. The corollary (whites sticking together) would be offensive to you, because you would say you vote on issues and not race or gender solidarity.
Is not plausible that black voters are choosing to support Obama because they like him and his ideas and plans for the country more than they like Hillary, her ideas and plans for the country?
If this is the "color-blind, gender-blind, merit-based society" you all said you wanted -- people judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin -- should you really be upset when the candidate who has captured the attention and energy of nation isn't the white woman? or the white man (McCain)?
March 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very true that Clinton enjoys a lot of Hispanic support. My post is not directed to all Clinton supporters, just to the subset who were angrily blogging and posting last night in strident support of Ferraro's misguided comments. It was remarkable to see so many self-identified angry white Democrats. I know if Obama wins the nomination, he will lose some of these folks. We already knew that.
Certainly, not all Clinton people agree with Ferraro, but those who did in the last day or two tended to post incredibly angry things. The woman who posted in response to my post is in conflict with it: she thinks I hate white people, which is a hoot. So I do have an argument with people who read the dialogue that way.
I do not wish that Clinton would drop out if she would avoid Democratic heresies like putting McCain above Obama. Her campaign pre-February 18 was generally above the belt and she has every right to persist. If Obama were a little further ahead, I think it would be fair to press her to leave. I don't like what this contest or its tone are doing to the party, but I think it's fair, though unhelpful to the general election for our party, for her to continue. Some of her supporters think she could still win. I disagree, but fully respect their right to think and want that.
Nice to get a thoughtful proClinton response where we're not yelling at each other. Thank you.
March 12, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, here you go again!
Do you really think any candidate can win this Fall WITHOUT these "Angry White Democrats" you are talking about?!
This is damaging our Party!
It loses voters everyday!
March 12, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was losing to Obama when she debated him on the ISSUES!!! She decided to go for the low blow and when nothing would work she decided to take out the race bait. That's what this is about.
March 12, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, yes. The last poll I saw on this suggested that Clinton would win Democrats 87-8, Obama wins them 79-15 (I assume the leakage is some of these folks).
Happily, however, Obama makes it up with independents and Republicans. This difference in where he gets his votes is why in the SurveyUSA state polls last week, he wins more electoral votes than Hillary. She wins Pennsylvania and Florida, and he doesn't, which is significant. But he wins the following states she loses: NH, IA, WA, OR, NV, CO, VA, ND. He also comes within 5 in AK, NC, SC, NE.
The angry white people, which is not nearly all white Dems, of course, seem concentrated in the Rust Belt and industrial northeast. Obama runs better than her in the four states of the upper Midwest, and everywhere west, including California. Hopefully, some people angry now will come home, but yes, we can win with some defections.
March 12, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have posted elsewhere how I feel about BHO. I will definitely vote for him over HRC. I would have preferred Feingold/Kucinich/Dodd/esp. Edwards.
I wrote there there that I thought BHO offered a different path. By his very race/upbringing/age/history....that he transcends a lot of barriers, and gives even us whites a way to vault someone OVER those barriers. I am tired of the white power structure twisting and ruining everything we ALL work for. And believe it or not, non-white world, regular white folks have done a lot for equality, the civil rights movement, the civil war, job and voting and pay and rights equality. But it never comes to fruition. We (the unrich) white/black/brown have sweated and bled for this country to be fair to everyone. And no matter who we elect or what laws we get passed....the rich power structure goes on and stomps on the dream, they make sure nothing changes. I am tired of being betrayed by my own race. I am not in the club. You may think I am, but I'm not. Middle class or lower white people do not get cozy loans, or invites to great schools, or a gravy train on a great career. Rich folks do.
I think BHO has many intrinsic qualities which will prick the balloon, that is all it takes to pop. He automatically is NOT of the white power structure.
My main point in saying all this is to respond to the author...and say I think there is one more dynamic at play. For whatever reason, this need for overt change and willingness for white men, white women, and even republicans/independents willingness to vote for Obama is the most unexpected phenomenon.
No-one could have predicted that. At least 2 reasons:
1 - People of all stripes think he has a chance to upset the apple cart in DC....perhaps even run out the moneylenders from the temple.
2 - White people feel they can trust BHO not to go all gangster for the Black Folks. I have my varying levels of respect for Sharpton and Jackson and Keyes, but as our only examples of modern black running for prezz....I don't think white america felt safe handing over the helm to them. For whatever reason, but fear of an all black administration bent on taking it out on whites seemed at least possible. Incompetence or scandals were also a fear. C'mon, Sharpton prob. drives around in a car full of garbage and mcdonald's bags, and Jackson has admitted in recent years to fathering children while married to another. And he is a minister.
But BHO seems like an alltogether different personality and his squeeky clean demeanor and great handling of himself, along with his record is very impressive.
In order to throw a wrench in the spokes of CorporoAmerica I think White America has shown it is willing to vote enthusiastically for prez this man Obama who seems perfectly earnest in his intentions, who is not cemented into CorporoAmerica, who we feel we can trust. And we feel we can trust him to do what is right for the majority of americans, not just blacks; and certainly not just for rich white america. I think they got McCsame and HRC keeping it real for Rich White America.
So my point is, amazingly, reg. white america has few qualms about handing over the reigns to a black american. And they are so desirous of real change now that old qualms or unease or just old habit/stereotypes seem insignificant.
March 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Priceless - thanks!
March 12, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
These folk REALLy need to get over themselves. Freaking out because black democrats--people who have never in their lives voted for any presidential nominee BUT a white man--are voting for Obama now. Tell you what, angry white democrats: just ONCE, vote for a black man and you can call black voters racist for voting for Obama until the cows come home.
March 12, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last poll is out date on this issue. It may have covered the beginning of the kitchen sink, but none of the recent stuff. A lot of people are furious at her tactics. I would expect his numbers to go up some. The Angry White Democrat was voting for HIllary, anyway.
I think he's being underestimated in winning a good portion of them back by November.
March 13, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too all of the unangry white folks, thank you.
March 13, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was patronizing. Give it a rest.
March 13, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And offering Obama the Vice-Presidency when he is clearly winning the race to become President isn't?
March 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Thanks articleman for this post. I'm finally glad that people are starting to realize that the black vote is CRUCIAL to any democratic victory in the fall. Yeah, Hillary may have won "big states" now but you need those black voters to continue to win those big swing states in the fall. If black turnout falls by at least 2% in a states like PA(via HRC's "winning strategy"), we lose. Chill out angry white democrats.
March 13, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know in Britain, we really don't care about these racial demographics. This media obsession with polling different racial/socio-economic trends is now starting to creep me out.
March 13, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
halfasian86,
You mean Irish are no longer pigs? Scottish nationalists have vanished? Welsh no longer disrespect the queen?
What a wonderful transformation has occurred.
Are you sure?
Best, Terry
March 13, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not Ferraro's argument, nor was it ever.
March 13, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was her argument?
March 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't Muslims called BLACK in the UK? According to the UK 2001 census, 1,546,626 Muslims in the UK. Yep, "in Britain, we really don't care about these racial demographics." You may not, your government thinks otherwise. Stand in line at Customs in the UL or EU behind a black person, see how much longer it takes than standing behind whites in the all passport line.
I just can't see how anyone can afford to live in the UK, bad expensive food and bars close too early.
March 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
None of us should be surprised at all at the divisive politics that were introduced by Bill in North Carolina. Hillary voted for the war not because she believed what Bush et al. were saying, but because she thought that such a vote was necessary to protect her political career. In this, she was only one of many Democratic Senators, including Kerry and Edwards. Now she and Bill have introduced race into this campaign in a particularly pernicious way, as has their surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro (protestations by Hillary notwithstanding). The fact that Hillary is willing to put the Democratic Party at risk in the service of short-term personal political gain should come as no surprise; after all, her pro-war vote led predictably to massive numbers of death, and those lives were of less importance in making that vote than was the perceived gain to her political career. Thus far, Obama has not dwelt in the muck anywhere near the extent to which Hillary and Bill have. Yes, one can point to things such as the injudicious remarks of David Geffen against Hillary, but the muck and selfishness largely have been on part of Hillary and her crowd. We were forewarned in the run-up to the war in 2002, so none of this should surprise us now. This is a political crowd that puts their own political self interest ahead of the lives of millions of others. This is not a matter or race or gender. This is a matter of an appalling lack of ethics and empathy.
March 13, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that troubles me as a Democrat and as a citizen is that the vote for Obama or Clinton in every demographic group other than African American is not nearly so monolithic. Do we as Democrats face a future in which whenever a qualified African Amrican runs for President, other candidates who are not African American are effectively forced to concede the African American vote? Surely that would be troubling for the party.
March 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, just when they're women.
March 13, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD, your one-liners only reveal a cynical intolerance for civil discussion here. Sure, some people won't vote for a woman ever, and some people are pushing against HRC for poor reasons. But not even a large minority of Democrats, I believe, feel that way. What I'm reading is that a great many of us deplore divisive or unethical politics by Democrats (we know the Repugs will always lead in those categories because they have to), and we don't like the way HRC's campaign has turned.
It has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with very ugly choices about what will improve her chances.
If you want to argue about or defend those choices, great; please do so. But please don't assume that the sole basis for anyone's revulsion at racial tactics is because they don't want a woman as our candidate. That is a terribly insulting generalization.
Thanks.
March 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
African Americans have overwhelmingly voted for Democrats for over 50 years in this country. Are you going to sit here and say that blacks can't vote for their candidate of choice now?
March 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read the blog???? Blacks have voted in a block for the Democratic party and NOW you have a problem with it when its not for the white woman? Please.
March 13, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
#1 ABC.com story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
Senator Obama, uniter my ass.
March 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just can't trust a black, eh? Not like they have anything to be grumpy about, eh? Here's hoping you stay marginal.
It has been pointed out elsewhere that American blacks did not automatically jump on the bandwagon. They were very unsure Obama stood a chance, and a few were fearful for his life. His early support was among a pretty smooth spread of demographic.
March 13, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that troubles me as a Democrat and as a citizen is that the vote for Obama or Clinton in every demographic group other than African American is not nearly so monolithic. Do we as Democrats face a future in which whenever a qualified African Amrican runs for President, other candidates who are not African American are effectively forced to concede the African American vote? Surely that would be troubling for the party.
Posted by btdesq March 13, 2008 11:50 AM
BTD, you raise a good point. Given that Dem primary voters tend to be 57-58% women (meaning they outnumber men by almost 50%), I think qualified women candidates also start off with a significant advantage as well, though, like black candidates, there are some idiots who don't like voting for women (or blacks, or whoever). But given that both women and blacks are vital to Democratic chances, I don't think handwringing about the affinity-voting of either is good for the party.
And I don't agree that there hasn't been monolithic voting for Clinton. Whites in the Deep South states of Alabama/Mississippi went for her 75/25. That's no different than what you're talking about. Likewise, senior white women in many states get into 70s/20s splits. Surely the point isn't that blacks average low-mid 80s for him, and southern whites and senior white women average ten points less, so that 10% difference means they're open-minded?
We need to quit invalidating the choices of others, since we accept them in a coalition behind whoever we support. The Clintons didn't mind, criticize, or reject the 90/10 support of blacks in the 1992 and 1996 election. Let's follow that example now.
March 13, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello...
How many of you are aware of the fact that Hillary hosted a dinner last night with the uncommitted super delegates?
Hillary supporting McCain is no accident.
Elites and corporate power are terrified that an outsider is winning the election.
It is their plan to split up the popular vote to divide Obama's supporters to "nip him in the bud".
I have noticed the Super Delegates have been frozen for some time now.
The corporations who own the MSM are marginalizing Obama this morning and continuing to push the meme that Obama is winning only because of the black vote and cannot win over whites.
You all are being played. Yes, Clinton would rather have McCain win if she can't. They are two peas in the Washington Pod.
All the Super Delegates who have not endorsed as yet in my mind are either cowards or are waiting to endorse Hillary once they can use race to effect the out comes of the remaning contests.
The youth of America loses. American democracy loses. It is so sad to watch.
Note: I am a 54 year old white woman who supports Obama. I believe it is essential Obama supporters move very quickly to organized and get out the vote. He must finish strong or ordinary Americans lose to Washington insiders. To say nothing of the Democratic Party.
Note too: I will never vote for Hillary, period. (there was a time, a few weeks ago when I would, but now seeing the bigger picture of what is going on, never.)
March 13, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
Don't forget that Ferraro wasn't just talking about Obama benefiting from blacks voting as a bloc. She was also attempting to argue that white Obama supporters are somehow mesmerized by his blackness--because, you know, white America has from its very inception longed to elect a black man for president. So it's more than just black people voting for their "own kind"--she seems to think his white supporters are entranced by the smooth-talking Negro.
March 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. She's forwarding the preposterous argument that this inexplicable fascination among white voters is what has propelled him. This is another incarnation of "Obama voters = morons", except this time they pulled out a bucket of Country-Club Racist Brand Varnish to lacquer it up and they thought no one would notice. Nice try, Clinton is still losing.
There's no affirmative action in elections, kids. Just votes.
March 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Focus, people.
Yes, Clinton's campaign and others are pushing bigots' buttons.
But in addition to their hope of shaving votes off Obama's future totals, they hope to get Obama off-message. They want him to angrily denounce this stuff every day. They want him to be the angry black man.
What they don't want to do is hear him talk about his plans for the office. They don't want people to hear, above the noise, the press conferences with former military officials who think Obama has what it takes. They want to take our eyes off of the crowds and the energy Obama is bringing to the Democratic party.
The people behind this aren't racists. They are desperate cynics. They're pushing the right buttons to get a blast of noise into the news-cycle every day.
March 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this post across the board. Comments (such as the one from BevD) underscore what I see as a telling division among women in this race, split between the generations. So - I'm going to indulge myself in a bit of off-topic commentary. Keep in mind that what I'm about to say here is a generalization, and certainly won't hold in every instance. But having said that:
Older women (Hillary's big demographic) remember the years in which Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and any number of other strong women called bullshit on a without-a-doubt sexist culture. Their words and actions created the world in which I (a 36 year-old woman) and younger women came of age. For this, our predecessors deserve our gratitude and respect.
But here's the thing - they DID change the culture. And those of us who were raised in that altered culture have some very different views about the way women should be treated. As a woman and a feminist, I'm disgusted by the "poor Hillary, the men are ganging up on her again" garbage being spewed by those too backward to realize that women of any intelligence or worth neither need nor want our "sisters" coming to our defense. Thanks, but I can handle my problems myself - and any woman running for ANY executive-level position should be able to do the same. This kind of complaining serves only to suggest that women can't hack it by themselves. Are some men threatened by a strong, capable woman? Absolutely. But instead of bitching and moaning, whining and complaining, how about this: Get in the game. If you have something to offer, you will certainly find a place in which you'll be wholeheartedly welcomed.
I've spent years in a corporate setting, and my childhood growing up in a military environment - neither being bastions of feminist thought. What I learned there is that respect isn't given; it's earned. You can't have it both ways, demanding "equality" and then cowering under the umbrella of "you're attacking me because I'm a woman." Equality means that you're going to get roughed up, just like everyone else.
Do men have it easier? Some do. Others don't. I'm equally offended by the white men who evidently love an even playing field until anyone else is allowed onto it. But if you believe that the anti-Hillary sentiment is somehow about people having a problem with her being "a fighter," I disagree. I think people have a problem with what she's fighting *for*, and the pathetic, pandering, underhanded tactics she's using to do it. This isn't the way a strong woman fights. It's the way a shrill, insecure, inept manager tries to clumsily game the system.
Call it - and me - what you will. But if you still believe we live in 1975, you deserve to be left there.
The bus is leaving ladies, with or without you. Hope to see you in November.
March 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You go girl!
Your insights bring to mind the sea change bald men experienced in the 1960's when wearing hats began to go out of fashion.
"I lost the job to a hirsute hire," and "You're just attacking me because I'm bald" were often heard muttered around the office water cooler.
The 1990's brought advancement in hair regrowth, transplants, and toupee' technology, so that modern baldies have little in common with the brave chrome domes who paved the way for the hair free spirits of today.
Of course, since baldness afflicts few women, I wouldn't expect you to understand the hardships we face every day trying to brush past the hair ceiling.
I daresay the only reason Hillary Clinton has reached this point of her campaign is due to her thick and luxuriant head of hair
How's that?
March 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let's pretend this is about who is the best candidate for the future of America. Let's pretend we are all beige. We have all been neutered. Who is the best beige person that can fix our problems? People! It is really THIS simple. Questions we need answered from Mr Obama: Will you stand by your definitive commitment to removing all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, or will you, as your former advisor said, not rely on "some plan" you "crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator?"
Do you regret that you have never held any substantive hearings on Afghanistan or any other subject, since you became chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs in January 2007?
Do you agree with General McPeak that you are more qualified to be commander in chief because you don't "go on television and have crying fits?" Are you prepared to remove General McPeak from your campaign for what is viewed by many as a sexist comment?
Are you still willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of an Obama administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Are there any circumstances in which you would not conduct such meetings?
As voters evaluate you as a potential Commander-in-Chief, do you think it's legitimate for people to be concerned that you have traveled to only one NATO country, on a brief stopover trip in 2005, and have never traveled to Latin America?
Earlier in the campaign you were asked how you would respond to a terrorist attack on two cities in the United States. You talked about the need for an effective emergency response but were initially unclear about the need for a military response. What do you think that says about your readiness to be Commander-in-Chief?
You publicly broadcast your willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally, a statement which caused unrest in that country. Recognizing that we need to combat terrorism wherever it exists, do you wish you would have made your comments in a way that didn't cause unrest?
March 13, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear MsBehavin.
No doubt who your candidate is......and yes I too don't think gender or race should be in the equation. But when the American establishment says its OK to have a white woman president and forcefully supports that position with numerous high profile spokespeople, endless polls and fear mongering then sadly a step has been taken backwards and we are not far from "your place is at the back of the bus".
The opportunity for the United States to grow and prosper from these primaries and election is there but we'll all have to take a good look in the mirror.
And as the original blogger said "start playing nice".
March 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I think the establishment is saying it is OK to have an African American President AND a Woman, both of which have paraded numerous high profile spokespeople onto various stages, but Help me with the fear mongering part,,
March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's look at who has been attacking whom. You can see this list and the source of the report of the attacks at http://www.attacktimeline.com/
These statements are personal attacks and have nothing to do with the real issues. So let's agree that Obama is not above the politics of old,, he IS the politics of old and he is very good at it. List goes from current to the start of the campaign . I just copied this year so far,,,
March 5, 2008 Obama questions whether Hillary was 'negotiating treaties or agreements' or 'handling crises' when she visited foreign countries.
Source: MSNBC
MAR
05Obama spokesperson attacks Hillary on tax returns, library donors and White House records.
Source: CNN
MAR
05Obama spokesperson falsely accuses Hillary of misleading people about whether Obama is 'a devout Christian.'
Source: MSNBC
MAR
05Obama surrogate falsely accuses Hillary of 'out of order comments' about religion.
Source: MSNBC
MAR
05Obama surrogate accuses Clinton campaign of trying 'to exploit race, exploit sex, exploit fear for political expediency.'
Source: CNN
MAR
05Citing Wall Street Journal editorial, Obama campaign attacks Hillary on 'cattle-futures trading profit.'
Source: Obama campaign memo
MAR
05Obama campaign attacks Hillary statements she made months ago.
Source: Obama campaign memo
MAR
05Obama accuses Hillary of 'being part of business-as-usual in Washington.'
Source: CNN
FEB
15Obama spokesperson accuses of Hillary's campaign of 'second-tier Congressional race tactics.'
Source: New York Times
FEB
05Obama calls Hillary's behavior 'more troubling than legislative gamesmanship.'
Source: Newsweek
FEB
04Obama supporter says Bill Clinton's role 'undermines' Hillary's 'image as an independent woman.'
Source: New York Times
FEB
01Obama says sometimes 'he can't tell' if he's running against Hillary or President Clinton.
Source: New York Times
JAN
31Obama accuses Hillary of 'changing positions when the politics of the moment changed'
Source: USA Today
JAN
30Obama campaign sends negative mailer to Connecticut contains misleading attacks against Hillary on Iraq.
Source: FactHub
JAN
30Obama camp sends negative mailer to North Dakota, with misleading attacks against Hillary on NAFTA and lobbyists.
Source: FactHub
JAN
29Obama mailer claims Hillary will put 'Washington thinking and Washington interests first.'
Source: TPM Election Central
JAN
29Obama says Clinton is 'not being straight with the American people.'
Source: New York Daily News
JAN
28Obama says sometimes 'he can't tell' if he's running against Hillary or President Clinton.
Source: Associated Press
JAN
28Obama campaign accuses Hillary of 'cynically flouting' the rules.
Source: Financial Times
JAN
27Obama likens Hillary to 'the status quo, fighting back with everything it's got.'
Source: Economist
JAN
27Obama says Hillary will 'say anything or do anything to win an election.'
Source: Economist
JAN
27HEADLINE: Clinton calls for calm as Obama attacks continue.
Source: Times Online
JAN
26Obama campaigns says 'Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election'
Source: Plouffe Statement
JAN
25Obama campaign Truth Squad member says Hillary and Bill Clinton are 'all about deceit.'
Source: Washington Post
JAN
25Obama paints Hillary as 'a president whose positions change with the politics of the moment.'
Source: Boston Globe
JAN
24Obama Radio Ad says 'Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.
Source: Obama SC Radio ad
JAN
23Obama radio ad says 'Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.'
Source: Obama SC Radio ad
JAN
23Obama campaign accuses Hillary of 'politics-as-usual attacks.'
Source: barackobama.com
JAN
23HEADLINE: Obama Hurls New Anti-Clinton Broadsides.
Source: AFP
JAN
23Obama: Hillary's campaign has 'former President Clinton delivering a bunch of inaccurate statements about my record'
Source: NBC's Today Show
JAN
23Obama truth squad member compares President Clinton to Lee Atwater.
Source: CNN
JAN
23Obama campaign accuses Hillary of 'incredible distortions.'
Source: usatoday.com
JAN
22Obama supporter accuses Hillary of 'backbiting, bitter give-and take.'
Source: Associated Press
JAN
22Obama accuses Hillary of being 'willing to say anything to get elected.'
Source: South Carolina CNN Debate
JAN
21Obama tells Hillary, 'Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference.'
Source: South Carolina CNN Debate
JAN
21Obama says sometimes 'he can't tell' if he's running against Hillary or President Clinton.
Source: South Carolina CNN Debate
JAN
21Obama described Hillary as 'a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.'
Source: South Carolina CNN Debate
JAN
21Obama accuses Clintons of playing 'political games that we are accustomed to.'
Source: South Carolina CNN Debate
JAN
21Obama camp: 'people have heard a lot of things that just aren’t true from the mouth of the First Lady, from the mouth of the former president, from the mouth of the campaign.'
Source: Politico
JAN
20Obama says Hillary's Washington experience is 'why people mistrust our politics.'
Source: Newsday
JAN
19Obama campaign accuses Hillary campaign of looking for an excuse to 'evade the pledge.'
Source: Politico
JAN
19Headline: Michelle Obama launches attack on Clinton.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk
JAN
19Obama supporter says ‘no amount of falsehoods from the Clinton campaign' can change Obama's record.
Source: AP
JAN
18Obama supporter says Hillary uses ‘the kind of politics I expect from the other party.'
Source: Las Vegas Sun
JAN
18Obama campaign says Hillary's campaign ‘clearly would like to have workers' voices silenced'
Source: salon.com
JAN
18Obama says Hillary would be 'a president whose plans change with the politics of the moment.'
Source: New York Times
JAN
18Obama suggests Hillary was not truthful and was 'willing to say anything to get elected.'
Source: telegraph.co.uk
JAN
18Michelle Obama says Hillary represents 'the same old thing over and over again'
Source: telegraph.co.uk
JAN
18Obama Campaign says Hillary is 'just trying to confuse people about Obama's record.'
Source: Boston Globe
JAN
17Obama characterizes contest with Hillary as a contest 'between the past and the future.'
Source: rollingstone.com
JAN
17Obama campaign says Hillary believes 'this is a race for who would make the best chief of staff.'
Source: USA Today
JAN
16Obama says Hillary uses ‘fear of terrorism in scoring political points.'
Source: MSNBC's Las Vegas debate
JAN
15Obama says Hillary 'hasn't taken the issue of lobbying very seriously.'
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
JAN
14Obama says 'Senator Clinton started off trying to make history, and now she's trying to rewrite it.'
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
JAN
14Obama claims Hillary is distracted by 'political points-scoring.'
Source: AP
JAN
13Obama supporter suggests Hil’s tears were crocodilian.
Source: New York Daily News
JAN
11Obama supporter doubts Hillary’s sincerity and says ‘those tears have to be analyzed.’
Source: New York Daily News
JAN
10Obama predicts a Clinton victory would mean ‘starting off with half the country not wanting to vote for Democrats.’
Source: The Hill
JAN
10Obama supporter mocks Hillary’s teary moment and says ‘don’t cry’ to Obama.
Source: New York Post
JAN
10Obama supporter calls Hillary one of the ‘guardians of the status quo.’
Source: Morning Joe
JAN
09Obama’s campaign accuses Hillary of trying to ‘rewrite history.’
Source: Newsday
JAN
06Obama's campaign says Bhutto's assasination was 'yet another manifestation' of Hillary's poor judgment.
Source: Politico
March 13, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of pixels and bits. And one-sided, to boot. Thankfully we can overlook items like this concentrate on more "non-fiction" information from others.
March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have found that when confronted with facts, Obama supporters overlook them, gloss right over them. As I stated, we need to find a President that will move the country forward. So you must look at all of the facts, then if your decision is still Obama, I can support that.
March 13, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not angry, I understand voting for someone because you hope since they look like you they might act like you, that they will protect you. But the bottom line here is that when all is said and done, it isn't about the stupidity of this campaign. It is about who will lead us into the next phase of our very existence. I am trying to show you that Obama is same old politics, BUT WITHOUT THE EXPERIENCE. Says one thing out the front of his face, but does another thing out the back of his head. Holds himself "above" the rhetoric, but has produced most of it himself. All this nonsense about negating Hillary's experience just to cover up the fact that he has none. Really think about this. I believe our world needs us to see clearly. Have a great evening everyone.
March 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment