On Electability, Racism, & Endorsements
by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 06:54:35 PM EST
About a week ago I wrote a post called Obama's Fate and in part wrote, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned--there is zero tolerance for accusations of racism.
That begged for clarification, and was misunderstood by some. It probably didn't help matters that I mixed it in with recognizing Obama more for what he is, a person with both a black and white parent, and the global idealism that represents. I should have made it more clearer what I was trying to say. It wasn't a statement that issues of racism couldn't be discussed on MyDD, nor was I meaning to say that anyone that posted something about racism as an issue that Obama would have to deal with, would be banned. It was intended to mean that for anyone who would bring up doubts about the electability of Obama (the reasoning I was doing in that post), they would be able to do so without having to deal with accusations of racism.
I've had to ban a number of people here who had made such accusations against other posters, simply because they argued, for one reason or another, concerns over Obama's electability. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. I really don't believe, as far as Obama goes, that his having black skin is an electability problem. I'm not saying it's got no political downside at all, there's going to be political downside for any nominee based on their gender, skin color, accent, region... just that it's not (and the polls, fwiw, solidly find this too) an issue for 2008.
Anyway, hopefully the intention is clearer now. And just for the new folks here, the offense you'll be banned for here is making personal attacks on other posters (which the above falls under). Other than that, this progressive site tries to hold a libertarian principle of discourse.
Oh, one other thing, newspapers are dead, and their endorsements don't mean squat. The whole "John Edwards got 2nd because of the DMR endorsement in '04" was a revisionist attempt by the media to explain why they were so misled into reporting that Dean would win Iowa (think Yepsen), when it was really just that they were terrible predictors who had no clue how to look at momentum or read polls, plenty of which was to be found that pointed to Edwards doing well before the DMR endorsement-- which meant very little at the time. All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline.
To date, Wes Clark's endorsement of Clinton is the overall most important one in my mind, simply because went to bat and looks the role of VP candidate in waiting. The Leonard Boswell & Bruce Braley endorsements of Clinton and Edwards seem pretty important, but largely inconsequential. Really, the two endorsements that swamp all others are from John Kerry and Al Gore. Either of those would get a lot of notice-- who knows, maybe they'd help persuade someone too.