Racism On This Site

A year or so ago, this was a great place to come to catch up on the news. I came here, to Daily Kos, and a few others like the Poorman, Talking Points Memo and Sadly No, every day.

A year ago, posters were already touting their candidates, but it seemed fairly neighborly. No more. Now, the only reason I really come here is to see how bad things have become.

This place has become a haven for brooding, bitter Clinton supporters who will find something perfectly innocent that Obama, or someone on his campaign did, and twist it until they can find something, anything--however small, however unremarkable--to be outraged about.

Just yesterday, I saw a post in which the writer was outraged! that David Axelrod went on some Sunday morning talk show and didn't badmouth Bill Clinton. Why was that so bad, you might ask? Well, because Axelrod no doubt said harsher things about Clinton, so that made him a hypocrite.

We have reached the stage at which Clinton supporters here are now livid that an Obama staffer went on television and did not excoriate Bill Clinton. How dare he be civil!

Well, that kind of thing, sad as it may be, is not why I'm writing this. As I said, I have been coming here lately just to read that kind of thing. I find it sad and pitiful, and though I feel kind of guilty for doing it, I can't help but gawk at the over the top manufactured rage. It's like watching a really, really bad movie, like Manos the Hands of Fate. As bad as it is, you can't look away. Sometimes you even have to watch it again, it's so bad.

So as I said, these rage diaries are sad, but ultimately harmless, as far as I can see. But there's something else here now, something far worse. Looking back, I can see now there have been hints of it now and again, but it is only in the last few days that I have really seen it for what it is, and that is the rawest, ugliest bigotry.

Yesterday, there was an execrable screed lamenting Obama's rise and blaming it on affirmative action. I'm sure the writer would object that he (or she) is not a racist, that he was only pointing out Obama's obvious flaws and how cynically he has turned his blackness to his advantage to steal the nomination from a much more highly qualified contender who happened to suffer from the awful disadvantage of having grown up with nearly every conceivable advantage.

And, to be sure, if one works hard enough, one could read the diary as the writing of a concientious Democrat, worried about losing in the fall with a flawed candidate who won unfairly. One could read it that way, but it takes a lot of work to overlook the obvious, so the only reasonable way I see to read it is that the writer is a bigot, or at least has an awful lot tof hostility toward black people.

Now to get this out of the way, I am a white guy, fairly well off, I went to a good college, and I even have a master's degree. I'm not some craaaazy-ass militant black dude who's seething with resentment at the way the Man has kept me down, so don't go off and think I'm only seeing this because I have a chip on my shoulder and that slavery has been gone for 143 years and Jim Crow has been gone for 40-odd years, so I should just shut the fuck up and stop whining and pull myself up by my bootstraps.

No, I'm a well off, well schooled white guy who has had every conceivable advantage in this country, and I'm seething with resentment that most black people don't get the chances I've gotten in this country, not because they're dumber than I am, not because they're lazier than I am, but because life in this country is so badly stacked against them. Yes, I know that there is no longer slavery or segregation in this country (see above), but discrimination lingers. And it's harder to fight now, because it's so much harder to see.

It's so hard to see, as it happens, that most white people never see it it all, so when they hear some black person like Jeremiah Wright going on about how unjust this country can be, even today, they just write him off as some angry, bitter radical black America hater. But he isn't. Did you know that the guy volunteered to go fight in Korea? Well, he did. He fought for his country, and then, like so many black soldiers in so many wars, he came back home and the country he fought for treated him like shit. So, yes, I guess he well might be a little bitter.

And he has every right to be bitter. We all should be. This country could have done so much better. And we still can do so much better. Now things are without question better now than they were in 1955 or 1965. I don't think you'd get any argument about that from Wright. I know you wouldn't get any from Obama. But we aren't where we should be. The truth is, we never will be where we ought to be; this is life, and we live on Earth, where things are never perfect, and I don't think anybody ever expects to turn the U.S. into Utopia. But if we can't make the U.S. into Utopia, we can at least keep prodding ourselves in the right direction, and that's what Wright is trying to do. You may not think he's going about it the right way; indeed, he may well not be going about it the right way. I don't know. But he's trying.

And that brings me to Barack Obama, who is also trying to make the country better. I'm not a big fan of his; I think he's better than Clinton, but he was no higher than my third choice, behind Edwards and Dodd. But now he's the presumptive nominee, and he may well end up being a great president.

But to get where he is, he had the gall to beat Hillary Clinton, and that really angered a lot of people who thought she deserved or had earned the nomination. As I said, some people here seem content to bash Obama without bringing up his race. But there are a few who seem to take Obama as an "uppity Negro", or at least that's how it comes across to me. I don't know how else to read it other than that they think that Obama's just a presumtuous and ungrateful black guy who wasn't content to stay in his place, and instead had the effrontery not just to run for president and have a shot at winning.

I mean Jesse jackson and Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes all ran, but we all knew they were going nowhere so that was different, right? It was kind of cute watching those black fellas taking themselves so seriously and acting just like their betters. There was no threat there, right? It was all O.K., it was just a sideshow.

But now we have a guy who doesn't know his place, and he's leading for the nomination, and I think it's brought a lot of latent racism out into the open. I've read some stuff here that if I hadn't known better, I would have thought had come from the KKK website, if there is such a thing. It could have come from Jesse Helms or from Strom Thurmond way back in 1948.

It doesn't belong here. It's not how Democrats should be thinking. I can see it coming from Republicans, but we Democrats can and should be so much better than that. And it sickens me that in 2008, there are still people who call themselves Democrats who think that Barack Obama is just the lucky recipient of affirmative action. After all, he lucky to be a black guy, right? Black people have all the advantages in America today, don't they? I mean, they're, what, 90% of the U.S. Congress. They control all the biggest businesses in the country. Am I right?

Of course not. We have a long and shabby history  in this country when it comes to race. We have a long way to go. It says a lot that Barack Obama is likely to be the next U.S. president. But he isn't where he is because he had unfair advantages all his life; he's where he is because he's smart as hell and he worked his ass off. And if he messed up Hillary Clinton's plans, well, then that's just too bad for her, but he ran the good campaign and she ran the lousy one. She has no one to blame but herself. And her backers have no right to say that Obama did anything wrong or took unfair advantage or that he cheated somehow because he didn't. And they sure don't have any right to say he got where he is because he was just "lucky" to be black. Anybody who says otherwise should go to Red State, where they'll fit in just fine.

Here's an update: I would like to thank everyone who has read this, and even more to those who have recommended it. I don't doubt that there are others who could have put it better--more eloquently, more logically and so on--but I didn't see any diaries about it so I wrote this myself. I really do hope against hope that it might end up on the recommended list, not because It's such a well written piece, but because I think it's something we all need to think about here.

Another update: I would like to thank all the people here who have r ead this and have written in about it, even those of you I think are dead wrong. I would also like to thank the 20 or so who have recommended this diary, and would like to ask others to recommend it as well. I don't know how many recommendations it takes to get on the list, but I think this is important. Now without a doubt there are others who could have done this better, and if anybody else would like to do another diary about this, then by all means have at it. But as this is so far the only one (as far as I know) I would ask that we try to get as many eyes to see it as can be. Thank you.

Yet another update: I just saw that this made the recommended list. I had kind of hoped it would, but I didn't really think it would. I want to thank all of you who have read this, written something here or recommended this. I think this is something we liberals and Democrats should be thinking about. Maybe we can make things a little better, bit by bit... And I would especially like to thank whoever added the "holier than thou ranting" tag. I mean that sincerely; it's easy for us to get caught up in thinking that we're always on the side of right and anybody who dares to see things another way is not just wrong but evil as well. Also it was funny...

Last update (so I believe): Anybody who doesn't think there is a nasty undercurrent of racism at this site should take a little stroll through the hidden comments. If you can read some of that stuff and seriously claim it isn't racist, then I don't know what to tell you and I'm not going to try to convince you. But I'll sure think a lot less of you...



Display:


Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 8)

eh I have lost what little faith I have in the average American, we get outraged that someone like Wright isn't patriotic enough?

but 15% of voters in PA can't vote for Obama because his skin is the wrong color!?

and people excuse it too, well we are better off then any other country, well gee I am glad our definition of success is to not be as bad as countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or South Africa. just because we are better then other crappy countries doesn't mean we aren't still crap in that case damn you Wright, you don't appreciate what America has done for you.

I bet those 15% don't get their patriotism questioned, I bet there is no outrage at 15% still saying a man's skin color determines his worth.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:43:20 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

Thank you for the recommendation. My first diary, and already recommended, at least by one reader...


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats acting like trash, (2.00 / 1)

the disturbing spectacle this cycle.  A real eye opener.
This hideous Punch and Judy show should end May 7th if there any sense left in this benighted country.
by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Truth in Numbers (none / 0)

If you look at the traffic on this site you see a sliver compared to other sites.  Hmmmm wonder why?  Given Hillary enjoys almost as much support as Obama one would wonder why the traffic wouldn't be as strong as pro-Obama sites.  I hate to compare it to DailyKos but Kos has a good cross section of posts.  Many pure Obama and yet, many talking issues which relate to all.  Plus, here you have diarists who clearly are taking their talking points from Hillary's campaign - directly.  Lastly, you have the same diarists on the rec page every day.  No depth.  Sometimes you have the same diarist three times over on the same rec list.  Proof will be in site's survival when Hillary loses.  You would think they would mature.  No we will be hearing the same cranky banter about Wright, flag pins, weathermen, etc.  If that is the best they can do, they are defining themselves as shrill losers.


by SovSov on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you don't support Obama you're Racist (none / 0)

This is what Andrea Mitchell said today on MSNBC, and CNN has also been repeating this over and over.
Obama lost in PA because of racism.
That word has been totally abused by Obama droids.
by internetstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't see Hidden Comments, but am betting (none / 0)

Obama Trolls are merrily pumping this stuff out.


by internetstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

I'm not some craaaazy-ass militant black dude who's seething with resentment at the way the Man has kept me down, so don't go off and think I'm only seeing this because I have a chip on my shoulder [...]

OK, I don't get it - I find this kind of stereotype image offensive, and if you're carrying that around, um, that's something to ask yourself why, not other people.  

I don't like the tactic of putting that out there and other offensive ideas as well, such as calling someone "uppity," and then saying "Hey, don't you think this!"  Well, I'm not thinking that - you are.  


by daria g on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.33 / 3)

I was just going to say the same thing.  I found this and other statements very offensive as well.

I'd suggest the diarist look in the mirror.

And stop projecting onto Bill and Hillary.


by Larissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

Mayor McCheese, can you please explain why you rated me 0?  I agreed with daria g, who you rated a 2.  I essentially said exactly the same thing she said (albeit less eloquently.)  

She said she found the author's statement offensive.  I said I did, too.  She said he needs to look to his own attitudes.  I said he did too.

And I asked that people stop calling Bill and Hillary racist, because, well, that is self-explanatory, they are quite obviously not.

I ask that you explain yourself.  My comment was not worthy of 0.


by Larissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I'd suggest the diarist look in the mirror.

And stop projecting onto Bill and Hillary.

The diarist didn't "project" or accuse Bill and Hillary of anything. The diarist accused some people on this site of racism, not Bill and Hillary.

I think that's why you were troll-rated.

by power of truth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I hardly think a Hillary supporter would give another Hillary supporter a 0 because she told someone to stop calling Bill and Hillary racists (which they are not).

No, McCheese made a mistake.  He is a Hillary supporter and so am I.  He was abusing the 0 ratings, he thought I was an Obama supporter who disagreed with a Hillary supporter, and gave me a 0.  He should not have done this.  

As a Hillary supporter I strongly disagree with anyone giving Obama supporters 0 just because they disagree with them (or 1's for that matter).  That's abuse of troll ratings.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Another possibility in his defense is that he meant to give me a 2 and slipped on the ratings indicator.  An honest mistake, but he never corrected it.  But I actually left the site the day he did it, and never came back.

People were calling Bill and Hillary racist.  But Bill and Hillary have done so much to, throughout their careers, to end all kinds of discrimination - it's a great injustice.  I spoke out in their defense and am proud that I did.

Either way you look at it, the 0 was not warranted and should have been corrected.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Also you twisted what I said out of context.

My original statement was directed at the Obama supporters saying Hillary is racist (and Bill as well).  There are many both direct and indirect examples of this, and I challenge them all.  There is no objective proof to support this claim of racism.  And much evidence to disprove it.  

The thesis of the diary is, Hillary supporters are behaving in a racist manner (the title of the diary is "Racism on this site") the claim of racism is directed at Hillary supporters.  The projection that occurs on this site is, that her supporters are racist (false generalization), therefore Hillary is racist, or is in some way encouraging this sort of behavior (again false).

I challenge all of this.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

and yes, I believe the diarist is calling Hilary and Bill racist, he says he's not, but then he says they are cynically using racism to win an election (which by any definition, if you are using racism to achieve a goal, you are racist, and at any rate, my mild comment for Obama supporters to stop projecting racism onto Hillary and Bill was not worthy of a 0):

And the insidious thing about this campaign against Obama is that it has been so subtle. Nobody's gone running around calling him an uppity--I won't write the rest of it but you know what it is. It's been so much sneakier. Harder to pick up on. Stuff that can be read more than one way. When a campaign lets something suspect like that slip out once, well, it might well be innocent. When it happens over and overe again, that's something else altogether, and I can't believe that Bill & Hillary Clinton don't know exactly what they're doing. I can't prove it, but I know it all the same.
So I don't think they're racists, but I do think one of their most dominant traits is ambtion, and in their ambition, I think they're cynically using race to help them. And I think it's loathesome in a country with a racial history like this one.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

If one has several racist supporters (and I think all sides can claim this), then don't project to say the candidate is racist. Nor say the candidate is using the racist supporters.

I believe that is being done (and I showed you the example above from the diarist where on this diary he accused Hillary and Bill of cynically using racism to win an election).

I said mildly, STOP.  It is not only my right to challenge this, but my duty.  It is a grave injustice to two people who care deeply about America, and have spent a lifetime in service to the American people.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Jerome also observed "reading through the comments, it's pretty amazing to consider what the Obama supporters are saying about Clinton":

Now, when Barack Obama made his claim about the "typical white person", it didn't mean anything, he was just talking generalities; and the same thing with Clinton here, but even less so. Clinton clarifies that she's talking about working Americans that Obama is not doing well with, which are typically white, and she's "ugly and divisive"?  This is a lame stretch.


by Larissa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

not only do you get a rec for the superb post, but also for the reference to my favorite MST3K movie of all time.

p.s. i really enjoyed your diary because I've got the exact same MyDD relationship you have. Used to come a lot, not so much anymore. The empty vitriol and ridiculous rage is pretty sad around these parts.


by beedee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i recommended it (none / 0)

just for the mention of the best worst movie of all time, manos hands of fate.

best observed thru the lens of a nerd and a couple of robots.

anyway, great diary.  


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Great Diary, Mumphrey.

I would Recommend, but I have had my privileges taken away and cannot Rec diaries or Rate comments. Whatever line I crossed, I think it pales in comparison to the occasional racism and bigotry on this site that probably goes unpunished. Thanks for calling it out and congrat's on hitting the top of the Rec List.

by power of truth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

well to be fair, how many of the African-Americans are voting for Obama primarily because he is black? racism goes both ways. Also how many people aren't voting for HRC BECAUSE she's a woman. I think you're being quite hasty in claiming that 'people excuse it too,' assuming by that you mean people here are racist.


by swissffun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Unfortunately, that argument would force you to ignore several misstatements by the Clinton campaign that could be called offensive.  

I find it funny how working class whites were said to be extremely offended by Obama's bitter remarks.  But black folks weren't the least bit offended by Hillary's LBJ/MLK comment, Bill's Jesse Jackson comment, or Ferraro's lucky to be black comment.  All of that was twisting of words, but Obama's bitter comment, unforgivable.


by shalca on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 0)

who said unforgivable? not I. it just revealed either a 1) detachment from the DEM base, 2) pandering to the SF fundraisers, or 3) a sloppy message control

the outrage over BCs jesse jackson comment, and BRC VALID historical reference to LBJ were full-throttle pushed and pumped by the BO campaign - documented! So maybe it was the SPIN of those comments that really caused the outrage.


by swissffun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.66 / 3)

Yep, the spin, not the comments themselves.  Blacks as a demographic can't see spin, they just vote what they're told.  That's what your argument boils down to.


by shalca on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

The deliberate and offensive spin put on these remarks betrays the cynical and mercenary negative campaigning by the BO supporters.

It is backfiring big time, as people reject the notion that to support Hillary is to be a racist. It's not a good way to keep friends, to stab them in the back like that, and burn all the bridges to the people who have been fighting for everyone's civil rights over their entire lifetimes. BO lost me forever with that one, it has been a destructive and ruthless technique that has wrought divisions among friends that took generations to build.

When you accuse people who are lifelong civil rights advocates of the radioactive charge of racism don't expect them to embrace that toxicity. You make it much easier for the real racists out there to maintain their stance, by dividing us and trashing the very people who would be combatting those folks.


by 07rescue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Blacks have voted for white candidates for so many years. There is a difference. Some of the PA guys may actually vote for McCain and cross party lines just based on race itself. There is no indication any of the black voters will cross party lines to vote for McCain if Hillary gets nominated.


by Pravin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But Sen. Obama denounced (none / 0)

Rev. Wright today - so what say you.


by Xanthe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha Ha Ha Ha (2.00 / 0)

"brooding, bitter Clinton supporters"

I don't brood.  I'm not bitter.  And I've never been a racist!

But I am PROUDLY a Clinton supporter.  And I will remain so even if I have to write her in for the GE.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 14)

Well, nothing fans the flames more than condescension and people whining "racism" while simultaneously delegitimizing the complaints of Hillary's supporters as faux outrage.

People, especially in Pennsylvania, were very furious and appalled at Obama's obvious insult to the state.  Having oblivious people saying "Pennsylvanians are just faking it" or "oh he didn't mean it that way; he meant to say something nice!" doesn't help.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:44:13 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

I grew up in Pennsylvania, though I don't live there now. I was born there, I went to college there and I lived there until I went to Honduras for 2 years when I was 26. My father's family has lived in Pennsylvania since the days of William Penn.
It didn't offend me. I understood what he meant, and I think it's true.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 4)

Well except for the gun part - in Greensboro, where I was born, everyone's got a fucking gun - the rich people in gated communities, the middle class who just like to shoot at targets, everyone.  It's not really a function of economics.

I wasn't offended though, although I wasn't entirely sure what he meant, unless he was just referring to wedge issues.  I think Pennsylvanians polled said they weren't either - there certainly wasn't any evidence of it.


by Mostly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

PA was probably more annoyed than offended (2.00 / 6)

Obama's comments were more dumb than offensive.  People don't cling to religion or guns because they are bitter about politics or economics.  Anyway, no politician should be making sociological speculations about why certain groups of people don't vote his/her way.  There is really nothing positive to be gained from such an exercise and, as we have seen, the candidate just comes off looking silly and elitist afterwards.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Political, not sociological (2.00 / 2)

Obama was making a point that politically people cling to issues of gun rights' and hardline religious positions, b/c they do not expect the government to help them economically after generations of no help coming.  He was not saying that a person is only interested in one or the other due to economic conditions.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Good for you.  I suppose it's commendable to be able to take an unambiguous insult in stride and instead look for some kinder meaning behind the actual words.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

There are some people from PA who support MOVEON. Arent they legitimate voters too when Hillary insulted them?


by Pravin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Sure.  If they were offended, they have every right to be.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 5)

Edwards was my man too. I thought Obama was too centrist. Not as centrist as Clinton but too centrist for me. He seems to actually be just more pragmatic than centrist though. He worked his ass off through life and in this race and that's why he is where he is.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 6)

No doubt.
I was thinking it might even get me banned, but I felt like I had to say something.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 2)

It might but good for you for saying it.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More spin... (1.00 / 5)

...


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More spin... (none / 0)

hahahahah


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More spin... (none / 0)

Your sig is very interesting.  It used to be 15% that Obama was going to leave in the cold (cited from a study done on the effectiveness of mandates prior to the publication of Obama's healthcare plan).  Now, it's 20% (btw, I've heard you say Goolsbee said that figure...where?).  By the end on this campaign it's going to be 50%.  It seems like this is another example of moving goalposts.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (1.55 / 9)

Actually, he hasn't worked his ass off. His went to elite private schools as a child, and then being the son of a Harvard graduate, elected to attend Harvard Law School. He did well there. He graduated and did a fat lot of nothing for several years after that. He went to work at a civil rights law firm, and never stood out there. Didn't lead on any cases. Didn't win any precedent setting cases. He assisted here and there. Then he got into the Illinois senate - which was meeting 55 days out of the year - and did nothing whatsoever for the fist five years. Despite his claims of post-partisan genius, he couldn't pass a single bill when the Republicans controlled the state. Then Dems took over and Emil Jones gifted him with legislation. Nobody can point to a single bill that he had created in years past and carried through until it was signed into law. There are bills other people had worked on in the past, and done the heavy lifting on but none that Obama worked on year after year. Then he got to the US senate where he has underperformed one Hillary Clinton.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ substance_abuse.html

In Clinton's 7 years in the Senate, she has had 19 bills that she was the sole sponsor on signed into law. In Obama's 3 years, he has had 2. It's just not impressive.

Now, we hear he's "bored" on the campaign trail with  the primary and wants to move on to the general. Uh huh, He's getting testy and snapping at people. Refusing to hold press appearances for several days at a time. It's a hard job and he wants it to be easy.

One thing Obama doesn't do is work his ass off.


by Little Otter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 9)

There are about 10 lies in your comment, but what strikes me as most offensive is that you think that Obama's campaign hasn't worked harder than Hillary's for this nomination.

It was handed to her on a platter, and she botched it through absurd incompetence.


by Democratic Unity on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

Truth hurts, eh? go ahead - point to something i said that was factually inaccurate and prove it. You won't be able to.

I've done my research. You haven't. I know more about Obama and what he has and hasn't done than you. That's why I'm not supporting him and you are.


by Little Otter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually (2.00 / 2)

you haven't done your research very well or you'd know that much of what you wrote above is wrong.  I won't address all the errors in your recitation of his educational background.  But let's take a look at legislative records and financial management skills.

Let's start with Sen. Clinton's.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

  1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

  2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

  3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

  4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

  5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

  6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.

  7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

  8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

  9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.

  10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

  11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

  12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.

  13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

  14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.

  15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

 
Only five of Clinton’s bills are more substantive.

  1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

  2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

  3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

  4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

  5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

 
There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.

 
How does that compare to Obama's legislative record at both the state and federal levels?  Not very well for Hillary.

Here's Obama's bills and amendments which passed, courtesy of Hilzoy:

109th Congress, Obama:

S.2125 : A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 12/16/2005) Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-456

S.3757 : A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building". Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/27/2006) Note: For further action, see H.R.5929, which became Public Law 109-333 on 10/12/2006.

110th Congress, Obama: (8 amendments)

S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 41 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/21/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 524 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 599 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/23/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 905 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 923 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/24/2007) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 4/25/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 924 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/26/2007) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 7/26/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2519 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (8) Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

109th Congress, Obama: (15 amendments)

S.AMDT.159 to S.CON.RES.18 To prevent and, if necessary, respond to an international outbreak of the avian flu. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/15/2005) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 3/17/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 159 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.390 to H.R.1268 To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/13/2005) Cosponsors (3) Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 390 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

S.AMDT.670 to H.R.3 To provide for Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) refueling capability at new and existing refueling station facilities to promote energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 5/11/2005) Cosponsors (9) Latest Major Action: 5/12/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 670 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.851 to H.R.6 To require the Secretary to establish a Joint Flexible Fuel/Hybrid Vehicle Commercialization Initiative, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/22/2005) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 6/23/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 851 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.1061 to H.R.2361 To provide that none of the funds made available in this Act may be used in contravention of 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) or to delay the implementation of that section. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/27/2005) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 6/28/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (Note: 15 U.S.C. section 2682(c)(3) deals with the certification and training of people who do lead paint removal, and requiring that properly trained and certified people do lead paint removal.)

S.AMDT.1453 to S.1042 To ensure the protection of military and civilian personnel in the Department of Defense from an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza pandemic. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/25/2005) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.3144 to S.CON.RES.83 To provide a $40 million increase in FY 2007 for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and to improve job services for hard-to-place veterans. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/16/2006) Cosponsors (2) Latest Major Action: 3/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3144 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.3810 to H.R.4939 To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for hurricane relief and recovery contracts exceeding $500,000 that are awarded using procedures other than competitive procedures. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 5/1/2006) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 5/2/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3810 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 0. Record Vote Number: 106.

S.AMDT.3971 to S.2611 To amend the temporary worker program. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 5/15/2006) Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 5/17/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3971 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

S.AMDT.4224 to S.2766 To include assessments of Traumatic Brain Injury in the post-deployment health assessments of member of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/14/2006) Cosponsors (6) Latest Major Action: 6/22/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4224 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4254 to S.2766 To require the use of competitive procedures for Federal contracts worth over $500,000 related to hurricane recovery, subject to existing limited national security, public interest, and other exceptions. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/15/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 6/16/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4254 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4545 to S.2125 To make certain improvements to the bill. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 6/29/2006) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 6/29/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4545 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent. (Makes modifications to his bill on the Congo.)

S.AMDT.4573 to H.R.5441 To assist individuals displaced by a major disaster in locating family members. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/11/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 7/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4573 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4624 to H.R.5441 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenses in carrying out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act may be used to enter into noncompetitive contracts based upon the unusual and compelling urgency exception under Federal contracting law unless the contract is limited in time, scope, and value as necessary to respond to the immediate emergency. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/12/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 7/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4624 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

S.AMDT.4972 to H.R.4954 To ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 9/13/2006) Cosponsors (1) Latest Major Action: 9/13/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4972 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

 
Then there's this from the NY Times:

click on the image to see a larger readable version

obamaLegislativeRecord

 

Obama is way ahead of Hillary in substantive legislative experience.

Hilzoy has more substance to add about Obama's legislative record here  

and here:

I came to Obama by an unusual route: as I explained here, I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things. There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles. There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked. Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation. And there he was again, introducing a tech plan of which Lawrence Lessig wrote:

   "Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

   But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

   After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give."

Imagine my surprise, then, when I heard people saying that Obama wasn't "substantive". It was exactly like my experience in 2004 when, after hearing Wes Clark for the first time, I went and looked up his positions on a whole host of issues of concern to me, and only then started reading media accounts of him in which I "learned" that no one knew what his positions were.

As some of my students would say: I was like, wtf?

And we haven't even discussed Hillary's mismanagement of her campaign though there is precedent which indicates that she has management issues which directly bear on her capacity as head of the executive branch.

How do she manage to spend $30 million on a Senate re-election campaign (the most expensive in history) in which she had NO significant opposition?

Ask Hillary about this.

21donate_graphic


by vbdietz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

you still passing this cheap crud off as proof?

factcheck puts your post to shame and rightfully calls it SUBSTANCE abuse

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ substance_abuse.html

Since the value of a piece of legislation is so often a matter of opinion, that's a blogspat we won't get into. We can say for sure, though, that Clinton has been the sole original sponsor of more bills than Obama at a slightly higher annual rate; that she's been more successful than Obama at passing bills through the Senate and into law; and that, while she has sponsored a number of seemingly frivolous bills that were signed into law, these are comparable to many of Obama's bills and common in the Senate generally.


by colebiancardi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually (none / 0)

Thanks for the link to fact-check.  That's the first time I've seen that email and I was unaware of its existence.  However, you should note that I did not use the portion of that email which lists Obama's legislative achievements. I used only the portion which lists Hillary's bills which though summarized, does not appear to be inaccurate.

For Obama's legislative record, I referred to Hilzoy's list which was extracted directly from the Thomas register and the list from the New York Times research dept with reference to his state legislative achievements.  I consider them both to be reliable sources.


by vbdietz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 6)

Wait, so you're saying that if you get into Ivy League schools, you're really lazy? or don't have to work to graduate?  He didn't have to work to get into the Illinois senate?  and you're saying he didn't show up for his first five years?

The falsehoods you're spewing speak for themselves.


by shalca on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

Well in his (her) defense, I went to an Ivy League school and I was (and still am) astoundingly lazy. Took me 6 years and 2 times being sent home for a semester to get through school since I liked beer and sleep better than studying--at least until I got myself together when I was a 4th year junior...
Also George Bush went to Yale, and I believe he might be even lazier than I am, if that can be believed...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

Yet you can't point to a single falsehood. The truth of the matter is that Obama, other than his oratory skills, isn't impressive. The most impressive thing he's done is making editor for the Harvard Law Review. He has no accomplishments in his own name and as a result of his own efforts that help other people.

But since you say I'm "lying", go ahead, prove me wrong on something.


by Little Otter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

You do realize that "impressive" is a subjective term and therefore open to opinion, right?  Thus, the only way to make an assesment of impressive is by considering what a reasonable person would consider impressive.  You may not consider an Ivy league education, a successful political career, and an ethics reform platform impressive for a junior senator.  You may not consider an exceptional ability to convey thoughts in a positive and rousing manner impressive.  You may not consider the ability to lead, which is mostly the ability to inspire others to do, impressive.  Reasonable people do.


by shalca on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sad. nt (2.00 / 1)

 


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 2)

What I want to know is when did doing well in school or in life become a negative? How is it that someone who managed to get into good schools and did well there is a failure for having done so? How is it that building a successful life has become the hallmlark of elitist depravity?

I just don't get it. We spend so much time and effort telling our kids that they need to do well in school and do well in life. Then, when we have a perfectly good example of someone who has done so, we say "Oh, he's a snobby POS who had it all and never worked for any of it"

It's sick how envious some of you people are. Disgusting


by liquidbread11 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:45:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (2.00 / 4)

I like how there were 2 diaries yesterday villifying Obama for being the Director for an organization that promoted education reform in Chicago Public Schools.

And how he's evil/corrupt for trying to secure funding for low-income senior housing in his district.


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

Yeah, I know. I just don't understand why anyone would ever characterize success as failure? It just smacks of sour grapes and envy.

There are many, many instances of kids who started out life with a silver spoon and squandered it for frivolous reasons (Paris Hilton?) There are many stories of kids who had virtually nothing and had to bust their humps to achieve 'success' (Chris Gardner?)

Which do we praise? Which do we villify? Where is the lesson we teach our children in this?

It truly is disgusting that a man or a woman's success can be considered a liability somehow. Perhaps I am not mentally limber enough to understand that particular contortion.


by liquidbread11 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

What are you fantasizing about here? I pointed out that he since he graduated from college, he hasn't done much of anything? Are you so locked into victim mode that you can't even read what's being said?


by Little Otter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hear Hear but this won't go well. (none / 0)

Yes, you did say that, and I am pointing out, again, that by doing so you are effectively making the claim that his efforts post-college are unworthy of mention. Everything he has done since college is not noteworthy even though he managed to achieve the kind of success we advertise to our kids.

And again, it smacks of envy and it's disgusting. Both he and Hillary have worked hard to achieve their successes. We teach our kids to work hard to be successful.

Makes you look pathetic really. Kind of like the kid who is angry because he just isn't good enough to make the team.

/chuckle


by liquidbread11 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Same here (2.00 / 1)

Early on, it was Edwards taking the lead and risking unpopular positions while both BHO and HRC seemed to be taking the safe road.  With JRE's departure, however, BHO seemed to take larger risks without waiting for focus group opinions, more so than Hillary.  May be true, maybe not; but that was my perception.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 6)

It always goes both ways.

Some here cannot understand that white people are also entitled to be offended.

Insensitivity goes both ways.

Liberal whites are the worse.

Because they have chosen to look the other way when someone speaks ill of whites, that does not mean that 90% of white people should follow your lead.

There seems to be lots of "guilt" all bottled up with many liberals when it comes to race.

They feel responsible for all the sins of  white ancestors. They now make up for it due to some tremendous guilt.


by libdemusa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 6)

Uh. Past? It's not like systemic racism has ended...


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Systemic racism? (2.00 / 1)

One could make a credible argument that affirmative action is the most visible remaining example of systemic racism.  I don't oppose all affirmative action. Not at all. But, I would argue that it is a form of institutional racism that can be defended as acceptable.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Systemic racism? (2.00 / 13)

Affirmative action is not an EXAMPLE of systemic racism.  It is a RESPONSE to systemic racism.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Systemic racism? (none / 0)

Why would anybody give that a 1?


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was sick of the same old bullshit, I suppose (none / 0)

But, I agree, that the remark should have just been ignored if he agree with it.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Systemic racism? (none / 0)

NeglectedDuty has given me a couple of troll ratings this morning.  Must be something personal.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (1.00 / 2)

So if someone punches me in the mouth and I hit him over the head with a wooden plank afterward, his attack is violence but mine is not.  And, if I continue getting even for the next 10 years, that isn't violence, either.

Look, they are both violence although you could make an argument that the response is understandable or justified.  


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I see (none / 0)

That's not the argument I'm making.  I'm not making any argument advocating or apologizing for violence of any sort.  I just said that affirmative action is a response to systemic racism.  Where in my post do I argue that a violent response to racism is acceptable?

All of my posts on this subject have been the same.  I believe Barack Obama did the right think in speaking out to ratchet down any possibility of violence.  I don't see how my posts keep getting misinterpreted like this.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're apparently analogy challenged (none / 0)

Or excessively literal.

The point was calling one action one term but refusing to call an identical action the same term is self-serving inconsistency.  Call it what it is and then argue why it should be justifiable or acceptable.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're apparently analogy challenged (none / 0)

You obviously have your agenda. I call it symbolic prejudice, but you can call it fair dealing if you want.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Systemic racism? (2.00 / 6)

One could make that argument but they would sound stupid. AA is a response to the systemic racism that denies certain groups equal opportunity. It's an imperfect attempt at leveling the playing field.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 9)

Labeling it as "guilt" when people try and do what's right is an old tactic used to try and shame people into being bigoted. What, exactly, do you propose as an alternative?


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 8)

Remind me when Senator Obama insulted "whites?"  At worst, he insulted socially conservative rural voters.  Turns out, that's not race-specific.  And other than that comment, which was blown way out of proportion, what has Senator Obama himself ever said that was derogatory towards -- again, using your words -- "whites."    

Also, some of us terrible "liberals" aren't guilty about anything, and certainly not about things that happened hundreds of years ago.  We just realize that racism is alive and well right now and that steps still need to be taken to address that.  I find it amusing that such a concept is controversial on a progressive site like MYDD.    


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

baloney (1.62 / 8)

he was asked why democrats in PA were not supporting him.  He said they were not the right sort of democrats because they could not hear his messasge as they were gun toting bigots clinging to religion.

The fact is that lots of us just aren't that in to him.  Lots of us think Hillary is a great candidate who will be a great president.  That's the way it is.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: baloney (2.00 / 10)

Here's the full quote.  Please explain to me where he said anything even vaguely close to your characterization.  

"In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism," Obama said to laughter.

"So the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? ... we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- to close tax loopholes ... roll back the tax cuts for the top on perent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we're gonna provide healthcare for every American.

"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob ama/891685,CST-NWS-obama12.article

Read is full, this is an inartful recitation of talking points that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have made in the past.  So lets try to keep the feigned outrage and hyperbole to a minimum.  


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you didn't get it.. (2.00 / 3)

The point he was making is that it has nothing to do with Obama or racism, and everything to do with Hillary.

She's just better...


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you didn't get it.. (2.00 / 2)

That was her second paragraph, not her first.  Her first was an obvious mischaracterization of what was actually said.


by shalca on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Double baloney (2.00 / 5)

Thanks for posting the comments that morphed from small town voters to white voters in a matter of hours, it seems.  It is truly shameful that presumably Democrats of 2008 have seen racial division as their best hope for the success of their candidate.  I'd like to think that our ability to resist such appeals is what makes us different from the Republicans.  Some lead me to believe that I am wrong in that belief.


by niksder on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you are BSing again (2.00 / 3)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: baloney (2.00 / 4)

And here we have exhibit A of the problem.


by interestedbystander on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: baloney (2.00 / 2)

He said they were not the right sort of democrats because they could not hear his message as they were gun toting bigots clinging to religion.
That's just a flat out, deliberate lie.  What's worse, with all of the media coverage and resources available, you know damned well it's a lie; but you have so little regard for the truth that you said it anyway.  Are you just trying to make HRC supporters look bad?


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: baloney (2.00 / 1)

This is actually pretty tame in comparison to Theresa's past comments.


unapologetic Obama supporter
by dantes on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: baloney (2.00 / 1)

Yeah; but I actually had time to type something this time.  (And don't get me started on her TR abuse.)


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not race specific? (none / 0)

Have you ever been to rural PA?  It's as white as a carton of eggs.

I suppose if some politician made generalizations about those people in East St. Louis, those remarks wouldn't be race specific either?


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not necessarily... (none / 0)

its not all about Obama...


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not race specific? (2.00 / 1)

I actually live in Central PA right now.  It's overwhelmingly white, but not 100% so.  And he wasn't just talking about PA.  Look at the quote.  He was talking about small towns in places like PA.  


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not race specific? (2.00 / 1)

Where?
My father grew up in Hummelstown.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not race specific? (2.00 / 0)

I've spent time in a few places, but the greater Altoona area most recently.  It was funny to see Obama bowling and eating at Texas Hot Dogs when he was out that way.


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not race specific? (2.00 / 3)

He mentioned small towns there and all around the country.  As a general rule, allow the insult to be leveled before becoming insulted.  Otherwise, it looks as if you're wishing/praying/hoping for the insult for political advantage, and you wouldn't want to do that would you?


by niksder on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not insulted at all (2.00 / 1)

Just pointing out that a black politician saying something about people in a lilly white place could be construed as having racial implications as easily as a white politician saying things about people in in an overwhelmingly black locality.

The left wing will invariably jump on the latter as an example of racist coding while they will dismiss even the possibility of that being the case in the former.

Spending time on these blogs has caused me to despise the left as much as the right.  When I was in more politically diverse blogs (right, left, in between) I always dismissed charges against the left.  Now I understand that many of the claims of the right wingers were true.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not insulted at all (2.00 / 1)

I feel the same way.  I described myself as very liberal before this primary.  I was proud to be identified as such.  Now I find myself completely turned off by the way people on the far left (moveon, Kos, etc. crowd) behave.  They behave in ways that mirror the behavior they claim to disdain on the right - and are too blind to see this.  I'm starting to see very little difference between the two.  This primary has pushed me toward the center.  I have stopped sending money to several liberal organizations.  I've solidified my contributions to key organizations that show maturity and dignity, while advancing true progressive politics.


by Larissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amen, sister! (none / 0)

What we need is a radical centrist party!


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not race specific? (2.00 / 3)

You know, not all eggs are white.
Just saying...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.25 / 4)

didn't he slander his grandmother - contradicting his own memoirs! - as a 'typical white woman'. that would mean that 'typical white' people are racist. Hmm, sounds pretty borderline at best of pushing race front and center and not in a constructive manner.


by swissffun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

hmmm so HOW exactly is this TR worthy? didn't his memoir refer to the example he raised in his 'unifying' speech in quite different terms? his memoir mentions that his granma was NOT concerned that the said man on the street was black - THAT was a projection from his granddad - but that she was afraid because he was threatening to her. Yet in his speech he just slammed her as a latent racist, rather than supporting her apparently justified fear of being attacked. And this was all about driving her instead of making her (WHO WAS THE BREADWINNER) take the bus. Real class regarding taking a woman's concerns to heart. Label her a 'typical white woman' racist. tja.


by swissffun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.66 / 3)

b/c it was a ridiculously stupid comment.  I do not TR ridiculously stupid comments (although I do expect to be TRed for this comment), but I thought about it.  He didn't throw his grandmother under the bus.  He didn't slander her.  He described a fact.  His mother came a predominantly white community in Kansas.  Coming from that environment in the early 1900's she probably developed prejudices that were common in the early 1900's.  To think that he was trying to slander his grandmother is ridiculous.  The entire point of his statement is that even if people do things that disappoint you, you still love them.  Furthermore, he was not saying that the attitude that she expressed which disappointed him was typical, but she was typical.  It is this kind of silliness that is beyond the pale.  Have YOU never been disappointed in someone you love?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

there you go. he DID change his story on the incident, and explicitly using his grandma as an example of a 'typical racist white woman.

the story changed from one of reasonable angst from assault to one of racism. really questionable morals on his part. which story was correct?


by swissffun on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kudos to you (2.00 / 5)

I applaud your passionate defense of downtrodden white people. Woe is them! Woe is them!


by Democratic Unity on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kudos to you (2.00 / 3)

I know what you mean. I'm a white guy and I just can't catch a break. I mean other than everything good that's ever happened to me--which has been pretty much my whole life--my life has been one long living hell, all because of that damned affirmative action.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, you have it all wrong (none / 0)

Nobody is suggesting that white people should feel victimized.  We're suggesting that the victimization card is used too often as an excuse or rationalization even when it is not warranted.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get this (2.00 / 6)

There seems to be lots of "guilt" all bottled up with many liberals when it comes to race.

They feel responsible for all the sins of  white ancestors. They now make up for it due to some tremendous guilt.

I have an ultra right-wing shithead acquaintance that spouts that at me occasionally; and I really don't get that.  Is this some sort of pop psychology assessment of us white liberals?  'Cause I don't get it.

I was raised in a segregated time and under conditions that caused me to believe that blacks were inferior to whites.  I grew up, matured, and got a wider view of the world and society.  I've long realized the error of my youth; but "guilt"? No; ain't there.  Nor does guilt motivate my positions or advocacy for civil rights.  My motivation is in combating stupidity, because that's what racism is at its core.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

Thank you for your well reasoned post. I would just note that the opinions of a few should not be used to characterized the whole, nor should it be assumed that such feelings begin and end at this site. This is a struggle, a battle, which needs to constantly be fought at every corner.

Bigotry comes naturally to people, it is just how our minds are built. It provides an easy answer to very complicated problems, and so many people settle on it without even realizing. It is because of this that we must maintain our vigilance and battle bigotry, hatred, and resentment at every corner


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:53:30 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 6)

the problem is, ITS not being fought.

we express outrage at what Wright said, but I have seen very little in the Media or anywhere examine what he said, first he says Goddamn America and its taken as a attack on Whites, there are about 10 different things wrong there, why do Whites get to automatically assume THEY are America?

those who control the government and media, do not care about healing wounds, hell the GOP need them to get elected.

I think the next change in race relations in this country will be when the Boomer generation passes away. each generation is better with race, my generation doesn't even think twice of interracial couples, its becoming the norm. the generation after mine will be even better with race then mine is.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

Very true. And that, more than anything else, is why I call myself a Democrat.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who said this? (2.00 / 1)

first he says Goddamn America and its taken as a attack on Whites

That's the first I've heard of that.  Do you have a link?

Plenty of other things that he said have been taken as an attack on whites, and rightly so.  I don't see how that is, though, and I haven't heard anyone say so.

By the way, the Boomer Generation won't "pass away" for another 65 years or so, so don't hold your breath.  They'll lose political power before then, of course, but this is not a good time to be insulting them politically.  Their period of greatest power is only beginning to arrive and it will not go away slowly when it does.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe you're right, maybe not (none / 0)

So your generation is more tolerant of interracial coupling?  Unless you are all planning on breeding out the races, I don't see that phenomena as a solution to other underlying problems.

African Americans in your generation have not experienced the racial oppression of old and have little to complain about other than things which are not race specific (like poverty or undereducation) yet many of you hold on to your hostilities and victim entitlement like they were medals earned in battle.

Give those up and we might find some common ground.


by lombard on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can see you are fighting racism by your .sig- (none / 0)

not...

>Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a day. Light a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

What is that supposed to mean? Its not funny.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (2.00 / 3)

I think it's pretty funny.
Has nothing to do with racism, either for or against, but what the hell does that mean? My signature has nothing to do with fighting racism either, but I still care about it. There are a lot of things I care about that aren't in my signature: my wife, my daughter, my dogs, Tela, Honduras; I still care about them.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's gotten to be very ugly. (2.00 / 14)

The affirmative action diary was an absolute disgrace. We've seen comments dwelling at length on black crime rates, others demanding that blacks simply acquiesce to a Clinton nomination because they just don't understand politics well enough to vote their best interests, and the idea that blacks are voting for him out of simple racial sympathy is so well-established as to be routine, even if polls don't bear it out.

That said, I honestly think that the people making these points aren't Democrats. They're rightwing trolls trying to sow division.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:21 AM EST

Re: It's gotten to be very ugly. (2.00 / 3)

I'd really like to think that, but sometimes it seems too pervasive for it to be just a few assholes trying to stir things up. It's hazy and hard to pin down, but it's theree all the same.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's gotten to be very ugly. (none / 0)

I'll throw in there a few others:

1. the idea that white liberals only support him out of white guilt
2. the Archie Bunker-line notion that Obama should be happy to get the VP nod.


by Brannon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

You sound very bitter.
A "well off" white guy with a Masters Degree, that evidently doesn't know his history very well (check Jesse Jackson's run for president in 1988- he was a very viable candidate for some time), who thinks anyone who doesn't support Obama is some sort of latent racist. Where have I heard that before?
And I don't think Obama has gotten where he is because he's lucky to be black, he has been supported by the Chicago and national Democratic political machine since he got into office in Illinois.
If you want to see how a Obama presidency will work out, one only has to look at Bill Clinton's 8 year term. I haven't heard too many Obama supporters thrilled with that, though they like to ignore the fact that many of Obama's foreign advisors used to work in the Clinton administration, and many of his economic advisors support free trade and are against universal health care.
That's why I'm supporting as many real progressives in down ticket races as I can possibly afford. We're going to need a very strong presence in Congress to fight for real progressive issues.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

I majored in American History as it turns out in college. True, the U. of Pennsylvania is a 17th rate school, but I still felt lucky to go there.
And Jesse Jackson was not going to win the nomination either in 1984 or in 1988. He won a lot of primaries, it is true, but there's no way he could have won the nomination. I think he knew that himself, though no doubt he must have felt like he might have a shot at times.
I don't think he was even really running to win the presidency. I think he was running because nobody else who would run would say the things he thought America needed to hear.
And yes, I am bitter. This is my country, and when I hear or read Americans saying or writing hateful, bigoted things, I get upset. We can be so much better.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.25 / 8)

I call BS.

You don't get upset when Obama wrote racist things in his book

"You don't get upset when Obama's pastor ends up being a blame white guys for our problems type.

You don't get upset when Michelle Obama says Ameica's soul is broken and only Obama can fix it.

You don't get upset when Obama equates the racist talk of Wright to his white grandmother and a few days later equates his white grandmother to "typical white people".

You don't get upset when a candidate with the least experience in 100 years of serious candidates gets a MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE honeymoon in the press with CNN's 360 anchor displaying hostility at people for discussing the wright issue and MSNBC is largely a political support for Obama network.

You only get upset when it suits your political outlook.


by DTaylor on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many of us have had racist grandparents.. (2.00 / 4)

Maybe they really were racists..

I would not be surprised if that was true.. But lets focus on the other Obama issues.. and Hillary issues too for that matter.

This stuff is a DIVERSION a desperate diversion by Obama folk to prevent the REAL ISSUES from getting discussed. Those are issues that effect EVERYBODY, nomatter what color or religion they are.

So, lets not give the extremists of any flavor the satisfaction.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

"You don't get upset when Obama wrote racist things in his book"

WTF are you talking about now?


by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

Your faux outrage sucks.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Craptacular comment. (2.00 / 1)

Please learn to punctuate and spot your own glaring logical fallacies.  It wouldn't hurt to look up "racism" in the dictionary either.

Thanks.


by corph on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 9)

A clarification: Obama didn't have the Chicago machine behind him--it actively fought him. The Daley machine was supporting Dan Haynes in the primary, the city comptroller. (There were also earlier rumors that Daley supported archenemy Bobby Rush in Obama's first run for the House, since he saw Obama as the one potential long-term threat to his mayorship...) I volunteered a lot for Obama in the primary, and he wasn't supposed to have a chance--no money (with a self-funded gazillionaire running), no exposure, the city fully behind another candidate. Heck, Rush supporters still irate at Obama for daring to run against him put up a "spoiler" black candidate to split the south side black vote. In other words, he very much didn't get to where he is with the support you attribute to him.

The national party along with everyone else didn't notice him until his surprising success in the primary, and then (obviously) the convention speech.

Since becoming senator, yes, the party, the state, and the city have supported him. But the power of Illinois and Chicago in a national primary is tiny, and the national party is obviously split between the candidates.

I also don't think the original poster was saying, or even implying, that anyone who doesn't support Obama is a latent racist. He was objecting to the more overt comments and diaries that surface here.


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Since becoming senator, yes, the party, the state, and the city have supported him.

Which is why I said "since he's been in office."

I also don't think the original poster was saying, or even implying, that anyone who doesn't support Obama is a latent racist.

Well, not anyone, just the Clinton supporters on this site:

But there are a few who seem to take Obama as an "uppity Negro", or at least that's how it comes across to me. I don't know how else to read it other than that they think that Obama's just a presumtuous and ungrateful black guy who wasn't content to stay in his place, and instead had the effrontery not just to run for president and have a shot at winning.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

You'll notice that I did say "a few". You even quoted me, so I assume you saw it.
That's not the same as "Clinton supporters."
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 10)

Well perhaps if the screams of racism when Bill Clinton dared say that Senator Obama's narrative about his stance on a Iraq were not so nasty and phony; if the incessant phony implication that Hillary Clinton, a woman whose stance, actions and beliefs about civil rights, documented for decades, was a racist was as decried, I would have some interest in understanding your point.

Perhaps if the left Obamasphere was not so willing to defend the sexism of Matthews, Shuster, and Rhodes etc I would understand your point.

But the fact is this: there has been a lot of sexism and ageism from the left toward Senator Clinton and it has been dismissed, mocked and ignored.  
I KNOW there are racists here, there and everywhere. I KNOW there are sexists, here, there and everywhere.  
I ALSO know that the Clintons, as flawed as the are, are not, never have been racists.

So you can come here and yell, and indict this blog.  Did you do the same to dkos?  
There are jerks on all the blogs.  To come here and define Clinton supporters as racists is sadly, no surprise.  But hey, the game is on. YOU blame the Clintons, their supporters and the bloggers here.  Do you feel better?

Do you even begin to see how your sarcastic "had the gall to beat Hillary Clinton, who thinks she deserved it" is playing the same "uppity" meme as you are condemning.

Everytime I hear Obama fans calling Hillary the "queen", it feels to me the same as you feel when others imply Obama is uppity.
As a white male you "feel" the plight of blacks.... do you also feel that toward women.  Women, fyi, got the vote 50 years after African American men.  Statistic wise the highest pay on average goes to white males, followed by minority males, THEN followed by women.

So is there bigotry in America? on the blogs? in politics? DAMN straight there is.  Do YOU get to lecture me?  No thanks.  As a woman Hillary's age, I KNOW that African Americans and women have been struggling for a long time. I KNOW that it is not fair and affirmative action was and is important to level the playing field.

But as long as people like you insist on seeing Hillary Clinton as being "uppity" for daring to have confidence in her goals, for daring to believe in herself and to show those qualities, you will get no understanding from me.


by Jjc2008 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 8)

Calling out racism and sexism are not mutually exclusive propositions.  And although i am hardly a fan of Senator Clinton, she has -- without question -- been forced to deal with a sexist media throughout her time on the national stage.  

As far as the Clintons and race go, I would simply note that there is a difference between making racially insensitive comments and "being a racist."  Neither Bill nor Hillary are racists.  Bill, at the very least, has said racially insensitive things during this election cycle.  That doesn't make him a horrible person, but it does mean that he's a human being who -- just like the rest of us -- isn't immune from prejudice.  

Personally, I find the culture war that Senator Clinton is running against Obama far more offensive than any racially-tinged comments that anyone associated with her campaign have made.  That's the same playbook the GOP used against Bill in '92, and against Gore and Kerry, and she's embraced it.  That's pretty ugly, IMHO.


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

And frankly I found the people who were insulted that Bill Clinton, in answering a question of a reporter, compared Senator Obama to Jesse Jackson to be ignorant and probably more racist than the people they condemned.  
First and foremost, for a lot of us who admired, supported and worked for Jesse Jackson, calling it an insult to be compared to him, came off at best as elitist and at worst as bigoted.
The defense that "but why compare him to another black man who happened to run for president," I asked and continue to ask this.  Do you believe for one minute that when the next woman is running for office she won't be compared to Hillary Clinton because they are both woman?  And why would that be wrong?  
Clinton was compared to Carter.  WHY?  Because they were both southern white males?  
Denying race and gender as being issues is as bigoted as it gets.  They ARE factors for both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton because for 200+ years race and gender kept people out of office.  NOW, for the first time, they are not only negatives with which to deal, they are positives also.  
There were always be forms of bigotry with which to contend.   But to imply the Clintons are any different than any of us, including Senator Obama, in that all humans have prejudices, is just plain unfair.  
I am sure in their private lives, all three have said  racial or gender insensitive things....not out of ill will but because they are humans.  
But none of them worked to keep racial or gender steretypes a part of unfair legislation and all of them have worked toward civil rights legislation to improve the lives of minorities/women.  So when Obama supporters start calling or implying racism toward the Clintons, it makes me ill. It is a lie and it is wrong.
by Jjc2008 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

You said:  "But to imply the Clintons are any different than any of us, including Senator Obama, in that all humans have prejudices, is just plain unfair."

I agree with you, which is why I said that I found Bill's comments -- including the one you cited -- to be racially insensitive, not proof that he was a racist.  Again, no one is their worst moment and we all are prejudiced to one degree or another.    

As far as the SC comments specifically, I'm not going to tell you your take on Bill's comments on SC is wrong -- you're entitled to your opinion -- but I had a very very different reaction when i saw that on TV, as did a whole lot of my friends.  Many of whom were Clinton supporters at the time.  In my opinion, his comments -- at best -- came accross as dismissive without having racial overtones.  Given your previous admission that no one is without prejudice, I find it curious that you think the reaction of me and many of my friends to Bill's comments is not only wrong, but somehow reveals our own racism.    


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:11:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

You missed the point.  It reveals your bigotry that you see/hear racism regardless of history.  If Bill's words were spoken by someone who had a history of blocking civil rights legislation; of talking down to  and about minorities; who had a well know disrespect for Jesse Jackson, your reaction would have had credence.  The fact that both Bill and Hillary had a lifetime a provable record of working for the cause of civil rights legislation, of working for poor people to improve things should have entered into your assessment.
The fact that Bill Clinton, all his life, from his childhood was comfortable with, accepted in the minority community, should have entered into your reaction.

The fact is that many of you have been and remain hell bent on seeing the Clintons as racists; and you refuse to acknowledge that it is an ugly lie promoted by the likes of Axlerod.  

I do not care who you support; however, to keep pushing the meme of "the Clintons and their supporters are racists" speaks volumes about you.
And it's not pretty.


by Jjc2008 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

So at this point, I can only assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.  Again -- for the third time -- I do not think that Bill Clinton is a racist.  I do think his comments were racially insensitive.  There's a difference, and I think it's hysterical that you are choosing not to understand that.  And, by the way, that difference takes into account Bill's history and past good deeds.  If a republican who was hostile to minorities had made the same remarks, at the same time, and with the same tone, I would consider them a racist.  I'm already giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.

But whatever, feel free to consider the Clintons perfect and 100% free of any bias or prejudice.  Apparently they're the only 60 year old couple in america that has never had a  biased thought in there entire lives.  


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Nice post Jjc2008. A lot of us immigrants watch in wonder as people hurl racism charges at each other. A lot of stuff like "uppity" never would occur to us. What about others like me with a foreign background who are voters, or is everyone on these blogs born in America with a family that goes back to the civil ware?


by ellend818 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Ooops - Civil WAR - Freudian slip?


by ellend818 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

1st generation American here


by DTaylor on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hear fucking HEAR! (none / 0)

And THANK YOU. My sentiments exactly. I am sick to death with out of touch liberal males and their boyz-club girlfriends who think everything they read on a blog or see on a cable news show reinforces their preconceived notions of how America actually works. It is absolutely clear to me now that men will never understand what women deal with until they are forced to deal with it themselves. They have absolutely no idea. It is my fondest with at they find out--and soon.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 9)

Some of these people have GOT to be freepers. Surely the person who wrote that racist tirade about Obama and affirmative action isn't really a Democrat. I read that, and it was awful.


I'm only here to look for engels. Screw the rest of this big blue craphole.
by sricki on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST

Being against racism means BEING COLOR BLIND... (none / 0)

it means evaluating each person based on their merits and how you feel they can stand up for all of us.

This isn't some kind of high school popularity contest.. its arguably one of the most important jobs in the world.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah... (2.00 / 6)

The expression "color blind" usually is code for opposition to affirmative action and a denial that racism still exists.  I'm not saying that's how you're using it, but that's how conservative legal commentators do.  


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)

That is how Republicans think.  It affects their whole worldview.


by Skaje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I can only hope so.  Same goes for some of the worst sexist anti-Clinton trolls here.

Unfortunately, I suspect a fair number of them (on both sides) are real Democrats who have just lost their bloody minds over this primary.


by Skaje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

I share your disgust with people who show bigotry on this site. I haven't seen any examples personally, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been any. I hope the author is OK with Clinton supporters (as well as Obama supporters) vociferously expressing their opinions in support of their candidate.

As one who supports Hillary, what I find distressing in some Obama supporters is the notion they express that the nomination might be taken away from him. No candidate has the nomination until he/she has the magic number of delegates at the convention.


by northstars on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST

exactly... (2.00 / 1)

so why can't we all sit tight and let the debate continue?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 8)

All good points, and people need to wake up to this. The MYDD echo chamber now has a large number of diaries based on right wing pundits, and while I'm sure neither Hillary nor Bill are racist, the campaign is not averse to slicing a bit of bigotry to raise its votes.

The thing which pisses me off most is the dual standards: somehow Obama will fail if he doesn't get the Appalachian white vote, and the African American, Young and professional liberal vote doesn't matter. Somehow it's OK to imply 'Americans aren't ready to elect a black president' - but to say that 'Americans aren't ready to elect a woman president' would (rightly) incur the charge of tacitly supporting bigotry.

Diary rec'd. If the democratic party is a big tent, people should know where certain basic tent poles are - and anti racism has to be one of the most important


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:52:51 AM EST

How do they do it? (none / 0)

I really wonder sometimes..


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny how the Faux News Conf. broke (none / 0)

And myDD immediately deleted the front page entry about the gas tax policy discussion, to replace it with a thread discussing the Faux news conference???


by Trey Rentz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 8)

One gets so fed up with this racism bs usually from Obama's supporters it has to be said. Whether we like it or not there is a considerable degree of racism in our society just like there is a considerable degree of simplistic nationalism, xenophobia, anti semitism, and lots of other things under rocks. Never in a million years in anyone ever going to convince me that Bill Clinton is a racist but it hasn't stopped a lot of Obama supporters screaming that epithet. I actually agree with a few thing old crazy man Wright said actually but it aint going to do Obama any good with a certain constituency. There's no doubt that in every primary that's been held so far black voters have essentially voted a racial preference. Now that's a sort of racism in reverse although when anyone mentions this ever so obvious fact Obama's supporters immediately accuse you of being a racist. What all this adds up to is Racism is a useful argument to tear down your opponent. If it will help you then it will be used as it has been repeatedly by Obama or more usually his surrogates as a means of consolidating the black and ultra liberal vote against Clinton. Now it shows signs of coming back to bite them they are crying. The trouble is racism as a political weapon is two edged sword and those that live by the sword have to be prepared to die by it.    


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

I don't know that blacks voting overwhelmigly for Obama shows "reverse racism". Hillary Clinton began this race as the overwhelming favorite. A lot of people believed that Obama would have a tough time winning the black voters from her, as he wasa relatively new and unproven, and she was the wife of Bill Clinton, whom I've often heard called "the First Black President."
As things have ground on, he hass won overwhelmingly among black voters, but he had to win them from Clinton first. And I don't know how many blacks are voting for Obama just because he's "one of them". Without a doubt some are. How may? None of us know that.
Hillary Clinton wins big among women. I don't think that's because they're "reverse sexists" or any crap like that.
And the insidious thing about this campaign against Obama is that it has been so subtle. Nobody's gone running around calling him an uppity--I won't write the rest of it but you know what it is. It's been so much sneakier. Harder to pick up on. Stuff that can be read more than one way. When a campaign lets something suspect like that slip out once, well, it might well be innocent. When it happens over and overe again, that's something else altogether, and I can't believe that Bill & Hillary Clinton don't know exactly what they're doing. I can't prove it, but I know it all the same.
So I don't think they're racists, but I do think one of their most dominant traits is ambtion, and in their ambition, I think they're cynically using race to help them. And I think it's loathesome in a country with a racial history like this one.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

What it show is tribalism, a term that some here don't like because they say it is a code word for racism. Which shows just how absurd this whole "RACE" thing has become. Given the black experience in America of slavery, jim crow and the widespread covert variety that still exists, I understand exactly why they are supporting their guy. It's just like the Irish supporting Michael Curley in Boston who was a total crook but he was their crook. I've no doubt folks can come up with more recent examples which I'll pass on in case I'm accused of being a member of the KKK. He didn't have to win them from Clinton first, he's never polled below about 65% of the black vote and its usually been in the 80-90% range. And it's fine by me because it's real life which you seem to be in denial about. But it's also equally true that his campaign people have reinforced this natural advantage by playing up his ethnicity and essentially smearing Bill and Hillary. I've heard it here so don't tell me I'm imagining things. Now this tactic is proving somewhat dangerous because we have this loose cannon Wright, at least 50% of what he says I agree with actually, and now Obama's supporters are crying foul. Well what goes around comes around as they say.


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

Your "tribal" argument would be more convincing is African Americans had immediately embraced Obama as "their guy". Your numbers are simply wrong.

Remember, only last October Clinton had the strong support of African Americans. To quote:
"According to the CNN poll, Clinton leads Obama among black registered Democrats, 57 percent to 33 percent. Black women are backing Clinton to the tune of 68 percent compared with 25 percent for Obama. Black men favor Obama 46 percent to 42 percent for Clinton."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/18/roland. martin/


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

Tell me one primary where Obama has polled less than 65% of the black vote and all those where he has polled 75 to 95%. And the real polls please, not what Zogby or CNN said a year ago. Be in denial if you want. It doesn't change the substance of what has ACTUALLY happened.  


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

The same "argument" would apply to Hillary and women, but I think that's offensive to both women and african american voters.  There's nothing "racist" or "sexist" about facotring into your decision, as a member of a minority group, that one of the candidates has had similar life experiences and challenges.  Hillary winning 60% of the female vote doesn't mean those women are sexist.  Nor does Obama winning large %s of african american votes mean those voters are racist.  That's just silly.

Oh, and the fact that Clinton was originally tied with Obama for black support -- pre-Iowa -- really does show that the kind of considerations we're talking about were not dispositive on their own.  


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

I never said there was. In fact I said there was EVERY reason they would factor in their life experiences. Where your attempt to rationalize my tribal voting pattern arguement by attempting to compare it with women falls down is that the percentages of women voting for Hillary have never been as consistent as the percentage of black voters going for Obama. If your argument was correct she'd be pulling about 50-60% of FEMALE black voters and she isn't. Look deny that black voters are practising a form of affirmative action for their candidate if you want, but that's not the reality. And who says Clinton was tied for support. Some poll. I prefer the real thing as empirical evidence not speculation because that's essentially what polls are.


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

Ahhh, now it's "affirmative action?"  Ok, good to get that out there.  

And Hillary is winning the female vote on her merits though, right, whatever that means?  Because...well...the block-voting isn't quite as large for her base?  Ok, if you say so.


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Here are a few numbers to prove my point with % of black vote taken by Obama: MD84%,WI 91%, OH 87%, MS92%, PA 90%. To me it's much more simple. They are supporting their guy which is the most normal of human reactions. And sure Hillary is picking up part of the female vote because she's a woman have I ever said she wasn't. And yes I do say so because it's totally obvious to anyone who isnt' completely blinded by partisanship. And btw I'm broadly in favor of affirmative action programs and always have been. Are you against them.    


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 4)

Well, Obama only got 61% of the black vote in NY, although that's her home state. And undoubtedly he now captures the vast majority of the black vote in the primaries.

But you were not arguing simply that he captures the majority of the black vote; you were arguing that he AUTOMATICALLY captured the black vote due to "tribal" loyalty. And that's simply not true. The Clintons are hugely popular in the African-American community--remember "America's first black president"? The early polls and punditry consistently gave Clinton a very strong showing among blacks, partially due to her strong support among black women. Analysts were talking about how Obama might not be "black enough".

It seems a long time ago, last fall; but Obama did have to "win" the black vote from Clinton. The fact he's done so well in the primaries simply means that he did it largely before January--and according to many analyses, with the help of Bill Clinton's comments in SC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us/pol itics/14carolina.html?hp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari -hutchinson/why-hillary-trumps-obama-b 67802.html


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

The fact that you would use the old "racism in reverse" foil displays your ignorance of the entire concept of racism.


by emptythreatsfarm on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

What racism only works in one way?

WTF???


by DTaylor on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (1.62 / 8)

It depends on what definition of racism you want to use.

Grade school definition of racism:  Saying or doing bad things to someone because of the color of their skin

Adult definition of racism:  a social disease that causes a society to translate prejudice or bigotry into custom, policy or law

Have African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, or Native Americans ever had the institutional power to use the tool of racism to oppress whites or give themselves privilege based on race?  

Talking about racism without discussing power relationships in a society is useless.

Now, having looked at your other comments on this thread, I'm not sure you possess either the maturity or thoughtfulness necessary to grasp the adult definition.

Maybe it makes you feel better to stick with the "they do it too" argument, but I don't think this provides for a very nuanced description of American society and certainly leaves us hanging in terms of prescriptions for ending racism.

Given that the Democratic Party of the last forty years has sometimes (but not often enough) used the adult definition of racism as a tool for policy development (affirmative action, voting rights, etc.) I would think that most supposed Democrats would share this understanding.

This site proves on a daily basis that I have made a bad assumption.


by emptythreatsfarm on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How are these definitions? (2.00 / 1)

Executive Order 10925

   WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States; and 13 CFR 1960 Supp.
    WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts...

And it then specified:

   The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Emphasis added)

Executive Order 11246

   (1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Emphasis added)


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hard to see you way up on that high horse (2.00 / 1)

Now, having looked at your other comments on this thread, I'm not sure you possess either the maturity or thoughtfulness necessary to grasp the adult definition.

First you use the terms "grade school definition" and "adult definition," then this.

Pretty sure of yourself, aren't you?  Calling other people childish for using a dictionary definition or legal definition of a word?


by Trickster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

I love these one liners masquerading as profundity when all they doing is making a totally absurd assertion which a moment's reflection reveals. Of course racism is a two way street. The jews of the middle east hate the arabs and vice versa. Ever been to Malaysia and encountered the ethnic tensions between the native Malays and the Chinese. Or how about Idi Amin kicking the asians out of Uganda. Or the Hindus expelling the Muslims from India. Honkey, whitey, never heard those terms. It's an absolutely fundamental part of the Human psyche to be suspicious or negative about members of other tribal groups. It happens within tribal groups. Instead of all the time thinking of ways to diss the obvious because it doesn't accord with a set of prejudices you might have about a particular candidate give a little thought to the subject.    


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those are artificial situations.. stirred up... (none / 0)

by extremists..

PEOPLE don't want to see each other in those ways. Only evil people want to turn people aginst each other for no reason other than superficial color or religion.

Scientists have proven that scientifically, there is no such thing as 'race'. We are all the SAME race, the human race. When we are out among the stars, the distinction that will matter to us (as far as the continuation of the species) is whether someone is HUMAN. We are ALL human.

(that is not to say that OTHER species dont have emotions, dreams and RIGHTS, they do. We are just beginning to understand that. They love too. Often, they love us. We should love them too. We have a responsibility as stewards of this planet and ALL LIFE on it to STOP FIGHTING and PRESERVE LIFE.)


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those are artificial situations. (2.00 / 2)

They are NOT artificial situations. They are absolutely normal human characteristics. Now of course since time begun demagogues and bad guys of one sort and another have used these absolutely normal human behaviours to cause trouble but then those same sort of people have also used nationalism and religion for the same purpose. In this context it surely doesn't matter what scientists have proved. It's perception that counts. If you doubt me go and persuade the Palestinians that they are really Jewish.      


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats not what I meant at all... (none / 0)

I meant that exploitative people have created the whole 'race' concept as a way of justifying the evil things they do. People look different depending on where they are from, but exhaustive analysis of chromosomes does NOT support the concept of three or four or five different 'races'. We are all the same race, the human race.

I wasn't trying to say the terrible things that have been done using things like race as a method of splitting people apart didn't happen or that you can just pretend that everything is okay.. so please don't imply I did.

I was saying that these barriers were artificial and destructive.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you think its (2.00 / 1)

any better with a bunch of HRC supporters calling sexism left and right.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you think its (2.00 / 1)

As I have pointed out previously, both sides have overzealous supporters who overplay the complaints of racism and sexism.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you think its (2.00 / 2)

First, let me acknowledge that there are indeed people, especially in the blogosphere, who are quick to take offense at imagined or semi-imagined sexism on the part of Obama supporters.

Having said that, there's a vast gulf between the amount of sexism toward Clinton in the campaigns and the media and the amount of racism shown toward Obama in those public forums.  At the upper levels of campaign decision-making and political media, a tremendous and largely successful effort is made to keep racism completely out of the discussion.  Much of the campaign complaints of "racism" seems to me to have been straining at gnats, e.g., cries of racism at Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remarks or at Andrew Cuomo using the term "shuck 'n jive" when he wasn't talking about Obama at all.  On the other hand, there has been planty of sexism that leaves nothing to the imagination at all.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

When you cry "reverse racism," there is a reason blacks accuse the argument of being racist.  Because it IS.

There is no such thing as reverse racism. As any sociologist worth his/her salt will explain, Racism and discrimination are unidirectional -- from the empowered class to the unempowered class.  

There is a term we learned in social theory for the 'reverse racism' argument.  It is called SYMBOLIC RACISM, because it mixes symbolic meanings across classes without taking into account the difference in class distinctions.

For instance, I just saw a remark in another diary that claimed affirmative action was an example of systemic racism.  In point of fact, affirmative action is a RESPONSE TO systemic racism.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

This is the kind of lunacy that has made so many Americans despise liberals.  Racism is judging people by their race.  It's always damaging, whether the people judged are black or white or something else.  No intelligent individual believes all white people are guilty and all black people are innocent any more than the reverse.

Affirmative action is social policy aimed at redressing the effects of racism.  I suppose that under some circumstances, depending on how it's applied, it could be racist, but in no way would that invalidate the concept of affirmative action.

Your formula boils down to:  black always good, even if fueled by racism, white always bad, even if not racist.  And that's lunacy.  And by the way, it doesn't help black people.  It disempowers them by pushing the idea that they are all victims and not responsible for their own destiny.  The only people who benefit from that message are the privileged white males who sit at the top of the status quo.


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 6)

BS...my "formula" as you call it boils down to defining racism by the power of the perpetrator and the lack of power of the victim, on an institutional level.

Women are defined as a minority class because they are less empowered than men, more likely to live in poverty, more likely to not have medical insurance, more likely to earn lower wages doing the same jobs.

Minority anger or hatred toward a majority group is an institutional REACTION to racism.

But...believe what you will.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

"BS"

I guess you led with your best argument.

"...my 'formula' as you call it boils down to defining racism by the power of the perpetrator and the lack of power of the victim, on an institutional level."

You need to get yourself a good dictionary.  Your definition is designed to serve one group at the expense of others -- the very core of racist practice.

"Women are defined as a minority class because they are less empowered than men, more likely to live in poverty, more likely to not have medical insurance, more likely to earn lower wages doing the same jobs."

This shows how little you know about sexism.  Perhaps you should extend your gaze beyond your immediate neighborhood.  Look around the world.  Women are demeaned and degraded almost everywhere.  They are forced to live with bags over their heads; they are subjected to mass rape, to infibulation; in many countries they have inferior rights in court, they can't go to school, they can't own property, they can't travel freely, they can't hold a public job...  All of this is both institutional and individual, and equally wrong either way, as with racism.  Please don't try to be a spokesperson for all women until you know something about sexism.

"Minority anger or hatred toward a majority group is an institutional REACTION to racism."

This is your silliest statement of all.  Did you even read what you wrote?  Now you are an apologist for racial hatred, as long as the hated ones are a majority.  So you must have been okay with apartheid.

Judging people based on their race, or their tribe, or their sex, is wrong.  Period.


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

You have completely reversed just about everything I was saying.  I've devoted my life to working on tolerance and discrimination issues and a significant portion of that work has also been on women's issues.  

Reread what I wrote.  It is from an academic / sociological perspective.  What is the real basis of your dispute?  Do you think that affirmative action if a form of reverse racism?  Because that was the primary point I was arguing against.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Your comments went far beyond affirmative action.  I don't care if you call your perspective academic or sociological or anything else.  You are defending race hate if the haters happen to be black.  

There are better ways to defend affirmative action than using a corrupt and damaging definition of racism.  


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All indications are that racism is increasingly (2.00 / 1)

being replaced by classism and economic marginalization based on educational level.

It would make far more sense to award affirmative action based on variables like parents income and educational level than race.

Right now it is being used BY THE RIGHT to DIVIDE the races and its also NOT benefiting the people who SHOULD be benefited by it - the underclass. The urban and rural poor are NOT being helped much if at all by affirmative action.

Also, HEALTH STATUS and FAMILY DISEASE
HISTORY AND GENETICS are being used to create a new underclass.. in case you hadn't noticed..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/2 3/cbsnews_investigates/main2843007.shtml


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All indications are that racism (2.00 / 2)

Racism has nothing to do with family income or social status. The experience of Germany in thirties should conclusively demonstrate the speciousness of that claim. The Jewish community were disproportionately represented in the middle and upper middle classes. It wasn't about what sort of house they lived in.  


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Indications, Precisely? (2.00 / 4)

Its an old example, but it nonetheless resonates.  A rich black man still has an awful hard time catching a cab at night.  

Also, race-based and class-based affirmative action are not mutually exclusive.  Using both as factors that are considered, along with each individual's other characteristics, is the best approach.  And in the school setting at least, racial diversity is important -- for all students, and perhaps especially those in the majority.


by HSTruman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Absolutely true. We make ourselves look utterly foolish by denying these simple human truths. That's not to say the pernicious aspects of racism don't need to contained or ameliorated but denying their existence really is flat earthism.  


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

What the hell!  NeglectedDuty is running through people's blog remarks, troll rating anyone who is making a reasonable argument in support of affirmative action.

I'm calling you out, NeglectedDuty.  You are a bigot with an agenda and you are seriously abusing the rating system!

Admin!!!


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People have a right to be (2.00 / 2)

offended by "God damn AMerica", "garlic noses" and pushing  unfounded conspiracy theories about AIDS. Wright's service in Korea doesn't excuse this nor do legitimate complaints about how blacks and other minorities have historically been treated in this country.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST

Re: People have a right to be (1.60 / 5)

You're more offended by a preacher saying some crackpot things than the history of racism in America?

Wow. If myopic partisanship was a hair gel, you'd be its poster boy


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 2)

Can you point to the post where I said I was more offended by Wright than by slavery or Jim Crow?


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:15:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 0)

Er... the one above.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 2)

Er, no. But that's for playing.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (none / 0)

Mayor McCheese, respond what you did to me below.


by Larissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (none / 0)

I mean above (it is in a thread above).  You rated me 0 for agreeing to a comment you rated a 2.  Explain yourself.


by Larissa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 1)

You need to take a course in reading comprehension, and whoever gave your "er...the one above" comment a mojo rating is a troll.


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (none / 0)

Where did your reading comprehension go?

People have a right to be offended by "God damn AMerica", "garlic noses" and pushing  unfounded conspiracy theories about AIDS. Wright's service in Korea doesn't excuse this nor do legitimate complaints about how blacks and other minorities have historically been treated in this country.

The grammar is so poor that you may have trouble understanding, but let me spell it out for you.

Offended... (by Goddam America etc)
Not excused... (by the history)

I think the history of actual racism in America weighs much more heavily than two intemperate remarks.

And if you don't get that the parallelism, clearly expressed in those sentences (i.e. 'get over it') then you're tone deaf


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My reading comprehension is just fine (none / 0)

I made an 800 on the SAT and the GRE in reading comp, since you're asking.

Here's what you said:

You're more offended by a preacher saying some crackpot things than the history of racism in America?

There is absolutely nothing in the original post that assigns any sort of cardinal or ordinal value to "the history of racism in America."  The poster said simply that such history doesn't excuse "`God damn AMerica', `garlic noses' and pushing  unfounded conspiracy theories about AIDS."  S/he might consider the history of racism in America the most important subject in the experience of all humankind and excruciatingly offensive, yet still disagree that it excuses anyone saying those things.

Which isn't all that far from my own view.  Racism has had a huge impact on American history that has far from played itself out.  It needs a far franker discussion than what we currently experience in this land.  

But no history and no current situation excuses those words.  They should not be preached to impressionable parishioners from a pulpit of great influence.


by Trickster on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeez Louise (1.50 / 2)

The poster said nothing even remotely similar to your accusation.  That's really out of line.


by Trickster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeez Louise (none / 0)

Where did your reading comprehension go?

People have a right to be offended by "God damn AMerica", "garlic noses" and pushing  unfounded conspiracy theories about AIDS. Wright's service in Korea doesn't excuse this nor do legitimate complaints about how blacks and other minorities have historically been treated in this country.

The grammar is so poor that you may have trouble understanding, but let me spell it out for you.

Offended... (by Goddam America etc)
Not excused... (by the history)

I think the history of actual racism in America weighs much more heavily than two intemperate remarks.

And if you don't get that the parallelism, clearly expressed in those sentences (i.e. 'get over it') then you're tone deaf


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 5)

I only hope I never have to run for office.  I once had a preacher who would use his sermons to rail against mormans and adventists.  He's retired now, but he babtized me.  And like Rev. Wright, he was under the impression that his job as a MAN of GOD was more significant than any other job on earth.  Yes, preachers can also be arrogant, offensive, and thoughtless in their remarks, just like people in any other profession.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have a right to be (2.00 / 1)

I am offended by your harping on the views of a man who is CLEARLY NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Guess what people who know Obama and his friends are FREE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT. Do you agree with everything people you know say or do? Hell know, so stop being so FULL OF SHIT. Your indignation is nonsense.


by edtastic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voting for Obama because of his race... (1.66 / 3)

is a bigoted act in my book. just like being for Hillary because of gender is a sexist act. Every AA person I work with is for Obama and HATES and I mean HATES Clinton-sure, she's standing in the way.  When asked why are you for Obama, the coded language comes out; he's inspirational, a change of pace, not like anyone else, etc.  What they're really saying is we share a common bond and I'm not going to pass up this chance. You can't bring this up either for fear of offending people. All in all a sad state of affairs.


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST

O.K., sure, (2.00 / 3)

That may well be so. But it isn't what I'm trying to bring up here. My point is that there is racism on this site that has boiled over to where I, a white guy who isn't all that attuned to picking up on anti-black bigotry--saw it and I got pissed off.
I know a lot of people have been saying things like, "Obama's playing the race card, too," or "A lot of black voters are racists." Well, I don't belive that, but even if it were true, that isn't what I'm trying to get at.
To be clear, what I'm trying to get at is that I have seen racism on this site--some obvious and some subtle enough to give the writers plausible deniability--and asnwe nare all members of this site, and not Obama's staff and not some kind of Black Voter Good Behavior Enforcement Squad, we can't help what Obama might do or what reasons some of his voters might have for choosing him.
We can't police everybody everywhere, but shouldn't we at least see if we can do something about bigotry here on this site, where what we say and think might make some difference?
"Other people are no better" is no defense.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its human nature for many of us ... (2.00 / 1)

(not just black people) to want to see a black President, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL..

Unfortunately, I don't think Obama is the person I want to see win now, that really is a separate issue. Its mostly because I have read through Obama's positions and I DON'T THINK HE IS PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH.

Obama's platform is going to HURT black people as much as it hurts white people, and its worse for them, compared to Hillary's.

The difference could be thousands of dollars a year for MANY people.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting for Obama because of his race... (2.00 / 1)

I do not think identity politics is neccesarily bigoted. It depends on the rationale behind it. Lets use left handedness as an example (although I fear the Left Handed People's Antidefamation League may come after me).

Not "handist") I am voting for X because he is left handed, and therefore he understands the problems of left handed people like me.

"Handist") I am voting for X because he is left handed, and left handed people are better than right handed people.

Note to LHPAL - it was just an example! I apologize!


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting for Obama because of his race... (2.00 / 3)

"Inspirational, change of pace, not like anyone else"--these have been the staples of the coverage of Obama since Iowa, the reasons many of his supporters give, regardless of their race. It seems a stretch to find coded language in it.

Also, according to a new poll out today, while each candidate's supporters are souring on their opponent, African Americans are less opposed to Clinton than Obama's white, college-educated supporters. Your co-workers are not typical, in other words.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIux4 Z1f0TedjczqfZG5Kt3EWwIAD90BFCGO0


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting for Obama because of his race... (2.00 / 1)

Because a lot of Obama's college educated supporters are in actuality Republicans who have hated Hillary Clinton for almost 20 years.


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

YES... (1.00 / 3)

>Also, according to a new poll out today, while each candidate's supporters are souring on their opponent, African Americans are less opposed to Clinton than Obama's white, college-educated supporters. Your co-workers are not typical, in other words.

Thank you for saying this! Yes, that makes a LOT of sense..

In addition to racism, Obama is trying to play the young off against the old, in a new version of the same kinds of demographic splits that we saw with fascism in the  20's, 30s and 40s in Europe..

He is playing the same game.. with the same tactics..

FYI to Obama supporters.. fascism always LIES..

It splits up different groups and plays them off against each other, but under its end state, totalitarianism, in which it needs to preserve a state of TERROR, it KILLS them off one group at a time.

Even its own supporters.. once the other groups have been gotten rid of.. the true believers often are the first to go.. (because they know too much)


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YES... (none / 0)

You think Obama's a fascist?  Really?  You have some sort of proof?


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YES... (2.00 / 1)

It's hard to respond to such lunacy seriously--Obama is not just fascist, but planning genocide that will eventually come around to kill his own supporters????--but I'll try.

Both candidates have been taking advantage of demographic splits, and those splits have been intensifying as the campaign drags on. There has been less "crossing over" of working-class whites to Obama since Wisconsin, fewer blacks voting for Clinton, etc. This is not solely the fault of either candidate--Clinton has actively courted older voters, women, and others who she runs strongly with.

Did you read the article? Let's continue the quote:

"About half of Obama's white backers with college degrees have negative views of Clinton. Fewer black Obama supporters dislike Clinton but their numbers have grown faster, more than doubling during the period to 33 percent.

Among Clinton's supporters, Obama is disliked by nearly half the whites who have not gone beyond high school, a near doubling since November. Four in 10 white women backing her have unfavorable views of Obama."

These intensifying demographic divisions are important, and very bad for the Democratic Party. They are not a harbinger of fascism.


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: YES... (none / 0)

Just splitting that hair on Godwin's Law.


by shalca on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you... (none / 0)

I didn't know that when I voted for Al Gore the first time I ever voted I was a Republican.  I didn't know that when I registered and reregistered as a Democrat I was actually a Republican.  I didn't that when I made fun of my brother for voting for Nader and registering with the Peace & Freedom Party (honestly what the hell is the point of that party) I was a Republican.  Thank you.  If it wasn't for you I would've never discovered this about myself.  /snark

Perhaps, you should learn to stop talking out of your ass.  There are many reasons we choose candidates; you might expand your horizons if you don't fucking assume shit about people.  Obama's  winning in the DEMOCRATIC primary.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I said was ... (none / 0)

a lot of, not "all".


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I said "a lot of" not all. (none / 0)


by handsomegent on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting for Obama because of his race... (2.00 / 1)

Still, you've got to understand why some members of a long oppressed minority group (African Americans for Obama, women for Clinton), that has never had such a strong candidate for president before, are excited about being able to vote for "one of their own".

They are proud and feel that their candidate would make a great president. That is not racism/sexism. It is pride. It is racism/sexism to vote against either of them because they are a member of that group.

It is easy for those of us who are neither African American or female to make judgements about the appropriateness of the reasons those people have for supporting their chosen candidate.


by northstars on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting for Obama because of his race... (none / 0)

Everyone is allowed to have their own reason for voting for someone, whether it is their race, gender, the war, the economy, or whatever.  Who are you to judge their reason?  If the common bond is their gender or their race, why is that any different than the common bond being an issue they agree on.  I would dare say that if a candidate were a vegetarian, and someone voted for them because that person is a vegetarian too, that would be their right.  Certainly one vegetarian shares alot of understanding and common values, not shared with others, and so they are actually voting for more than the veg issue.  A woman might trust another woman because they know what being a woman means, entails, or whatever.  It is the same with race.  There is that bond, but that is only the surface of it.  Your reason for supporting who you support should be laid out here, and we will tell you if it is okay.  Okay?


by Scotch on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

excellent diary (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for writing it. The amount of right wing anger, red-baiting and race-baiting around here is truly off the charts sometimes. At least the other side is having some issues as well. This should put a smile on your face, from crooksandliars:

  " Outmaneuvered by raucous Ron Paul supporters, Nevada Republican Party leaders abruptly shut down their state convention and now must resume the event to complete a list of 31 delegates to the GOP national convention.

   Outnumbered supporters of expected Republican presidential nominee John McCain faced off Saturday against well-organized Paul supporters. A large share of the more than 1,300 state convention delegates enabled Paul supporters to get a rule change positioning them for more national convention delegate slots than expected.

   "I've seen factions walk out. I've never seen a party walk out," said Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign."


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST

Thank you. (2.00 / 1)

And, Ha!


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 3)

Excellent diary - just yesterday there were 3 diaries about how Obama has never run a large company and that letting him be CEO by Affirmative Action is just like saying 75% of Congress is qualified to be President.  Sounds like it doesn't make any logical sense right?  It doesn't.


by spmaverick01 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:37:13 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 2)

It was the "75% of Congress is now qualified to be president" post that led to write this.
It just really pissed me off. We can be better than that. I wrote posts in the diary, and though there were a lot of people who called out the jerk who wrote it, there were far too many coming to back him up.
We're Democrats. We don't need bigots to win elections, and speaking for myself, I don't want them either.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 7)

Obama supporters like to take shelter in charges of racism when people point out their candidate's flaws.  If he becomes the nominee, he will lose in the fall.  Obama's supporters will claim it was racism and Hillary that defeated him.  An analysis about Obama's fundamental flaws as a candidate seems to be beyond their ability to see.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM EST

You have missed the point (2.00 / 3)

Pointing out Obama's supposed flaws is not the issue.  Pointing out Obama's supposed flaws becomes an issue when those flaws are "he's too black/not black enough", "he's the affirmative action candidate", "he got where he is only because he's black", "he hates whites because his pastor hates whites" etc. etc. etc.

The charge of racism is a serious one, and on this site, some have regularly deserved to be charged as racists.

We SHOULD be focusing on the issues (healthcare, Iraq War, global climate crisis, housing market, gas prices, poverty, etc.), and instead, some people are obsessed with making absurdist "affirmative action" arguments that are, in fact, racist (and, of course, wrong).


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mumphrey, you seem to feel that (2.00 / 1)

being against affirmative action makes a person racist. (Unless I'm getting the gist of your diary and headline wrong.) If that's so, in your eyes under what conditions can a person be against affirmative action and not be a racist?


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST

I consider (2.00 / 3)

I consider many of your assumptions to be denigrating and fundamentally racist.

I don't support Hillary because she ain't Black, to paraphrase the good Reverend.

The suggestion that bitterness flows in only one direction or that immature, insensitive remarks only come from one camp caused you to lose all credibility with me.  I tried to read the rest of your diary with an open mind, but kept thinking about the kind of self-serving blinders one would have to equip in order to believe that.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM EST

Re: I consider (2.00 / 3)

Well, as Obama's winning, it sure would seem weird to see his backers getting bitter. I see a lot of bitterness coming from the Clinton side, and that's perfectly understandable and I don't begrudge them their sour feelings. There's a lot riding on this election and people are fired up. I felt pretty bitter toward Obama myself after Edwards dropped out, since I think that if Obama hadn't run this year, Edwards might well be where Obama is now. I don't know that, but that's how I felt. But he dropped out, life went on, and I got over it. And I never attributed his rise, or the fact that he was outpacing Edwards to "affirmative action" or "reverse discrimination" or any other such racist bullshit.
And no doubt, there are awful sexist things that Obama's supporters have said or written. But I haven't seen any, as far as I can recall.
I wrote this because what I read yesterday pushed me over the edge. I saw some truly loathesome stuff, and I felt like I had to say something about it. So I did.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Glad you said something (2.00 / 4)

A diary today contained these examples of angry racism directed at Obama:

"He is a typical liberal who is given a pass on SO MANY THINGS because he is black."

"At the momemnt his nomination is being purchased by his unshakable base in the black community, who basically are threatening to sink the Dem party if he is not the nominee."

"[Obama] and his campaign have played the same race-cards others have in the past to get where he is."

I really want Democrats to stop attacking Obama for "race-card" playing --- it's nonsense, especially in light of the fact that the Obama campaign has and will be hurt by racism against him in far greater ways than any supposed "race-card" playing could ever help his campaign.  He is fighting some deep-rooted racism in America, and I hope he wins that fight.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Glad you said something (none / 0)

Would you explain why pointing out examples, supported by citation, of cases in which the Obama campaign deliberately injected or abused race makes one guilty of racism?

Do you think that if we learned someone like Hagee had been Hillary's mentor of two decades, and that she had titled a book in honor of him, that there is even the remotest possibility that this contest would have continued for more than a few days?

If you think that any suggestion that Obama's campaign has played the race card is "non-sense", then you have your head in the sand.

They said Hillary was racist for crying, ffs.  "Those tears have to be analyzed", said the Obama campaign's co-chair.  We could almost hear the audience gasping.  He went on to say that African Americans in South Carolina should understand that Hillary was racist for crying, because she did not cry about Katrina.

No, no injection of race there.

Give. Me. A Break.

Racism does not go away just because you close your eyes real hard and pretend it isn't there, or only see it from "the other" side.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again (2.00 / 1)

The racism directed against the Obama campaign (by Hillary supporters as well as the GOP crowd) is far greater than any supposed "race-card" playing by the Obama campaign.

That being said, here are some citations where pointed-out examples of "deliberate injection" of race are, in fact, racist:

"He is a typical liberal who is given a pass on SO MANY THINGS because he is black."

"At the momemnt his nomination is being purchased by his unshakable base in the black community, who basically are threatening to sink the Dem party if he is not the nominee."

"[Obama] and his campaign have played the same race-cards others have in the past to get where he is."

Wow. The EXACT same three examples I posted above!  Look, arguing that Obama gets away with stuff/has gotten as far as he has because (1) he's black and/or (b) he "plays the race card" is RACIST.  It simply is!  To ignore that is to shut your eyes tight to reality, not the other way around.

Diminishing Obama's accomplishments by complaining about his race is racist.  That's a simple fact.  You are no longer talking demographics, you are talking racism.


by Slim Tyranny on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I consider (none / 0)

Well, as Obama's winning, it sure would seem weird to see his backers getting bitter.

That would be wierd, wouldn't it?  Perhaps you should contemplate this further.


by bobbank on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Great Diary.  Rec'd.


by NewOaklandDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:34:26 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Thank you.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Kudos.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 4)

"This place has become a haven for brooding, bitter Clinton supporters who will find something perfectly innocent that Obama, or someone on his campaign did, and twist it until they can find something, anything--however small, however unremarkable--to be outraged about."
<Paraphrase>
Now can't all you nasty bitter ugly people be loving and open-minded like me?
</Paraphrase>

I thought this was a satire diary!


by redwagon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I like that!
I know it's easy to think we have all the answers. A little skewering now and again does anybody good; I know it does me...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Though in my defense, I never called anybody ugly...


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, if you are going to point the finger (2.00 / 2)

toward Senator Clinton supporters and accuse them of intolerance, i think we have to be fair and point the accusatory finger in the other direction, toward us, and accuse ourselves and our supporter of twisting everything that Senator Clinton said or done into an evil thing. And also accuse oursevles of the most outrageous sexism and misogynistic behavior i have ever witnessed.

Enough of waving the flag of racism. Enough already. It is hurting us and it is hurting our candidate. You are not going to make the American people feel bad for themselves and force them out of guilt to vote for Senator Obama. Enough is enough.

For goodness sake, we turned president Clinton, the only democratic president ever to be reelected since FDR, into a Nazi. We can't accused everyone of racism because s/he just supports Senator Clinton. It is not fair to them. They can't defend themselves of racism. No one can. Let me accuse you of racism and let's see how well you are going to defend yourself. And this shit is NOT going to work against the republicans because they don't give a DAMN about being accused of racism.

Come on, i hate this sanctimonious crap that we have been engaged into all the time. If Senator Clinton supporters are bitter (here again the word bitter) it is because of our behavior. Period. And coming here today waving the flag  of righteousness and point the accusatory finger again toward her supporters is not going to help us at all. It is making things worse and it is deepening the ditch and gap between us. You seem to forget that at one time or another, we need to come together to elect a democratic president. I want to WIN...and if i have to beg and apologize for the behavior of your ilk, i will do so because i want to a democrat in the White House, whether it is a black man or woman, i don't give a damn. I want to WIN.


by likelihood zero on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST

Re: Look, if you are going to point the finger (2.00 / 1)

Well, sure.
I don't think anybody's blameless here. I'm sure I've writen things, here or elsewhere, that upset somebody.
But it bothers me no end that there is so much racist shit here. I've seen it. As I said, most of it is worded in a way that people could reasonably question whether it was meant as a racist attack or not.
When that happens once in a while, I think it's fair to assume that it was innocent. But it happens too often here for it to be innocent.
And I really am not trying to get anybody to vote for Obama, whether out of guilt or for any other reason. People have to make up their own minds. I'm not altogether sold on him myself. I voted for Edwards in the Virginia primary, even though he'd dropped out by then.
But I think we need to ask whether this subtly racist shit is how we want to do things as Democrats. Would you really want Clinton to win if it has to be this way? I wouldn't have wanted Edwards to pull this shit if he had somehow ended up as the number 2 candidate behind Obama, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see other Edwads supporters pulling this kind of shit.
The stuff I wrote about in the original piece is just wrong. I don't see how anybody can really try to argue otherwise. It's just wrong and we shouldn't be doing it, any of us. We're better than that, or at least we should be.
So even if it were somehow harmful to the party's chances in the fall to lay off the racist attacks--and I don't see any way in the world it could be harmful--we shouldn't do it.
Racist attacks, even if they were to "work" somehow are wrong. That's all there is to it. Now I can see how people might call me holier than thou for spouting off about this the way I have, but that doesn't make what I say any less true.
That shit is beneath us.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, if you are going to point the finger (none / 0)

Of course, i want to win. I don't care how i win, i just want a W for a democrat. If we have to stab someone on the way to the WH, so be it and i would not lose a minute of sleep over it because the republicans won't lose a second of sleep over the same action.  

This is politics and it has always been like that and it will never change. Look, Senator Clinton could have pulled the Rev. Wright controversy a long time ago. Rev. Wright sermons were all over the Internet in late December (i knew about them in mid-January). She could've used those and attack Senator Obama. They knew about them, but her campaign did not. I honestly do not think that Senator Clinton engaged in any racist attacks. Maybe her crowd, but not her. I also honestly believe that Senator Obama campaign (Not Obama, but his surrogates) tried to paint Senator Clinton as a racist. It is a strategy and i don't blame him for doing that. If Senator Obama wants to win, he has to obliterate some lives. If Senator Clinton wants to win, she has to obliterate some lives. If we democrats do not have to stomach for this fight, we might as well hand the damn elections to the republicans because they surely wants to win.

Look i worked in campaigns before (1988 and 1990) and let me tell you that those kind of decisions are not made by some junior staffer. Usually, they are made by the candidate himself.

I also read some serious sexism and misogyny on here and on DKos and our hands are not clean at ALL. Senator Clinton was called a whore by that idiot Rhodes and she was applauded all over Dkos. Go read the comments if you don't believe me...Senator Clinton was called all kind of shit. I mean the campaign that our supporters have directed against her was worse than the Republican campaign of the 1990s. She was even called a killer and a murderer because of the suicide of her friend and lawyer in mid 1990s.

Look this campaign is ugly and it is ugly on both sides. We cannot say that we were the innocent crowd here.  


by likelihood zero on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would recommend this if I could (none / 0)

But oddly enough, though I am still a trusted user (in that I can see hidden comments), my comment/diary ratings appear to have been taken away.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 5)

looks like obama's campaign is in trouble  - they're pulling out the old "all hillary's supporters are bitter, brooding racists" argument again.


by campskunk on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 0)

I didn't say that.
I said a lot of her supporters here seem to be really resentful and, yes, bitter about the way this primary season has gone.
I also said that there were too many racist comments here. I didn't say that all of Clinton's suppoerters are racists, or even that all of her supporters here are racists. I never said that and I don't believe it.
I did say that the racist things I have read here lately--both the obvious ones and the more veiled ones--pissed me off. I said there have been far too many of them here lately, and it seemed like not enough people were doing something about them.
So I wrote this piece.
If nothing else, maybe it'll at least get us all thinking about this and watching for it.
Bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party, or, indeed, in the United States.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

sorry kid- you wore out the whole deck of racism cards way too early in this campaign. they're dogeared and tattered.


by campskunk on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

The hyperbole this subject seems to provoke is very odd. What it demonstrates I suppose is that Americans still haven't learned to talk about racial differences in our society in a rational way. Perhaps what's most extraordinary is that some people even deny that they exist either directly or by implication. They exist, it's one of the major fault lines in our society and we have quite a few, many more than most advanced western societies if you think about it. I'd say as of today the odds favor Obama getting the nomination, losing in November, and losing partly because of racial issues. For example he has no chance of carrying a single southern state whereas Clinton could possibly win two or three. The reason is racial polarization that is as real as that that has enabled him to capture 80-95% of the black vote in all the Southern primaries.   These are political facts of life. We can dance around them, deny them, abhor them but there's little doubt they are real. Hard headed strategists in the Republican party have no such inhibitions believe me.    


by ottovbvs on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST

Well, this has been fun. (none / 0)

But I'm tired of this and I have other stuff to do.
Thank you all for recommending this. I hope it has some effect...
¡Adiós!
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST

I got about halfway through your diary, realized (2.00 / 4)

you were lumping Clinton supporters who write diaries that you may consider "hit diaries", and other people who write diaries containing racism into the same category, and decided I'd read enough.

You could have done without the first few hundred words of your diary, and skipped to your complaint about race, whatever that was all about.  You see, I didn't read it, because you turned me off before I got to that part.  If your goal was to communicate, you failed.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:02:55 PM EST

got about halfway through your diary, realized (none / 0)

i think the goal was to intimidate. if so, they don't know their adversary very well.


by campskunk on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry. (none / 0)

Well, sorry if I offended you. I ddn't mean to, nor did I mean to imply that all hit diaries are racist.
I only meant that I have seen too many comments that looked racist to me. And other than some commenters calling the racists on it in threads, I hadn't seen anything else about it and I thought it's something we should all be on the watch for. Bigotry is not good for us as Democrats or as liberals or as Americans.
It bothered me, so I wrote this. I'd love it if you went back and read it through, bearing in mind that I'm not the greatest writer ever, and that maybe I didn't put some things as well as I could have.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cool. (none / 0)

I agree that bigotry has no place around here.  

I'll try to read through your diary again after work - scratch that - I'm busy - GO PISTONS!!!  

Sorry, I got carried away. Game fives do that to me.

Peace.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just because not everyone here (2.00 / 4)

supports Barack Obama doesn't mean they are racists.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:17:35 PM EST

Re: Just because not everyone here (none / 0)

That isn't what I wrote. I don't think I even implied it. If that's how it came across, then that's my fault.
What I meant was that there are some racists here, who chime in with bigoted comments, and I've seen at least one racist diary.
Not all Clinton supporters are racists; I would guess that very few are. Not all people who won't vote for Obama are racists, though, again, there are a very few who are. Not every Clinton supporter who writes here is racist.
The only people here who are racists are the racists, and they're the ones I was calling attention to.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just because not everyone here (none / 0)

give me an example of racism here. I really wanna see it


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

This was my favorite example of trash yesterday:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/28/2 03131/408/21#21

And you can see my reply right below it.  I will say that thankfully since the last time I looked at it yesterday, I lot of people have down rated the original racist post, so there really is hope.

I will say that out of the half dozen blogs I peruse,  this sight has the nastiest stuff most days.  That is why I stay here, to dialog with all of the sane people who I merely disagree with and provide some balance to the others who want to go off into right field.


Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison
by mattjfogarty on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

LOL look at the one guy who uprated it compared to 10 people who zeroed it.

That's another problem on this site, trusted users uprating troll comments.


by Skaje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

But I still say it is really a good sign of all the good people here that it was overwhelmingly down rated.

Even when we disagree we can do so in a civil manner.


Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison
by mattjfogarty on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This whole diary is one big (2.00 / 5)

race bait. There might be a pocket here or there on this site, but there are problems with Back Obama's candidacy, and I think it speaks well of where America is at this time that the criticism isn't held just because the man identifies "black."

Those problems include, but are not limited to, a lack of experience, as well as what looks like an underhanded helping hand in refusing to seat MI & FL. His appeal is largely due to the fact that he is NOT  Clinton, because so much of this country has unfairly maligned an entire political family by drinking Republican kool aid about them for 8 plus years. And Obama has done everything he can to resurrect that long-buried and irrational hatred against them. Those are real problems and they have nothing at all to do with whether some yuppie with white guilt thinks other white people are racist, and I personally resent the accusation. I can't believe this bullshit made the rec list.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:43:03 PM EST

If it matters... (none / 0)

I'm not a yuppie.


ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, if it matters (none / 0)

A well off white man with multiple post-secondary degrees is the very definition of a yuppie.


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, if it matters (none / 0)

I didn't know that. I always understood yuppies to be professional types--lawyers, doctors, business people & such like.
A stay at home fatherr running a small non-profit out of his house didn't seem too yuppie-ish to me.
But I've been wrong before.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Most of the Country is not racist (2.00 / 3)

but, unfortunately, there is a percentage of people who are racitst. The vast majority of the people who support Hillary will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Of the ones who won't, most of those, I belive, will not vote for Obama because they perceive him to be too inexperienced. Some of course are just plain racists, but I believe that number is small.

It is completely legitimate to go after Obama on style and issues, ITS ALL LEGITIMATE. He and his supporters are not shy about attacking Clinton. Many of Clinton's supporters remember quite well that she was attacked (personally) by all of her Democratic opponents and all of the Republican opponents and was getting bashed in the media as well. So, it's hard to sympathize with Obama now that he's getting the same treatment.

Most Clinton supporters like and respect Obama and will have no problem supporting him when and if the time comes, but we are still in a heated contest. This is the time when everyone is making a case to the super delegates. Bringing up Wright, Ayers, Rezco and "Clinging" comments are not only legitimate but necessary.

If the Clinton's are guilty of anything its that they were far too easy on Obama. She should have went after him on Wright at least 3 months ago. Anyone who thinks the Clinton's have been rough on Obama is not playing with a full deck.

As for racism on this site, I can tell you I've seen virtually none. I have no doubt that there is but it is minimal because people would jump on racists comments pretty quickly.

The only race card I've seen played by the candidates themselves is when Obama himself tried to imply that Bill Clinton's comment about SC was playing the race card. Bill Clinton's comment was 100% appropriate and not in any way playing the race card.

Falsely claiming someone is playing the race card is not going to win you the presidency. It's a bad strategy. Obama will be fine. He just needs to get some distance between himself and his talkative friend Wright, like 4 or 8 years.


by mmorang on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

The worst of the racism ends up in hidden comments, but there's enough borderline stuff here that it pollutes the whole site.  The white resentment plaguing mydd is embarrassing.


by Skaje on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:46:11 PM EST

thanks for writing mumphrey (none / 0)

with so many frightened white people making so much noise lately is it no wonder so many progressives choose not to join the democratic party??


by citizendave on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

The problem with the Diarist is that he/she is an Obama Supporter.  Of course you'll see only the negatives said about Obama, which is by way the truth...

Whenever I go to politico.com; I'm always dismayed by the comments of the Obamamites and Republican pundits against HRC. I rarely go there now.

My point is; "if you can't stand the heat; get out of the kitchen".


by SHIBAM8P on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:47:45 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I'm not an Obama supporter.
But after seeing the shit spewed here after I wrote this piece, I feel more and more like I'm becoming one.
A few more comments about Wright and how Obama's backers are whiny and how if you can't take the heat you should get out of the kitchen and I'll be ready to send him some money.
I don't have any problem with a hard fought campaign. I do have a problem when SOME Clinton supporters write bigoted shit here. Or anywhere, for that matter.
This was never really meant to call out Clinton. It was to call out the bigots who have been showing up on this site.
Not everybody here is a bigot. Not every Clinton supporter here is a bigot. Not every Clinton supporter oveerall is a bigot.
But the bigots here ARE bigots. I don't see why that should be so hard to understand, but evidently it is, judging from all the tangential threads here. Or maybe people are only trying to change the subject.
I don't get it. It seems to me that any Clinton supporter who really cared about her candidacy would WANT to run the bigots off to keep from polluting their candidate.
Instead it seems liek an awful lot of her supporters, who, presumably are not in any way bigoted themselves, are perfectly happy to defend the few assholes who are bigots.
That's just sad.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Don't let it get you down, if you can. It's the internet echo-chamber, and the bitterness (on all sides) is not representative of Clinton (or Obama) or her supporters as a whole. Certainly don't make your decision on who to support based on internet forum postings, even ones at generally good and engaged sites like this.

You've been amazingly patient and respectful in responding to a wide range of comments on this diary, and I salute you for it.


by tomchaps on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

Obama's grandma is not a racist... she took care of her.  Barack should be thanking her instead of throwing her under the bus.


by SHIBAM8P on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:52:22 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

If she was black you would not care right? You care cause she was a white woman and you have to protect white people from black insults right? Its his Grandmother she RAISED HIM, and I am sure he cares more for her then you DO so GET OVER YOURSELF. The fact is black people are not out to get you, nor are they a threat to your way of life. Its about time you accept that and move on.


by edtastic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Man in the Mirror (2.00 / 4)

Would it be possible for Obama supporters to whine any more than they already have? I guess so. I advise you to look at your own ageist, nasty, sexist remarks before you criticize others.

Your candidate is the one who called rural Americans "bitter." Your candidate is the man who sat in the pew and listened to Rev. Wright's hate speech for 20 years. Your rah-rah cheerleader is Keith "Take her into a Back Room" Olbermann, Hillary-hater Numero Uno. You and your candidate NEVER complain about the sexism directed at Clinton.

You've got a lot of nerve.


by cc on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Man oh Man

I was a victim of racsism on this site  and instead of deleting the racsist comments the moderating deleted my comments ( ok they were not that nice)  why the double standard ? they treat blacks more fairly in 1960s alambama


President Barack Obama "get used to it"
by wellinformed on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Also were suppose to be Democrats progressive ones at that yet people continue to post the Rev Wright clips. The number 1 rec diary is about a Rev Wright clip. If a Monica Lewinsky clip was up there would be an uproar


by sshillings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:10:55 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (2.00 / 1)

There are many reasons I can't take you seriously.  First of all, context is everything and you haven't linked to one single comment you claim was made.  Also, I have learned to ignore any claim of racism made by Obama supporters, because some Obama supporters see racism in everything and everywhere, purposely.  And I've gotten really tired of claims that people have no right to support anyone but Obama.  Obama has not won.  He does not have 2025 delegates, period.  If Edwards were this close with Obama in the race, his supporters would have every right to come here and support him, despite the claim from Obama supporters such as yourself that his preciousness has already won and noone has a right to run for president against him even though he doesn't have what is required by the party to win the nomination. I hope when you come here, you are entertained by whining, apparently entitled Obama supporters because that is what you will find.


by Scotch on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:28 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Fine.
I really didn't want to link to the post that got me so riled since I didn't want to give it any publicity.
But since you really seem to want to see it, here it is:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/27/1450 17/355
Now go and read that and then tell me it isn't racist.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Let's try that again:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/27/1450 17/355
ооо
by Mumphrey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

I would say that a lot of not qualified people run, and it is obvious that the diarist has categorized people in his post by race.  I am very uncomfortable with that aspect.  The question is still there about why Barack Obama is still standing amongst those black and white people who have attempted to run and have lost, though?  Do you think there is a possibility that race enters into it in that certainly African Americans being solidly behind him has given him an edge in some states, whereas they might have been split a little more evenly before in elections.  Not to say that white candidates haven't gotten a jump from the white population before.  Obama is certainly as experienced in my mind as John Edwards with all things from their backgrounds considered.  Except, Obama hasn't quite had the 4 years as a senator, but almost.  He did have a couple of years to add to that on the state level, though. However, why is he still standing and Edwards isnt?  They, in fact, all three of our candidates are not that different.

Do you admit at all that it is open ended how much his race plays into his success, meaning is he getting extra support because of it in some way that has given him an edge? I am not sure it is racist to wonder that.  But to wonder it in the way the diarist did, has a feel of racism.  

BEsides the fact that the majority of the comments here as well as the diaries have nothing to do with Obama's race.  There is always an aspect of it everywhere, but that doesn't make it right to label Clinton supporters as racist, or to look at every mention or inquiry about race as racism.  The comments of a few doesn't make it right for you to say all the other things you did about clinton supporters either.  So, if you are nasty and opinionated, don't expect that everyone else will not be.

If you read any of the comments below, I commented that I think that voting on the basis of shared race or gender is okay to do, because it is as much of a common bond as is agreement on an issue.  That is part of the reason I vote for Hillary, but not the whole reason.  I would never vote for Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, Paglia, or any number of women in either party just for being a woman.  Obviously, the attraction if it is going to be based on race and gender,  has to involve race, gender, and then a whole lot more.


by Scotch on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Regarding the Edwards question, Edwards chose to drop out no one forced.
 Secondly if its okay to question if Obama's race played apart in his success why isnt it okay to question if her being a woman or being Bill Clinton's wife played apart in her success. When Chris Mathews said that Clinton was were she is cause her husband cheated on her there was an uproar on this site. Why wasnt that same uproar when diaries like that are on the rec list?
by sshillings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Plenty of people do and will ask the question about her gender.  However, she does not have 85% of the women's vote.  And many of us think she has much more experience than Obama does.  I think the diary being referenced as racist by the diarist is looking at experience and his idea that Obama doesn't have any.  People can question whether women are putting Clinton over in some states and because of it, maybe her gender gives her the edge among voters.  Chris Matthews saying what he said and bringing her husbands affair into it and saying that is why she is where she is, is really far fetched, and of course we know what a sexist asshole Matthews is.  Somehow, that is carrying it too far with the gender bit. He wasn't talking about her gender in and of itself as the factor, he went much deeper into sexuality etc.  Matthews statement was not truly taking into account her experience.  It was defining her not only because of her gender, but in relation to her relationship with her husband and HIS affair.

Edwards dropped out because noone was voting for him, and it was useless. Apparently a lot of people didn't think he had experienced required to vote for him.   The two remaining people still have large numbers of people voting for them.  


by Scotch on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I saw the diary you reference (2.00 / 3)

The one about Obama being an affirmative action candidate. That bothered me. What bothered me more though, was that that the diary was recommended by about a dozen Clinton supporters, including some who are on the rec list here daily.

You're right on on this.

BTW, here's a link to that diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/27/1450 17/355


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:36 PM EST

Diarist, you've got a lot of balls! (2.00 / 1)


And her backers have no right to say that Obama did anything wrong....

You must be kidding me, right?

Go take a look at all the hidden comments over at DKos. Better yet, go take a look at what makes it to the Rec list there! At least here, much of it gets hidden!

Hillary and Bill Clinton are about as racist as Barack Obama! And, that is not racist. Not by any stretch of the imagination.


by bobswern on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

Good job with this diary.  You nailed it on the head-- used to come here for the latest news and excellent commentary.  now it's just a freakshow...


by bluedavid on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:08:11 AM EST

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

What a damn joke. It's funny that whenever the Obama campaign hits a rut and the train goes off the tracks for a few days, the cat calls of "Clinton supporters are racist" come out.

Are there racists? Yes. Are there some Clinton supporters that are racists? Probably. Are there some Obama supporters that are raunchy sexists? DUH.  Just take a look through the comments of Kos on a daily basis. But all this sounds like to me is a cry that "Well, Obama already won, so if you don't support him it's because you're a FILTHY RACIST".

Let me make one thing really clear to you: Just because there is one post on MyDD saying that "Obama is the affirmative action candidate" does not a whole group of racists make, and to say that is a fallacy and a lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Saying that Obama's candidacy has benefited from his race is not racist, just like saying that Ferraro's VP was benefited by her gender is not sexist. Do people like Obama and Ferraro have their own merits outside of their gender or race to stand on? Absoutley. But saying that their race or gender did not help them at all is intellectually dishonest. Hillary's gender has helped garner some of her support--DUH.

This is disgusting, and you're insinuating that because I'm still behind my candidate because I am a racist. Here's the deal, sir: Obama himself admitted today that we have plenty of reasons to be angry about Wright's comments. Does that make him racist? No. It DOES NOT. And then Barack went further and said himself that he THOUGHT WRIGHT WAS RANTING. If you think critizing comments like "White America created AIDS to kill blacks" or "9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost", and tell me that I'm a racist because I come out against language like that, then you seriously are screwed up in the brain.

I came out against comments that WRight made about 9/11 just like I came out against Falwell's or Robertson's comments about the subject: they were and are extremely wrong, no matter what race, color or creed.

Just because I keep fighting for my candidiate when she's behind does not mean that I'm "bitter". It does not mean that I think Barack is an "uppity  negro". It DOES mean that I think Hillary would be the better President. It DOES mean that I believe she is better on GLBT rights. It DOES mean that I think she is more electable.

You should be ashamed of yourself.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM EST

Racism aside for a moment... (none / 0)

This place has become a haven for brooding, bitter Clinton supporters who will find something perfectly innocent that Obama, or someone on his campaign did, and twist it until they can find something, anything--however small, however unremarkable--to be outraged about.

Sad to say, many are emulating what they see posted on the front page about once a day.


If Democrats don't stop the Clinton/Bush Dynasty now, who will and when?
by ClintonBushDynasty on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:10:53 AM EST

Diarist's own hypocritically misogynistic words... (2.00 / 1)

...from nine months ago on DKos...a deep-rooted Hillary hater, obviously...


from Mumphrey,  as posted on Daily Kos, July 26, 2007
I respect the work she's (Hillary Clinton) done as a senator, but this presidential campaign makes me think twice about whether she should even be serving there anymore.  I think it shows incredible selfishness and arrogance to put herself forward for president.  I think that she's more interested in being the first woman president than she is in what's best for our country.

<SNIP>

Anybody who is willing to put this country through 4 or 8 more years of hearing about the Clintons' sex lives just so she can be president is just plain selfish.


by bobswern on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:13 AM EST

Abuse of misogyny (none / 0)

How on earth is this misogynistic?

I think that she's more interested in being the first woman president than she is in what's best for our country.

It might be ad hominem/feminem. It might be wrong. It might be a cheap shot. It might even be true. Hillary has a times said that the fact she would be the first woman president is a part of her appeal.

But your misuse and misappropriation of misogyny does nothing but undermine the cause of feminism and female equality. If you really believed in those values, you'd be incapable of an error like this.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Racism On This Site (none / 0)

The news media has taken to calling Sen. Obama the "Teflon Candidate" because his opponents are scared to say anything about him due to the fear of being called racist.

If there was a level playing field, one would not have to worry about the remark "a fairy tale", or that it took a President to sign the Civil Rights Act into law. Manufactured instances of racism hurts the real instances.

Sounds like the Obama camp is the one "who will do or say anything to win" and they are using the most divisive issue of race with which to do it.


"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."
by LadyEagle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.