Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Clinton Has a Palmore v. Sidoti Problem, and Now We Do Too
Hillary Clinton's campaign has a serious race problem -- specifically, a Palmore v. Sidoti problem, that is coming to infect the way we look at race in the Democratic Party. This piece explains the danger, and what we should do about it.
Palmore is the 1982 Supreme Court case in which two white parents separated, and the white mother began cohabiting with a black man. Florida took primary custody from her because a social worker opined that being a child in an interracial household could injure the child, because of societal prejudices. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, because, it held, it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution to give effect to the racial prejudices of persons outside the family. By giving effect to the racial prejudices of certain whites, the Clinton campaign has a Palmore v. Sidoti problem. Decent people should recoil from it.
My argument is simple: there is a huge moral distinction between passively accepting the votes of whites reluctant or unwilling to vote for a black man (which cannot, in practice, be avoided by a white candidate running against a black candidate), and encouraging that vote, or privileging those reluctant and unwilling voters. The Clinton campaign jumped this shark months ago, has indeed produced a coherent Democratic "white vote," and responsible people, or people who want the Democratic Party to comprise a lasting majority in our politics cannot support it.
The racial markers are well-known and too numerous to ignore: (1) Bill raising Jesse Jackson in a non-sequitur response to a question as to why it took two Clintons to defeat Obama; (2) the Clinton campaign leaking "Dressed Obama" to Matt Drudge, according to Matt Drudge, a leak corroborated by the Clinton campaign's boasting of a steady, leaking tie to Drudge through Clinton staffer Tracy Sefl (see NYT, 10/22/07, J. Rutenberg, "Clinton Learns To Play Along With Drudge,"; (3) Clinton herself saying on 60 Minutes that Obama was not Muslim "as far as I know;" (4) challenging as insufficient Obama's rejection of Louis Farrakhan; (5) Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen telling The New Yorker that many Hispanics would not vote for a black candidate, and Clinton herself declining to disavow that statement when pressed in the Las Vegas debate about whether it was her campaign's official position, affirming it as a "historical statement," and (6) the rash of surrogates engaging in race-baiting and signification: (a) Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Hillary's chief ally in that state, saying some whites there were not ready to vote for a black man; (b) Bob Kerrey's use of Obama's middle name and claiming that he attended a "secular madrassa," when that word implies Muslim terror training and with it the Manchurian candidate theme; and (c) Andrew Cuomo's statement that in Iowa and New Hampshire retail politicking, one cannot "shuck and jive" at press conferences.
There is indisputably a set of white voters, even within the Democratic Party, uncomfortable with black political power. Their views were clear in exit polls in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where 16% by one account in Ohio, and 15% by another account in Pennsylvania, of white voters considered race as an important factor in their voting. Three-quarters of these voters chose Clinton over Obama. Whatever the baseline level of this phenomenon is, it is not zero, and it is not trivial.
However, there is an obvious counterbalance: Obama is reaping percentages of black votes (91% in Wisconsin, 92% in Pennsylvania) historically associated with white Democrats running against Republicans. These voters are less numerous in all but a handful of eastern states; and their voting correlates very highly to their race. In a state in which 12% or more of black voters vote, and split 90/10, their 11/1 split counterbalances a 12/3 split among the 15% of white voters admitting they voted based upon race.
The Palmore v. Sidoti question is what to do with it -- whether to ratify or reject the bigotries at the margins of our voting culture. The Clinton campaign's answer, after Ohio, and especially Pennsylvania, was the talking point that we must look at the voters who Obama cannot win. We must examine who did not vote for him. The white blue collar worker, we are told, will not accept Obama. In essence, the Clinton campaign has argued, just like Florida did in Palmore, that it's not against interracial families, it's just acknowledging that others are -- here, the idea being that it's not bad that Barack is black, it's merely that some voters in crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania think it is, and we can't leave this election to the chance that they might not come along with Obama.
This is not an acceptable form of argument in the Democratic Party. We must, in internet parlance, call bullshit on it, for several reasons.
First, the Clinton campaign's implied Palmore argument does not say, nor can it, that Obama cannot win the general election. Some voters say they won't vote for a woman (12%), others won't vote for a black man (5%). Far more admit that they will not vote for a Mormon (20%), or a gay person (50% or so) for President. But, you say, the Presidency is not an entitlement that can be litigated over, like one's rights to equal protection, so we must be pragmatic. You are exactly right. The difference among these prejudices is that, while in today's America a gay Presidential candidate, for example, would be doomed by prejudice, we have just determined experimentally that a black candidate is capable of winning the majority of delegates in the Democratic Party's process. So even if one considers it fair to the party to take account of bigotries in picking general election candidates, bigotry should only be acknowledged if it overbears so greatly as to make a candidate not viable. Being black hasn't done that for Obama. If he can win -- if racialisms even roughly offset here -- all Americans, but especially the party of gender and racial justice should stand squarely against its spread.
Second, the gross hypocrisy of the Democratic Party crediting white racial bigotry, or even tolerating crediting it, is ridiculous in this case. For one thing, the Democratic Party elected Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and arguably, Al Gore, based upon roughly 90% black support and roughly 40% of white support, one would think the Democratic Party would go far out of its way to treat fairly its most significant black candidate in the history of the party, as by squelching these subtle and not so subtle appeals to white racial solidarity. On a pragmatic basis alone, the Democratic Party should avoid pissing in the well of its most loyal group of supporters. One could imagine a Democratic Party leadership, and a competitor to Senator Obama, denouncing every single one of the statements and signifiers numbered in the above paragraph. And this has not occurred.
That it has not occurred is ridiculous, because Barack Obama is self-evidently one of the most significant political figures in African-American history, and since he took the large pledged delegate lead in February, has been likely to become perhaps the most significant after Dr. King by virtue of his likely and nearly inevitable nomination. Consider other figures on this stage: Martin Luther King stands among the forefront of all American political figures for his civil rights leadership. W.E.B. DuBois, among many other distinctions, cofounded the NAACP. Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court justice. Our nation, which also until recently wouldn't let blacks manage sporting teams in leagues with massive black populations, has pitifully elected only five black Senators in its history -- two in Reconstruction-era Mississippi, Ed Brooke in Massachusetts in 1967 and 1973, Carol Moseley Braun in Illinois in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2004.
Can anyone reasonably dispute that the first black person nominated for President would have to be one of the most significant black political figures in American history, and potentially the most significant? That should have counted for more in the Democratic Party than it has. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton (were he not perpetrating part of it and not married to a protagonist), Al Gore, and others, should have policed the racial dialogue in this race. They have not, and near its close, we have been treated to weeks of the media tape-looping Jeremiah Wright's roof-lifting to rural white America, to tell the Jerry Springer truth that some rural white folk don't like them blacks.
The good news is, there is less truth in that than there ever has been, and Barack Obama's candidacy is historic and game-changing whether you vote for Clinton, McCain, or Kodos. It proves what can be. And while Hillary Clinton was going to receive the votes of whites who would not vote for a black man anyway, the fact is that her campaign has gone after those votes, which is morally altogether different and worse. It did so as the campaign devolved to "cultural issues," with Clinton's spinners pausing oh-so-thoughtfully over the question of whether, after Wright and Hillary's appeals to bowling, shots, and every other proxy for gritty whiteness -- and Hillary going on O'Reilly to get asked about Wright again, since it's unseemly just to bring it up -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, and white America will vote for Obama.
This is the Clintons' Palmore v. Sidoti problem. It allows the speaker to pretend that he or she is not racist by having a reluctance to support Obama, that we're just showing concern about whether he's "electable" -- a concern over prejudices other people harbor, not that we do. If you doubt this, check the New York Times' poll today -- most don't care about Wright, but they think other voters do. This is the frame the Clintons have built (even though Obama through most of the year has polled stronger against McCain than Clinton).
We have to tear down that frame. Palmore was rightly decided -- giving effect to the real or imagined racism of others is simply, and equally, racist. So it is in this race. We need to vote our consciences, and call bullshit on appeals to respect the newly venerated white bloc within the Democratic Party, and call bullshit on every racial signifier we see. Our consciences, and our debt as Democrats to our black partners in the progressive project, without whom there would never have been a President Clinton, demand nothing less.
Comments (163)
Thank you. Outstanding piece -- substantive and insightful. I hope others read this.
May 5, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the DLC should police the elections better and stop people from speaking so openly. Obviously Obama trumps MLK, Thurgood Marshall and WEB DuBois all put together. (If he'd slept with Barbara Walters he'd be better than Ed Brooke as well). Perhaps Dean should put in a rule that says that 30% of the opponent's delegates should go to Obama just to counter the Palmore/Sidoti problem. Or perhaps she should be simply disqualified. It's not like anyone was voting for her anyway, or not the constituency we want as Democrats.
May 6, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Far better than your idea of giving him a 30% head start, or disqualifying her, neither of which happened, how about installing a bunch of in-the-tank sock puppets on the DNC to give her a 100 delegate head start.
Oops, that actually did happen!
May 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, there are a lot more hand-wringing guilt-laden SD's to make up for it. Just keep telling 'em she's destroying the party - they'll line up like beggars at a barbecue.
May 6, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last time I checked, the score was:
Sock Puppets 269
Beggars at a Barbecue 254
I actually kind of like your terminology on this, I may adopt it. I am hopeful that if the polls hold, we beggars will overwhelm you sock puppets soon. We're doing our best . . .
:)
May 6, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a sock puppet post.
The staircase of posts says it all.
May 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BEST IDEA GOING
When you get to WV promote Barry as the "White" candidate. That way you will for at least them moment be at least 50% right. And by golly after reading your trail of cat slick it would be a 100% improvement!
thank me later
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE
May 6, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,it's always illuminating to see in broad daylight someone come up so clearly against their intellectual limitations. Although I disagree vehemently with most of what you say, I always thought you were intelligent. Now a very well argued, and provocative piece comes up and that is all you have in response. pathetic. You are a knee jerk.
May 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, someone uses a lot of words to say, "if my opponent campaigns hard against me she's being racist". You folks have made up or blown out of proportion half of this racist shit, and just because I don't jump when you say "boo" I'm a knee jerk? Well grow up. If you want your fucking candidate to win, tell him to get more convincing, quit thinking you can get the "grownups" who run the party to tell her to drop out and all this other bullshit whining you've got going. You know, I was perusing Black Agenda Report today and there are tons of blacks who don't seem to think Obama walks on water, nor that Hillary is the antichrist. Fancy that.
May 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Very informative in lots of ways. Thanks.
May 5, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommend articleman.
well done.
I've been distressed at the willingness of some - like Josh - to start trying to analyze the voting in this election in racial terms. I don't think that's particularly helpful right now and the racial voting trough idea Josh signed onto is looking thin - I saw something the other day that showed it falls apart completely west of the Mississippi.
I hate what the Clintons have been doing - it's transparent and it's been a really sad thing to see happen.
And of course the first African American presidential candidate was going to be extraordinary. He is. I say this cause I mean it and I get flamed for it - but I believe he is like a gift to the Democratic party and to the country.
May 5, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to the world, I'd add.
I wondered what you as a lawyer would think of that post. Glad you read it!
May 5, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palmore v. Sidoti is a great analogy for what has been happening in the primary election cycle. It was used as the basis for one of my legal writing seminars. Also relevant are the many Title VII cases in which employers tried to justify their own discrimination on the preferences of their customers. ("It's not that I don't like Blacks/Women as lawyers, but my clients will never accept it . . .")
Thanks for putting it together so cogently.
May 6, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in law school at the moment, which made the post and the analogy quite rich for me. It is fascinating though how many people out there who...well, I'll just leave it there.
May 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
May 5, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd! Good stuff.
May 5, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well reasoned and well said, Articleman! As usual, I couldn't agree more with you.
Of course there are a few whites (and other nonblacks) who would never vote for any black candidate. But by broadcasting that kind of racism as the true identity of the "Democratic base", Clinton endorses and encourages anti-black sentiment. That strategy should be off-limits to a Democrat.
Only a few weeks ago, her campaign was spinning the same line about Latinos in California, NM and Texas. "They" (meaning most Latinas/os) "aren't ready to vote for a black man." Then as now, that statement is racist, and demonstrably untrue.
The Clinton campaign's message to black voters has been, "Nobody likes you. You're a liability to the party. We don't need you."
That, I think, is a huge part of the reason >90% of African-American voters choose Obama over Clinton, and most Dems over Republicans -- black voters really hate race-baiting campaigns.
May 5, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are at least two states where the Hispanic vote for Obama was equal to or stronger than his white vote -- Arizona, narrowly, and Illinois.
Obama also did better in SC with nonblack nonwhites than he did with whites. But I don't know if those South Carolinians were Hispanic, Asian, Antarctic, or what.
But her basic message on to the black community is simply insane. Ceding much of the vote and praising Obama would have helped the party, and I think helped her, actually.
I will always remember her being hissed in the SC debate. I firmly believe that had she and Bill treated Obama fairly before SC, she would have lost by less, and had a better arc into Super Tuesday.
May 5, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's why I'm about as skeptical of her disavowal of racism as I am of the white/straight boss who won't hire blacks/Latinos/gays/whoever because "I'm not racist, but the customers won't like it."
She chose this strategy. Presumably she chose it because she thought it would work -- but obviously she doesn't find her own racial divide-and-conquer strategy repellent. She didn't have to do that. She's chosen her path, and she can expect black voters to hold her accountable for it.
May 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually no. They were trying to smoke him out as her campaign aide put it after SC as "the Black candidate" well before SC. The "historically accurate" statement came before SC and it seemed an obvious and blatant push to fracture the fragile black/brown coalition. The LBJ > MLK was before SC and that angered a lot of people in the Black community and it seemed to me and many that it was an attempt to turn him angry. To get him to respond with a "how dare you" moment. After she lost Iowa, even before, they were playing the dog whistle game. Remember how her Iowa campaign manager sent out emails saying Obama was a secret Muslim? Their plan from the beginning has been to ghettoize him as a candidate. Let it not be forgotten that Bill Clinton pulled that Jesse Jackon bit out of a hat totally unprompted. Shaheen and Obama the drug dealer started in New Hampshire.
This campaign has gone on so long that we have forgotten everything that has happened. Here is Michael Tomasky back on January 19th, even before South Carolina.
The final price of victory is the splintering of base Democratic voters. African Americans solidified behind Obama, 79-18%. Hispanics, behind Clinton, 64-23%. Young voters went heavily for Obama. Old voters heavily for Clinton. These divisions threaten to flower into schisms. There will be plenty of time to put the pieces back together. But if Clinton becomes the nominee and black voters feel that Obama was treated unfairly ... well, let's imagine that black voter turnout in November is down by 10% in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. That could mean the difference between victory and defeat in those three states.
But that's a long way away. For tonight, she's a winner. It wasn't all Bill's negativity, of course - her campaign really got its vote out and she showed her usual doggedness. But if she's going to win the nomination and unite the party, she's going to need to show more.
Funny how we are talking about the same things now as we were 5 months ago. And if you read through the comments, it was the same vitriol brought out of entitlement that we see now. The more things change the more they stay the same.
May 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
May 6, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended for your thoughtful, enlightening analysis. Thank you!
May 5, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post. I wish I would hear more "enlightened" "liberals" say such things.
May 5, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you visited Obama HQ in Chicago, your avatar is up, wallsize, in the right side of the lobby. I want one of those for my home or office. I have a Franklin Roosevelt campaign poster up in my office, and this Obama-head reminds me of that.
May 5, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah I'm stuck in the Carolinas. Haven't been to chitown since 96. You can buy that poster but it will cost you. The guy who did that and some others for Obama is Shepard Fairey http://obeygiant.com
The prices on his work are going through the roof.
The forum here http://www.thegiant.org has pics of most of his work and good info on where/how to buy Shepard's work.
I'd love to see that huge progress print.
May 6, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A brilliant post. It was marred for me only by this:
May 5, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
*&^% html tags. I thought I'd done it right. Meant to say,
I think there is a bit of reificiation in writing as though "the party" as an entity -- as opposed to the voters in the primaries and caucuses -- chooses general election candidates. Candidates come within reach of the nomination not because the party has chosen them, but because people vote for them and because they are able to fund and organize a campaign. If a gay candidate happened to win enough primaries and caucuses to get within reach of the nomination, and superdelegates were considering whether to support his opponent because of the bigotry of general election voters, we'd probably be having the same conversations about the privileging of anti-gay voters as we are having now about bigoted white voters.
May 5, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey D. Thanks for your comment. I was wondering what Andrew Sullivan would have thought of that argument. It felt weird making that argument because of my political commitments, and I did not mean to suggest sympathy with or respect for antigay bigotry.
I also agree that people and not the party choose. The point I was trying to make was that the party as a thing polices the boundaries of what is fair or permitted, or at least it should. The party didn't here, and that's abject failure.
We clearly live in an era when openly gay Senators or governors are imaginable. I think a gay Presidential candidate, while great by me, is not imaginable in the forseeable future.
I am sorry my remarks on that theme marred the post for you, and appreciate your comments.
May 5, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Articleman, the foreseeable future is so short. Five years ago, I did not foresee a black president in my lifetime. Ten years ago in Canada, I did not foresee the legal recognition of same-sex marriage (which happened within five years).
The prejudice doesn't go away easily, but amazing breakthroughs can happen sooner than we think -- if we stop accepting that progress is "unimaginable," believe that progress is possible, and work for it.
May 6, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post!
May 5, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great piece, articleman. I share your disappointment with Al Gore and other leaders who failed the integrity test here. By allowing the subtle, destructive tactics of the Clinton campaign to propagate unchecked, they've dishonored themselves and damaged the Democratic party.
May 5, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has everyone SHOOK.
If it is one thing I am learning is, they REALLY do have a TREMENDOUS amount of clout out there.
May 5, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that if Hillary Clinton had not been the wife of the ex-president, this meme would have been stopped. The whole problem with her campaign is that it simultaneously tries to obtain what are supposed to be the neutral benefits of the support of an ex-president (for instance, trying to strong arm the support of ex-Clinton Admin officials like Richardson) even as it is transparently clear (as it must be) that William Clinton's support for his wife is anything but objective, and therefore, not particularly significant as a true endorsement. Basically, as the highest ranking most respected living Democrat, the ex-president made it impossible for nearly anyone to check his wife's meaner tactics.
I think that some notable Democrats have tried. John Kerry, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi have all stepped up to the plate at times (e.g., the MI/FL debacle, and Dean calling out Wallace on Fox). Jimmy Carter has also made statements. The problem with Gore, I suspect, is that if he had done the same as Carter, he would have become the subject of accusations of sour grapes and such, much as James Clyburn became the subject of accusations when he went public with his complaints about Clinton.
May 6, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone interested in a good read as well, this is a essay by W.E.B Dubois that I have always been fond of. Specifically the first 3 paragraphs I think it is.
It is titled The Talented Tenth:
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=174
I think everyone can learn something from it, W.E.B. Dubois (though I disagree with some of his standings, but obviously 1898 was different than my time) was ahead of his time.
Excerpt:
May 5, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For informational purposes: W.E.B. Dubois was the Founder of Hampton University, my old college. *shameless plug*
May 5, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The second half of that block quote is really excellent.
May 5, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Click the link and read the whole thing :)
May 5, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another good excerpt:
May 5, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Loved that quote. "Talented tenth" is a wonderful way to describe the ten percent who are typically exceptional in some way.
I actually extend that rule to everything - we have ten percent of the population who are gay, or artistically inclined, or ignorant or racist, etc.
Kind of helps put everything into perspective sometimes, especially when you see so much stupidity on-line. We are simply seeing that ten-percent slice of the electorate teaming up with another ten percent on the other side.
While a chorus of idiots can be loud, it is still only 20-percent.
May 6, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell me which post the other 80% is on? Oops, gotta run....
May 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is.
How many exceptional African Americans have risen up among a small few people and then disappeared? We won't ever know - because we ignored them to death, or actively tried to make them shut up and go away and were successful.
I often almost grieve over all the potential we waste - all the brilliance that could be helping us to solve our problems and we throw it away and refuse to acknowledge it.
You know I had a strange moment a short while ago in which I felt that I had reached some kind of understanding and I still think it's so - we aren't one family - we are one being. If we could ever get that -
May 6, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do think that what W.E.B Dubois was talking about can be extended to all races.
The odd thing, which if you read it, you will come to around the 2nd to last paragraph is when he begins talking about "mullatoes"(sp?), or half white-half black men and women. I've always found it interesting as well.
Many folks don't know, but allot of folks who are half and half get ALLOT of shit on both sides of the field, from black people and white people. You don't see it too much where I grew up before, but in the 80's and early 90's, there was quite abit of ignorance around it from people(teens really).
Especially depending on the tone of the individuals skin color.
May 6, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. I don't feel too sorry for mixed-race people like me. Being a "mulatto" is much less tragic than nineteenth-century literature made it out to be. Mostly, white people who dislike blacks are more likely to think of mixed people as "exceptional" (and goodlooking), and "not like those other blacks." That's racist and annoying, but those stereotypes actually make it easier for light-skinned people than for other blacks to be taken seriously in public life. Also, to the extent that the white part of the family family is wealthier or more well-connected than the black part of the family, the mixed kid will likely have better opportunities for education and employment than her dark-skinned cousins.
Understandably, some black people are suspicious that mixed people may deliberately try to take advantage of the privilege their (our) light skin affords them (us). I don't find that most black people are really that attached to the presumption when it comes to any particular mixed person who is committed to racial justice.
Life is full of bumps and obstacles. (High school especially.) Compared to the deep harms of plain old garden-variety racism, sexism and homophobia, I think the stereotypes about mixed people (including the claim to to "feel sorry for the children") fall into the category of the merely annoying. Cry me a river.
May 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My son is four years old, half white and half Filipino, and loves Caterpillar digging machines, jackhammers, stuff like that.
I told him he was half Filipino and half white. He told me he doesn't want to be half anything. He wants to be "all construction."
Multiracial is the future.
May 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so cute! Maybe you could tell him the same thing my parents told me when I was your son's age ( paraphrased for your son's ethnicities): "You're 100% Filipino and 100% American. Don't let anybody tell you you're half of anything."
May 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Articleman, I guess you're Filipino or white? Funny, I'd always pictured you as black. And kind of ... Obama-looking.
May 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Good one.
May 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I point it out occasionally, I am an Illinois-raised white boy.
I use the Obama avatar because, first, I'm obviously a huge fan, and second, the picture is from a time and place in his life that I am very much connected to.
How about your Angela Davis avatar?
May 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted a cool image of a black feminist, ideally one who looks a teensy bit like me. I love your pic of Obama, though.
May 6, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a monster tag, if I ever see a candidate running on an "all construction" platform, he's got my vote. Four years old and he's got better slogans than 3 campaigns put together.
May 6, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Totally awesome.
May 6, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
I....I...dont know what to say. Except "ok"?
I was just saying I know some folk that have been through it. Not that we should feel sorry for them...or anyone. I just think the excerpt in the essay was interesting. :)
May 6, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I didn't mean to be all that harsh. I usually agree with you (though DuBois' "talented tenth" makes me feel a bit queasy about what he means to say about 90% of other people. Almost ... elitist?). I'm sure things for mixed people were harder back when DuBois was writing, and white parents often refused to acknowledge their mixed kids, than they are today. And I don't dispute that people you know might have had different, tougher experiences than I had. But my toughest racial experiences have come on account of my being "black", not for being mixed.
May 6, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman -- This is an excellent post. Thank you.
May 5, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent!
May 5, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to be redundant, but excellent.
May 5, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, articleman!
This made me laugh:
I mean, "parlance" and "bullshit" living together in the same sentence! Beautiful!
Who, or what, is "Kodos"? A reference I missed, or just your way of saying "anyone else"?
And, finally, you forgot(?) to mention the Obama fundraiser on June 14th. We'd love to get more people hosting parties!
May 6, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a famous Simpsons episode around the time of Clinton-Dole, both of those candidates are supplanted by a one eyed green alien who drools named Kodos. In a later reference back to that, there's a bumper sticker that says "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kodos."
So Paige, where's your post on the fundraiser, eh?
I'll surely do mine, after you take the lead.
;)
May 6, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah yeah yeah... I'm thinking of putting up a fundraiser post shortly at the end of this week. Might as well wait until after tomorrow's primaries, on the off chance anything changes.
In the meantime, there's always the results-watching parties in New York and San Francisco. Clinton supporters and ambivalent folk welcome, too.
May 6, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I have to do all the heavy lifting around here? You people are dead-weight. ;)
Great post, arti. Really interesting and original analogy, and eloquently written.
May 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding! Wow!
May 6, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
+1. Very well said, there is simply nothing to add. So many times people are encouraged to second-guess their opinion based on the perceived opinion of others that is as real as lottery winners in "1984".
May 6, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding and excellent, to be doubly redundant. I did not start out being deeply disturbed by Clinton(s) and their campaign, but I have become so for so many reasons, not the least the subtle racism. I can no longer distinguish between her and Bush with the endless dishonesty; and now she is "The Decider-ess" where expert opinion is unimportant.
May 6, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post, articleman. Two quick things...first, the NYT poll about what/how you think "others" would respond to the Wright issue...I heard some pollsters/pundits say that this was a way to indirectly get at voter bias/prejudice. Most folks will not admit to their own bias/prejudices, but they will admit that "I have a friend..." I am not sure this inference is always legitimate, but that is what some "experts" have said, for what it is worth.
Second, your post reminded me of a very good article by Cornel West on "The Dilemma of the Black Intellectual." It is aimed at exploring issues faced by blacks in academia as they navigate through various settings. I think it might illuminate some of the challenges Obama is facing in this race (but to sort that out, one may as well write another article.) Anyway, thanks for a very illuminating and excellent set of reflections.
May 6, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis, Articleman. As usual. I love reading your stuff. ;)
Thanks for cataloging the six markers. I'd like to add two more. Subtextual/subliminal, certainly, but very palpable.
I remember her being booed at and hissed in SC debate. The audience booed right after she said that he showed a behavioral pattern of not taking responsibility for his votes. My jaw dropped. I wondered if she was truly so clueless as she evinced by her continuos lobbing of the word – irresponsible – on to Obama, who happens to be a very responsible black man. That bit I filed away in my memory along with Clinton accusing Obama of being naïve and irresponsible.
I also remember that during the LA debate Blitzer asked Clinton if she had been naïve to vote for the war and the crowd booed him. Clearly, people understood the subtext of that word usage in relation to a woman. Many probably remembered its usage against Geraldine Ferraro (I don't remember the context, but I've read about it) by Bush I. Why did not Hillary Clinton understand the usage of the word "irresponsible" or "naive" with regard to Obama? Faux feminizing a black man or denigrating him – what did they think they were going to get out of it?
Few voters would think that ascribing to Hillary Clinton a "testicular fortitude" is a bad thing. Conversely, very few voters would think that Barack Obama's masculinity being challenged as "naive" and "irresponsible" could be a good thing. In spite of that, he found his way out of that box brilliantly.
May 6, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, let me get this straight. Clinton says Obama is not taking responsibility for his votes (presumably with respect to funding the Iraq war?). You say this is a subtle appeal to racism? And this is because why exactly? Because of the perception of black men as irresponsible? Using your standard, we could parse every statement she's ever made and surely find some hidden racial appeal. After all, she's Hillary Clinton, master manipulator (so good, in fact, that she's likely to lose the nomination, but that's only because brilliant people like those posting here have seen through her evil machinations).
Obama said we should have a conversation about race. Judging by the quality of the debate here, I'd say we're better off keeping quiet.
May 6, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then maybe you should add to the conversation.
May 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks very much, Eva. If Amelia Earhart was an aviatrix, are your avatars avatrixes? Just wondered. . .
May 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yva of the Avatrixes.
I like it!
May 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saddened and dismayed by the constant refrain among the posters here that the Clintons have directly and indirectly engaged in race baiting. These sordid allegations do more to poison race relations and political discourse among Democrats than any of the so-called "examples" cited in your post. It is particularly appalling when it is directed at the Clintons, a couple who, for all of their failings, have acknowledged the continuing destructive force of racism in our society and actively sought to mitigate its effects and contribute to greater racial understanding (some time ago, a poster here linked to several of Bill Clinton's speeches on race in which he made many of the same points as Obama in his moving and nuanced speech in Philadelphia). In Philadelphia, Obama spoke of the ways both blacks and whites misread each other when they fail to see beyond their own racially tinged perceptions. This is precisely what I see when I read posts like this one. Underlying your argument is the twisted view that white voters who vote for anyone other than Obama are doing so because of appeals - direct and indirect - to racial prejudice. These rubes, being unwilling or reluctant to vote for a black man, have been manipulated into a monolithic white vote. Dismissing the votes of a core Democratic constituency as racially motivated, rather than perhaps based on the messages and backgrounds of the candidates, is a greater threat to the coalition desperately needed to prevail in the next election than the trifling compendium of racial slights you have assembled. The fact that these divisive attacks are coming from Democratic supporters of a candidate whose campaign is based upon a promise of reconciliation and against the politics of distraction is sad irony. They do no more to advance the Democratic agenda than the equally destructive and misguided furor over Reverend Wright. I feel constrained to add that I find much that is admirable in Obama, his campaign and his goals. I take at his word his assertion back in January that "What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality—has been historically."
I would like to present a point by point refutation of the alleged litany of race-baiting listed above, but it is late. Perhaps I will do so tomorrow. Unfortunately, no one is likely to read it unless it is titled, Hillary Clinton Is An Evil, Manipulative, Race-Baiting B****.
For the record, I would agree that there is much to criticize about the Clinton campaign, including how it managed to nearly completely lose the African American vote (hint, it's not because Bill compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's, although skillful use of that ill-advised comment did play a role). A far more interesting and productive analysis can be found in this Salon story. (And could someone please tell me how to create a hyperlink - there used to be an icon at the top of the comment but it's not there anymore - is that because I'm using Mozilla? http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/05/clinton_blackvote/
May 6, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guerilla writes: "Underlying your argument is the twisted view that white voters who vote for anyone other than Obama are doing so because of appeals - direct and indirect - to racial prejudice."
Neither Articleman nor any commenter made or implied such an argument. But we can all agree that racism does exist, even among Democrats. And in this primary season, the minority that openly harbors such prejudices will by default gravitate to Hillary.
With its last-ditch claim that "Obama can't win the white working-class vote," the Clinton camp is inviting N.C. and Indiana voters to validate that claim for her. And by framing it in those terms, she is offering cover to anyone even slightly tempted to indulge their latent racism.
Since she's already labeled him "elitist," you could tell yourself that you're voting against Obama because you're "working-class," not because you're "white."
Maybe we shouldn't dump on Hillary for edging up to the red line; electability is about the last argument she can make -- and even that isn't going too well.
Maybe a miracle will occur and it will all be moot tomorrow night. We can hope.
May 6, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Articleman's Palmore point is independent of whether the Clintons "played the race card." He's saying that it's wrong to argue that Obama is unelectable solely on account of race. I agree with that, and would add that another problem with all the electability arguments Clinton is employing is that she is, of course, less electable.
May 6, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are trying to rewrite history. Let's take the Rendell argument and add it to the Ferraro argument: both individual Clinton supporters essentially argued (a) some White won't vote for Obama and (b) he is only where he is because of his race. You don't see that as appealing to those working class White who are distrustful of Blacks to begin with AND who might ascribe their own failures to some game be rigged in favor of "minorities"?
Yes, the Clinton's did play the race card. They are now reaping the disdain of Black voters when they tried to sow the discontent of White voters.
May 6, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when was the last state senator to have a strong run at President? Oh wait, he was US Senator for 2 years. My apologies.
May 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you haven't noticed yet - both candidates are senators.
In fact, all 3 are.
Sort of cancels out that effect, yo?
jesus.
May 6, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he was married to a President and governor too? Never mind then.
May 6, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relevance?
May 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet Obama has held Elected office longer than Clinton. Elected on his own merits as well. Clinton was elected by the old adage "It is not what you know, it is who you know"
May 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
She convinced people in upstate New York town by town. She had high negatives and lots of skepticism. Are New Yorkers that easy to please with a wave of a wand by Bill Clinton? Know the phrase "fuhgeddaboudit"?
May 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've all read the fluff pieces on Clinton and Obama. I take them with a grain of salt.
May 6, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.
Clinton accepts aid from divisive figure
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html
It doesnt look like they tried to dissuade their longtime family friend and fundraiser from his racist ideas. In fact, good ole Bill called him an innovator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo
May 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really didn't read my post.
I never argued that all whites who vote against Obama do so because he's black.
I think relatively few do, but enough to roughly offset the racial solidarity in black voting in moderately black states.
What I did say is that there is a difference between accepting these white votes, and valorizing them, holding them up to the light as a point of concern or even pride.
You apparently don't think that happened, though you kind of step around that thesis without really explaining why. I do think it happened. My argument is not that her campaign caused the preexisting antiblack white vote, which again is far from overwhelming.
My point, to sharpen it a bit for you, is that my friend of twenty years in her campaign blackberried me the day after PA with what I saw from her folks on every media outlet that day -- the people who refuse, time and again, to vote for Obama were the key. He can't win those folks over. They are making express reference to the unpersuadable voter. That's the white solidarity voter.
Do you think her campaign hasn't been messaging that after Ohio and especially Pennsylvania? Comb through the releases, Google the spokespeople. I can do it for you, but you'd just say I'm calling her names and ignore the logic all over again.
You don't think that post-PA rhetoric about the unpersuadables is a racist talking point. I do. We disagree.
May 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman, don't you get Armchair's point? If only we black people would stop trying to make white folks feel guilty by talking about racism. Making white folks feel guilty is, of course, the reason black people keep going on about it -- we get so much pleasure out of making white people like Otto and Armchair feel uncomfortable. (Strangely, many other white people seem to be just fine talking about it, but never mind that.) The Democratic Party, and the country, could enjoy racial unity and harmony if only we nonwhites would shut up about racism already.
/snark
May 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've jumped the snark.
May 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently! ;)
May 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really uncessarily vitriolic and nonsensical. Your rage has blinded you to the possibility that there can be more than one view. God, I wish Obama himself were here right now to witness the divisive attacks being propagated in his cause. I doubt he would be pleased.
May 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused by your responses. You seem to claim that white voters are free from racialized antipathies that can by encouraged by a campaign. That to so suggest is "poison" the conversation. But polling data shows that some white voters declared that they made their decision to vote against a candidate because of his race, and the majority of those who declared that they would not vote for a black person, voted for Hillary Clinton. So the truth is undeniable. The question is: Is this a problem for our party? Do we have an interests as a party in addressing this? Is it worth talking about. You seem to indicate: No.
Perhaps your argument is that those white voters made the decision to support Clinton independent of any appeals, direct or indirect, by the Clinton campaign (ie They may be racists but their our racists, so what?). You dismiss the argument that the use of "elitism" or "unelectability" as a recognized meme of the Clinton campaign has any crossover (if you will) appeal to those white racial voters as "cover" for voting against Obama. You reject any view of such totally, but your rejection is based on your faith in the Clintons' speeches and history in recognizing and fighting racism.
I suspect you come to this point because you look at voting in this primary as an affirmative act (for a candidate, for ideas, plans, proposals, experience) rather than voting to vote against a candidate (because of ideas, plans, proposals, experience). But the truth is that the data shows that a segment of the white Demcratic voter, has affirmatively stated that they reject one of our own Democratic candidates because of his race. If you can read those polls, and I can read those polls, surely you know Mark Penn and Wolfson and the Clinton campaign (and the Obama campaign) read those same polls. Clinton knows these are "her" voters, and she could take (if your faith in her anti-racist work is true) the morally and politically consistent decision to openly reject and renounce the support of white voters who vote for her because they are anti-black. But she hasn't.
May 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it impossible to believe that Clinton supporters fail to see what the Clintons have done. Of course they can't admit it - the parsing and projection and guilt reversal are inevitable components of the strategy. Every Party leader should have openly shunned these tactics by speaking out early and often, by making the penalties clear. Another TPM thread discusses whether Edwards' presence is missed in the campaign. Most are disappointed in him. He's in a position to show leadership in setting the tone of discourse, but he has failed to do so, as Gore and others have also failed. It's as if they're all hoping to gain some political advantage from the situation, uncaring of the damage done.
May 6, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post and highly recommended.
Guerilla, in response to your quote
"Underlying your argument is the twisted view that white voters who vote for anyone other than Obama are doing so because of appeals - direct and indirect - to racial prejudice."
I don't think that is what Articleman's post says at all. The point is that white voters who vote for "anyone other than Obama" are being portrayed as voting based on racial prejudice by the Clinton campaign and therein lies the problem. It's an attempt to convince the superdelegates that "he can't win because he's black". In the process it can also have the effect of influencing some voters who may be open to that kind of influence. It's incredibly divisive and along racial lines no less. These are exactly the lines we all would like to heal and those which the Clintons are supposed to have helped to heal.
May 6, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly so.
It hinges on whether or not one is going to try to exploit what they see as prejudice. That's what the Clintons are doing.
That's what the case was about - exploiting a perceived inequality.
And working that perception. That isn't good for a society.
May 6, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two posters have pointed out that Articleman is not attributing Obama's lack of support among the mythic white, blue collar voter to direct or indirect appeals to racism. Here is my example:
"there is a huge moral distinction between passively accepting the votes of whites reluctant or unwilling to vote for a black man (which cannot, in practice, be avoided by a white candidate running against a black candidate), and encouraging that vote, or privileging those reluctant and unwilling voters. The Clinton campaign jumped this shark months ago, has indeed produced a coherent Democratic "white vote," and responsible people, or people who want the Democratic Party to comprise a lasting majority in our politics cannot support it"
If Obama's campaign is truly about bringing people together, accusing your opponents of racism and race baiting is a really bad place to start. If Obama supporters want to broaden their candidate's coalition beyond the liberal-reformer set and African Americans to include the aforementioned blue collar crowd (I recognize the reductio ad absurdum nature of this endeavor, but there is some truth here), attributing HRC's popularity among those voters to racial animosity is a real stupid way to go about it and a sure fire way to get McCain elected.
Here is a novel thought. Perhaps this white blue collar type we're talking about is more influenced by HRC's brass-knuckle retail politics than Obama's message of reform. Perhaps this voter aligns him or herself more closely with HRC's more hawkish foreign policy. Perhaps this voter actually associates HRC with her husband's administration and enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity. Perhaps this voter is more suspicious of a newcomer with relatively little experience on the national stage and appreciates a candidate who has "paid her dues." I guess it's easier to say this voter is being manipulated by racist appeals.
Now, I'm not saying I am this voter. I'm not. I am squarely in the middle of Obama's demographic (well, perhaps a bit over the hill). But I am sickened by the condescension evidenced by posts like this one. If I didn't say it before, I'll say it again: These accusations of racism against the Clinton campaign are far more divisive than any of the examples of so-called race baiting identified in this or any similar article.
May 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so tell me, what is the reason that Clinton is more "electable" than Obama? All the straightforward appeals that she has been making have been housed in such statements as "My base is broader" (even though it does not include Black voters). What does that mean?
If the Clintons didn't have such a history of triangulation I would take your denials more seriously, but they have always used the tactic of insulting various supporters on the left in ways that would make more conservative voters vote for them. That's what Sister Souljah was all about -- the difference being that Sister Souljah was marginal even within the Black community, so the rejection was mostly symbolic, and seen as such by most Black voters.
The statements by Rendell and Ferraro were not all that subtle and they were not denounced or rejected by the Clintons (well, I did go on vacation sometime in March so perhaps, eventually the were denounced and rejected). The statement by Hillary Clinton tying Louis Farrakhan to Obama during one of the debates was also not very subtle. Explain these things in non-racial terms if you can. Don't rest your argument on the Clinton's "long history of racial tolerance, etc." Has it ever occurred to you that the Clintons' long history of reaching out to Black voters has benefited them at least as much as it has benefited Blacks?
May 6, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
RB6, I will try to answer your points.
1. What is the argument that Clinton is more electable? First off, do you think Clinton should not be making this argument as she seeks the nomination? She may not be correct, but it's the best and only argument she can make. Does that make it racist? Absolutely not. The argument says that Obama, while talking of broadening the Democratic coalition and reaching out to swing voters, has not been able to appeal to a significant segment of our nation, one that has been critical in deciding the past several presidential elections. Call that segment what you will, white blue collar voters, Reagan Democrats, lunch bucket Democrats, whatever. This has been borne out by the primary voting. There are many reasons beyond race for this phenomenon. It is no more unfair than pointing out that HRC has performed abysmally among African Americans and younger voters.
2. The Clintons have a history of insulting various constituencies on the left to appeal to the more conservative elements of the electorate. Fair enough, I'll agree with your point there, but I don't see the connection to racism. Are you suggesting that HRC threw the African American vote under the bus? That's absurd. If HRC had retained even a small fraction of her one-time lead among African Americans, she would likely be tied with or ahead of Obama.
3. What part of Rendell's comment that there are some whites who are not ready to vote for a black President do you not agree with? Rendell, a spectacularly garralous pol, was stating an unfortunate reality - no different than the reality that some Pennsylvania voters would never vote for a woman President either. Why not listen to the voices of African American legislative leaders, who acknowledged that Rendell was just being honest.
State Rep. Dwight Evans: "It's true. Maybe there are some African Americans not ready to vote for a black candidate."
State Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware), Obama supporter and chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus: "He was not trying to gain political points or belittle Obama," Kirkland said. "Sometimes the truth hurts."
3. Ferraro: This is a bit more difficult to defend. First of all, her comment appeared in the hugely influential Torrance Daily Breeze. In the interview, Ferraro was asked about a speech she was going to make in Torrance. In the interview, Ferraro complained about the media's harsh treatment of Hillary and the relatively favorable coverage of Obama (this was before the ABC debacle). Her remark that Obama wouldn't be where he was if he were white appears to have been aimed at his being treated with kid gloves and his solid, nearly monolithic base of support among African Americans. Still, it was a stupid thing to say, probably insensitive, but not significant enough to lose sleep over and certainly not some kind of coordinated campaign strategy to inject race into the race. Clinton could and should have come out more forcefully against that, but it's just not her style to apologize for anything - much to her detriment.
4. "The statement by Hillary Clinton tying Louis Farrakhan to Obama during one of the debates..." Huh? I was watching the debate and it was the moderator who brought up Farrakhan. Hillary lame contribution was to lamely jump on what she characterized as his wishy washy rejection of his comments. Obama cleverly turned this around with his "reject and denounce" comment.
5. "Has it ever occurred to you that the Clintons' long history of reaching out to Black voters has benefited them at least as much as it has benefited Blacks?" Of course I have. But does that mean that their reaching out was disingenuous or undertaken purely for political gain? No. To take a phrase from Obama himself, I'm not that "cynical."
Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that I am not an uncritical Clinton supporter so I am not endorsing these arguments, merely refuting what I believe to be scurrilous and divisive attacks.
May 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can be "sickened" by what you misrepresent as "condescension" all you want.
Listen to yourself. What's wrong with Rendell saying many whites won't vote for blacks? What's wrong with Bendixen saying many Hispanics won't vote for blacks? Everything is wrong with that. Everything. You've proved my point with your tin ear.
It's a true fact, but when your campaign messages it over and over, you're winking at it, you're legitimizing and asking for MSM scrutiny of that "issue" which tips your way. And the point is that the Clinton campaign, and the Clintons personally, but more importantly, the institution of the party, should have called foul on that.
She should have said no, I'm Hillary Clinton and Rendell was wrong to say that, we're not encouraging racial solidarity voting, I'm going to win on my own merits, and anyone who simply won't vote for a black man is not a Democrat like me. Like my husband, I am and always have been a champion of coalition-building, and my supporters, lovable and exuberant though they are, are off message and shouldn't be going there.
That would have solved the problem for me. But what an unbearable, outrageous demand upon poor Hillary Clinton, eh?
May 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Yes. Yes. This is exactly right:
May 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think articleman responded well enough! This is an area where perception is everything. Even if you initiate tactics without the intent to insult, you stop when you realize that they are insulting to people who support you and make it clear that they were NOT intended to demean or marginalize. The Clintons have not done that, and have, rather, defended their tactics, with the resulting implication left hanging in the air that they must not care what African Americans think about them, which just adds to the resentment. The contrast to their response (as well as Obama's own response) to Obama's "bitter" comments -- which were tone deaf but pretty clearly not intended as an insult -- could not be more telling. And Obama has never made the obviously and equally hurtful true statement that there are many people who won't vote for Clinton because she is a woman.
May 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pointing to the number of voters who would not want a woman President would be beyond the pale. I would condemn it strongly.
May 6, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you. Everything you have said in these posts. I keep reading and you wouldn't believe how many times I've nodded :)
May 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muchos gracias, Senora Bad.
May 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post is really frightening. If Obama were thought to harbor ideas like yours, Hillary would have sewn things up long ago. Your anger, despite the enormous white support for Obama, and the fact that the Party put him forward, doesn't deserve comment. Good bye.
May 6, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman writes a thoughtful, carefully reasoned piece -- and all you can detect in it is anger? There was a lot more sadness, I thought.
May 6, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's an obvious explanation for why "anger" was detected in this obviously rational, anger-free post, but I hesitate to mention it…
I can only hope it's not the correct explanation. In that light, I'll posit an alternate explanation: Otto is projecting his own anger.
May 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! Touche ...
May 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think that if she ran a totally clean campaign, she would be winning by now. With the MSM killing him with Wright she would have been the logical answer for most Dems. Sadly (for her) she has made herself such an unbearable alternative that issues like Wright do not seem to hurt Obama very much.
May 6, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually believe you're right.
It has been the worst mistake her campaign has made and she's dug herself in so deep now all she can do is keep digging.
May 6, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
A remarkable, hugely enlightening analysis! Very likely the most incisive commentary I've seen on TPM. And the truth of this insight particularly knocked me over:
May 6, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ami, Ami uber alles, uber alles, uber alles!
May 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Thoughtful post!
Palmore v. Sidoti is an interesting case (especially coming the day after the announced death of Mildred Loving) because the Supremes said, in essence, it is not the state's job to provide cover for racism and punish a parent because of societal discomfort with miscegenation. What Clinton has done, through Rendell, Bill, Ferraro, and Shaheen, is give the nod to racist notions and say "I understand why you don't trust that guy. He is "inexperienced" and "unelectable", so that can be your legitimate "non-discriminatory" reason for not voting for Obama.
May 6, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and goddamn it she's been doing that all along.
Remember the deal where it was reported she told someone that Obama couldn't win and when asked why, she wouldn't answer and said it was "delicate"?
Well duh.
She's played this aspect of this election the entire time.
May 6, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post! Thank you.
Let us not forget another Supreme Court decision - Loving vs Virginia, that legalized "inter-racial" marriage in that State (and others)
Mildred Loving, Who Fought Ban on Mixed Marriage, Dies at 68
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html?em&ex=1210219200&en=ea06de436ffd38be&ei=5087%0A
May 6, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two complementary faces to this story.
1. The Clinton campaign is "informing" the superdelegates that Obama will not win one traditional base of the Democratic party, implying the reason is racial prejudice -- not that the Clinton campaign itself is appealing on racial grounds. (Insert hypocrisy here.)
2. The media are for the most part avoiding the racial element of this race and focusing on the attributes of this base as if it had independent meaning. (Insert timidity here.)
The Clintons are correct in that some voters are too prejudiced to vote for Obama. But the media are way off base.
That is, the media say Obama does not appeal to (a) white voters, (b) older voters, (c) working class voters, and (d) less educated voters. Therefore Obama must do something to appeal to these vital voters.
Whereas the evidence shows that Obama does appeal to many of these voters, as evidenced by states like Wisconsin and Illinois. What the media are not saying is that Obama does not appeal to voters who won't vote for him based on his skin color, and many of these voters fall in (a)-(d) above.
That set of prejudging voters is both much smaller than the full set of (a)-(d) voters as well as a set that Obama cannot appeal to. But Obama does appeal to much of the base.
May 6, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis!
May 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're the one wiuth the Palmore-Sidoti problem, not Hillary.
I've not read a more smug, self-righteous, twisted argument in this pages.
You posit 6 "radcial markers" above as absolute "proof" that there can be no question that the Clinton campaign "jumped the shark" and is "giving effect", whatever that means, and encoueraging the racial prejudices of certain whites?
Your "racial marker" number 2 is DRUDGE?? As a source?? ANd then you compound that by saying, well, a staffer says the Clinton campiagnh is said to "play along" with Drudge.
I couldn't read any further.
This post is just another example of what the Obama campaign excels at; what I've come to recognize as Axelrod's style: Take an event, find an angle, S-T-R-E-T-C-H it to fit a meme, and send it out there for the gullible to make i t into a "well-known fact".
The Obama campaign is irresponsible. It is irresponsible now verging on the unconscionable as the pressure ratchets up, and America is beginning to see just how manipulative and pandering his campaign can get.
From the Iraq Vote that never happened because Obama wasn't even a Senator yet to the "Hillary is Disrespectiung Martin Luther King" outright made-up lie to the Gas Tax Economists' Letter yesterday, they are not even trying to hide the fact that they are using every weapon within reach.
Including Race.
And, unfortunately, that has now become the Obama DNA.
Hoodwink and bamboozle, anyone?
May 6, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth hurts, don't it?
Don't be pointing at articleman for Hillary's shit hanging.
May 6, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Tena, most of us can hear it loud and clear, but it's still a dog whistle for some and that's what Hillary is counting on.
May 6, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the ad hominems. Speaking of names, if you can't do better than that, you should take Paul Wellstone's name out of your host.
The Rutenberg piece in the NYT doesn't have a staffer saying she plays along with Drudge; that's merely your paraphrase of the article's title. The piece specifically brags for Hillary about how _smart_ and _tough_ she is to have her own private leaker to Drudge, Tracy Sefl, and how _savvy_ the HRC campaign is to have placed stories on Drudge Report time and again.
What's your basis to suggest, on that record, that when Drudge says he obtained Dressed Obama from the Clinton campaign, he didn't? It's not just his statement, remember, it's the New York Times corroborating her campaign's many leaks to him? Oh, wait, you have no basis. You are factless.
May 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, articleman. And there is also this in The Nation by Richard Kim, May 5th: How Does Hillary Clinton Feel About the White Racist Vote?
It's a subject we have to face, as Americans in the 21st century. Although it came as a result of the Rev. Wright topic, Obama's speech on race was such a positive.
May 6, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely but I'm having problems big time with discussing all this while the election is in progress for a number of reasons.
1. You can't really analyze voting patterns until everyone has voted
2. It isn't helpful to start this now. This is something that we will come to after Barack is elected. Right now this has the potential to discourage some voting if it goes on, IMO. It's a huge, thorny, often painful, sometimes anger producing subject. We don't have time right now and this is not the proper context because this is a battle - someone VS someone else.
Not a good time to bring up divisive subjects.
May 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/318011 link for the article in The Nation. The comments after the article is about a mile long. This is clearly a hot topic.
May 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is clearly a hot topic.
That really bothers me. Right now in this context - a contest, a duel, a battle - the only thing something like this can be used for is a weapon.
This is a fight - and race becomes a weapon and this is not the right context for this conversation - I don't think it will help. I think it will hurt.
May 6, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not pointing that at articleman raising this subject, by the way.
I mean the pundits, the people who more or less control the dialog.
Not us readers and our diaries and comments.
May 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tena. As I leave this string to actually work, wanted to respond to your thought about this being a bad time to bring this up.
I have a somewhat contrary view, and here is why.
I feel that our campaign has let things pass that should not, ideally, be let to pass. Because Barack is trying to do new politics, we sometimes lay in the road a bit on things. I feel that the larger circle of us further way from the center of the campaign have an elevated duty to attack unfair attacks, and to attack defects in the dialogue that arise.
I agree that there are white voters who get angry if you even go near issues like this. I also think there is a cost to letting the deformity in the dialogue go on like this. They are both costs, and the question is which you are willing to suffer.
I don't see how we can suffer much more racial polarity within the party, so I think it's better to talk about policing the discussion at the margins, not to condemn the 80-90% of Hillary's voters who aren't like that, but to be Democrats, and to remember that our leaders are accountable and should be held to high standards, and to ideals of gender and racial equality at all times.
A
May 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
'"m not terribly worried about angering people so much, articleman, as I'm worried under these circumstances things will not be clear or truthful enough to make this work.
That's all - I want to see these tactics pointed out and talked about - I just worry that in this pressure cooker atmosphere, trying to get a race dialogue going could just mean it all got messed up before it got started.
And I could be wrong. That's all I'm talking about here.
This is also fundamentally different from what it is that really bothers me. What has bothered me is the kind of analysis people seem to want to make - like the voting trough - the states with some black population on the edges of something or other acting a certain way -and I think it's too soon for that and not productive merely because of the timing - right now things are in conflict with each other and that causes discussion to be less than charged emotionally.
May 6, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My last sentence wandered off from all sense and went the opposite way.
I meant to say that things are more charged emotionally right now.
That's all I am speaking to and that's all that concerns me and that's really different than your post.
May 6, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent and useful post. Should be reformulated and submitted to NYT or WP. A little reification is allowed in a good cause.
May 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has the Ku Klux Klan problem. The wealthy and powerful didn't necessarily join the Klan, but without their endorsement, it wouldn't have happened.
May 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that it is very difficult to police this type of thing because it would be very close to censorship. In the end it is in the candidate dignity not to resort to this type of "wink, wink" argument. I remember in one of the early debate Edwards saying "If you are going to vote for me because one of my oponents is a woman or my other oponent is a black man, please don't do it". Unfortunately, and you have to admit it, I do not remember Hillary puting out that kind of statement. Rather the contrary, as the post shows.
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't police this - that's not the point. There is a first amendment and I'm practically a purist on free speech.
The point is to point it out so people know what she's doing.
May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree with that. I was just saying because the post talks about the role of the party elders in this, and it is a very difficult position for them to tell a candidate what she should say or not.
May 6, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, my comment was in response to Desidero, upstream.
May 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best post I've read on TPM!
May 6, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me ask this: Let's assume that McCain, if elected, only runs for one term. Let's assume that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens know this (or at least believe this) and will put off retirement for at least four more years.
Since the only reason to vote for Hillary, as an Obama supporter, is SCOTUS, can I (assuming she were to get the nom, which she won't) now feel good about just writing in Obama's name (even if it has the potential to throw the election to McCain) in order to teach a lesson to these racist Democrats?
Just talking off the cuff here. And yes, I hate McCain too. Please don't jump all over me for saying what many Dems are thinking..
May 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responded to you below re JP Stevens . . .
May 6, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman: You have clarified our disagreement. Yes, I don't think it is a racist talking point when the Clinton campaign claims she is more electable (although perhaps suspect on the merits) by pointing out that Obama, for all his talk of appeal to independents, has not been able to break through to the constituency that has made the difference in the past several elections. That's what you do to get elected - emphasize where you do best and the other guy does worst. Qualititively I see little difference between that argument and the argument that Obama brings in a whole group of voters - young people and African Americans - that Hillary can't.
May 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Hillary, had her campaign not had the attributes I pointed out, would bring in 90% African-American support, so I disagree on that premise. I even think if she somehow won the pledged majority and popular vote, which I do not think possible, she'd still get 80% or more even now.
And no one's saying the young reject Hillary in the way the 12-15% of all whites in PA and OH voting on race and heavily rejecting Obama -- where's the exit polling showing the young saying so heavily that they refuse to vote for someone old. It's just not analogous.
Our legal and political culture places special emphasis on rejecting both gender and race discrimination. One can disagree with that special emphasis, but I'm very invested in both. I suspect you are as well.
Finally, I don't think the antiblack Bubba vote decided the last two elections. They were too close (+.5% for Gore, -3% for Kerry) for someone to fairly pick one group and hold them up that way. Picking that one important group is an inherently arbitrary exercise, and improperly elevates that group. Roland Martin is correct, the Clinton and Obama coalitions are durable, and contain important elements of our party. As a general matter, neither is better.
As to your claim to be sickened by my condescending, whatever that means, I don't need ad hominems to have this argument with you. You also didn't need to go there to have a fair exchange.
May 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful piece. I agree with your original post, and subsequent ones.
I'm in Pa., and by the end of the primary, it was pretty obvious that the Clintons and surrogates were blowing a dogwhistle of a particular frequency here. And, it worked. They learned after Wisconsin and OHio and Texas, didn't they?
The subtext of "Bittergate" to the intended audience was to trigger class resentments against the supposed preferences given to the affirmative action candidate (read: black). That was the whole point of all of the anti-elite rhetoric. It looked on the surface about class, which is marginally in the safe playing field for a Democratic primary, but the subtext--as the folks around here who got angry took it--was: "My life sucks, and here comes a black guy to had it handed to him on a platter. Who does he think he is? Pretty uppity, ain't he? He thinks he's better than me, so I'll show him, I'll vote for the woman."
Then the Rev. Wright flap was also carefully calibrated to be, overtly, about his alleged antipatriotic statements. That gave the American Flag cover for people who were freaked out by the endless repetition of a black preacher in full prophet outrage mode. Preachers in rural fundamentalist churches don't usually get so worked up, and never attack the govnm'nt, they attack the godless heathen gays and liberals. So culuturally, it was just a big smack in the face with open blackness to people who live most of their lives isolated from black culture.
Never mind the fact that the ones who think this way would vote for McCain in the fall against Hillary anyway. Panderopolousness.
But the thing that really finishes her to me is that this sort of political thinking -- how to slice off a percentage point or two with this group, and another half a point from that other group, and to just suppress the vote of our opponents where we can get away with it-- is so purely old politics that I can't understand why the shrieking irony doesn't rip the head off of the MSM.
They end up so sucked into admiring the process, it takes the breath away that they never, ever, ever report on the elephant in the room, that the contrasting styles in these campaigns is precisely what the issue is. The process IS the problem, and they're too stupid or two afraid for their jobs or two co-opted by the system to stand up like real men and women and tell it like it is. We either change the way we do things, and try to bring people together by emphasizing what we have in common, or were going to be the next great empire that slides down the history chute due to our own inherent flaws.
May 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say sickened? Perhaps that was a bit strong. I would be sickened, however, if this divisive internecine warfare (unwarranted in my view, but let's not rehash that now) ends up resulting in another Republican catastrophe, no matter who the nominee is. Condescending? Well, I'll stand by that one. It is condescending to ascribe racist motivation to voters who choose Clinton over Obama. And it is beyond insulting to HRC's supporters to argue that their candidate, who has a demonstrated commitment to improving race relations, is playing some kind of "southern strategy." I may have said this before, but it is my strong belief that your candidate Obama would not endorse (indeed, would reject and denounce!) these arguments that are being made in his cause.
And for the record, I am not a passionate Clinton supporter. I also admire much about Obama and have vacillated between the two during the campaign (as well as a flirtation with Edwards and puzzlement over why Biden and Dodd were not taken seriously). My criteria are (1) who would be more likely to be elected, and (2) who would make an effective President. I will support whoever is the nominee and believe both candidates bring significant strengths as weaknesses to the table.
I suppose that makes me a minority around here.
May 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a statistical fact that there are about 15% of white voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania who say that race is key in their vote, and they vote more than 75% against Obama.
We can disagree reasonably as we go back and forth, but it's not condescending to say it's so, I can pull the cites if you like.
And it's great that in a strong argument, there is agreement about the need to win this election, I salute you for saying so. Thanks for the exchange.
May 6, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the words of Roberto Duran, "no mas."
Let's hope this all works out for the best.
May 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
One counterargument you would hear to your specific question would be that Stevens is 90 and might die.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/ive-seen-the-future-and-it-wil.php#comments
I think the best counterargument is that hell will freeze over before she's the 08 nominee.
May 6, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I responded to you upthread.
In essence - we are talking about two different things. I brought up what I did because it seemed enough on point that I could bring it up. I tried to make it clear I wasn't talking about your post or what we do, though I guess that's not enough. What you mean is that it should be out in the open and talked aboutin the MSM and elsewhere now. From the standpoint of her campaign tactics - I think you're right.
You can read what I've said about context. And like I say = I don't know that I'm right - It's just something that occurs to me.
May 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your point about it being divisive to discuss is entirely right.
Running the first serious African-American candidate for the Presidency, nobody said it would be easy. It's quite the bumpy ride, fascinating every step of the way.
And whenever you're in Taos, please have a beer at Eske's for me. I love that place.
May 6, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well come and see me and we can go and you can have a beer.
And I'll have a coke.
But it'd be great -
Yeah, I agree it's a bumpy ride. I was mostly annoyed with Josh and that whole vote trough thing because I do think that's premature and as it turns out it doesn't hold up.
This is different - but I said that. ;)
and your use of the case in this post is briliant, articleman - no shit. You're good.
May 6, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're way too kind. Isn't it funny how many lawyers there are in here? If you click the profiles and read the comments, tons. It's really fun to write toward such a smart and educated group of political people. This site is really great fun.
Was in Santa Fe six weeks ago, haven't been to Taos in too long, it's the best place in NM.
I really hope you hop on our Obama campaign call in a month, the one Paige and Genghis are promoting, whether or not you get a group together. I'm working on getting a speaker for it . . .
May 6, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're all over the political boards.
The average age of poster according to the last survey results I saw 2 or 3 years ago at Eschaton is 47 and has an advanced degree. About 60% of them are lawyers and a whole bunch of them are Libras like me. I share a birthday with Groucho Marx: "argue, argue, argue."
My mom was very fond of telling me that I'd argue to be hung.
;)
May 6, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if you don't want to do the campaign event, if you join the TPM list on the BO site, it permits mail exchange, so I hope you join for that reason as well.
May 6, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Tena, join!
May 6, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this is one of the most brilliant and sincere blog posts I have read in a long time. Thank you.
May 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent and insightful article. Thank you very much. I have written about this in several article at http://PoliticalTruths.info.
May 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is so on point. I appreciate all that you put into telling the truth about what Hillary Clinton and her campaign have done, and how the Democratic Party let her do it. Call them out for their race-baiting.
May 6, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, Articleman, very nice!
Clinton campaign's and the MSM's valorizing this group of voters is one of the more nastier turns in this election year.
As you point out,it can damage Obama long term in the general. The poison grows stronger with each primary election as the MSM narrowly focuses only on this group of 15% to 16% who won't vote for a black man.
The way it is being framed by the shriekers is that it's somehow Obama's inability to connect with this group. Somehow it's his fault because he's a weak candidate.
By continuously fore-fronting this meme, it's reified even more.
While MSM and Clinton campaign continue to message this white-voters-who-won't-vote-for-Obama meme, what they never do is to say what's really going on. They report on a specific white group and their fear yet, all the while, eliding a discussion of the whole cat that exists with it. To me it's like identifying a cheshire's smile but assuming we all know it's a cat. I wish they would name the fear, already.
May 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding post--you've summed up my thought exactly.
May 6, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Genghis once said: Better posts, better comments. Articleman has provided the template. Thank you.
May 6, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't understand people like you and all people on here who INSIST on amalgamating "white" people into one big category. So much for being progressives.
Do you realize that you and others like you on here are making the same mistake you accuse "white" people of? You are CLUSTERING groups of people together based on physical characteristics and ATTRIBUTING TO THEM certain behavioral patterns associated with that category of people. In other words, all you people are doing are STEREOTYPING. You are assuming people behave in a certain manner because of their race, color, creed, etc.
First of all, I am a European. I have been living here for quite a while and I am absolutely appalled, though hardly surprised, by the cognitive limitations you Americans exhibit. Even more so than us Europeans, you utilize heuristics and try to justify your misguided opinions based on a limited amount of information. There are undeniable mistakes both candidates have made. But you know what? You CANNOT know what in the hell the candidates themselves are thinking or have told their campaigns. Why? BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT THEM! You only have bits and pieces, snippets of information really. And you try to construct a coherent picture out of those pieces, but that narrative is necessarily limited by the heuristics you subconsciously use. You PAINT A PICTURE, you people. And you don't even realize your own prejudices because psychologically speaking your own self-esteem and self-worth is protected by the use of heuristics. I am no different, but at least I acknowledge it.
Again, I'm not surprised by people like you. I laugh at people like you, actually. I laugh because you are so ignorant of your own limitations. Or if you're not ignorant you consciously refuse to acknowledge them. And those are the worst kinds of people -- ignorant fools who think your "intelligence" (which ever form of it, since there are many) separates you from WHITES or BLACKS or whatever.
How can you classify me as WHITE when my identity is clearly more than that? How can you classify me, who has voted for Clinton, as a racist just because I support her economic and foreign policy policies? I'm not even descendant from American whites and yet you categorize me according to my skin color. She's not perfect, but neither is your angel Obama. But you think he's your savior from the social forces that have oppressed minorities for generations? You poor poor ignorant fools. I pity you.
May 6, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A post so willfully oblivious to what was written, NONSUBSTANTIVE, and yet so entertaingly HAUGHTY and random in its USE OF capitalization as to require NO substantive RESPONSE.
May 6, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive European, Nobody here is classifying you as anything. It's the Clinton campaign through her pollster Mark Penn who creates voter categories in order to figure out how to appeal to them by their presumptively narrowest defining characteristics or commonalities. He even wrote a book about it, called Microtrends or something like that. Many people here are absolutely exasperated with this strategy, as they strongly prefer appealing to people based on common rather than distinguishing interests, but it is clearly the strategy that Clinton is using when she says that there is a "particular category" of voters that Obama does not appeal to.
May 6, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were a lawyer, articleman. If you are a lawyer, you must not be a very good one. You should know your "argument" against the Clintons would never hold up in a court.
Next case!
May 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you are I suppose?
Well, I am and I think he did a brilliant job.
May 6, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're funny, readytoblowagasket!
What's a gasket, and what's it like to blow one?
;)
May 6, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it occurs to me, articleman, that something big is missing from this campaign. So far allllll the talk, the analysis, the graphs, the talk - has been about the racial divide.
Why no gender divide discussions? There are men and women who won't vote for a woman. Where are all the polls on that? Why is it all about race?
Nothing about gender.
Nothing.
How is this right or fair? Women make up 51% of population. African Americans are something like 17%. What the hell is going on?
May 6, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take a stab at your question, Tena -- how about, Because the Obama campaign doesn't try to make gender a wedge issue? In, say, the way the Clinton campaign does with race?
One of the many things I like about Obama is he doesn't say, hint or dogwhistle about Clinton being the strident feminazi, or whatever gender stereotype he thinks might drive voters away.
Of course, Three Balls Clinton is doing OK at giving her own self a gender-wedgie.
Btw, how healthy is it that so many of us lawyers love talking to lawyers all day and all night? ;)
May 6, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some things big missing here:
1) Given the way Bill and staff treated Jesse Jackson like the backgate gardener after getting elected in 1992, what did you expect?
2) Given that the Clintons are singularly known for "ending welfare as we know it," finally leading the Democrats (along with the Republicans) to adop Senator Moynahan's (sp) racist propositions from the 1960s, why did you expect anything different of them?
3) Given the depth of the hypocrisy of the Democrats that you point to, why are you hanging around them and concocting schemes for supporting them?
4) Given the U.S. ruling class' (big business + government leaders) virulently racist history, why exactly do you expect anything different from candidates running now to be its CEO? Even Obama Barack has to present himself - or self-select himself - as a 'post-race' candidate to get a foot in the door - and a race bashing.
I very much appreciate your strong anti-racist principles, but what the hell hanging out with these people for? There's a disconnect, and it has to do with your illusions, not their deceit.
May 6, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Padmore is an excellent point -- so many people say "I don't have a problem with interracial relationships but I worry about how other people will look at the children, or at the couple." Passing their racism off on others.
That's why Clinton is part of a much older generation -- Blacks of the same generation felt the same way, i.e., I can't vote for Obama b/c he's not electable, meaning "white people won't vote for him b/c he's black." Now that's the crazy thing -- black people being tools of racists and denying a black man an opportunity not based on lack of qualification, but b/c of fear.
But Iowa changed that. We began to believe that this country might actually be ready for a Black president. And then the-president-formerly-known-as-our-first-black-president dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina. Then it was on -- Black people started turning out in massive numbers and played a key role in Obama's run.
Goodbye, Hillary. And take your race-baiting friends with you.
May 7, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment