This isn't about you the indivudal. It's about understanding the big picture. This reminds me unfortunately of conversations I have with others about race in which they resort to "but I never did any fo that against you." We all live in the same society. If you are progressive, that's something you should understand regardless, and talking about issues isn't reducible simply to individual responsibility.
Do you think people aren't going to think that anyway? Has it occured to you that its better to get these issues out fo the way now rather than wait for the GOP to attack us with them in the fall? DO you really think the answer is to call everyone racist when they bring upt he concern? The fact that the are racists who will use this isn't an excuse to ignore it. It's the very reason why an honest discussion rather than all this political posturing needed to occur. but, that will never happen now.
You conflate to things. I don't want to be rude, but frankly, I am tired of treating people as if they have strong reasoning skills. You are conflating to things- the supporters of a candidate with the candidates accomplishments. Those aren't the same thing. Because you do that- because you take her comments as an attribution about the candidate rather than one about the nature of the political symbolism amongst supporters, you miss the point entirely,a nd therefore conclude it's racism. I can not tell you how many people I've talked to who are "progressives" who say they support X or Y and are fervent bout it, but if you ask them why, they can't say why. Delving deeper I come to find that women say they support Clinton because of gender, not solely,b ut it's a big issue in the room. The same is true of some of Obama's support. Ferraro made the same assertions about her own nomination for the VIce Presidency. Not that she wasn't qualified. not that Obama may not be qualified, but that symbolism and emotional appeal of black=progress or woman=progress trumps all else in the VOTERS mind. Not with regard to the candidate themselves. As someone who is black and professional the thing she is talkinga bout happens both in the negative and positive to me all the time. People attribute things to me becuase I am black. They assume what I think and feel. That doesnt' change who I am. But it does reflect reality to say that they do this. Her one mistake was saying this in a political killing season. So honestly right now isn't allowed. Instead, let's pretend that its racism to point out that people , include progressives, are indeed affected by race, and that pointing this out is racism against the person's ability. No it's not. What's racist against them is not seeing them as they are rather than for all tye symbolism- whether good or bad.
Do me a favor. go google daily kos or look at my diary and those of others on this subject. I believe one poster was sharika (spelling?) over a Daily Kos. When you have done that research or have talked to as many people as I have about race, then let's talk.
Another silly diary by another sillyperson. I really don't have patience for anyone who will not do everything they can to prevent a REpublican from obtaining the WH. No respect what so ever for your views. THis is true of any Obama or Clinton supporter. Grow up. This isn't about one cyle or person- it's about the direction of the country as a whole. At the end of the day- any Democrat is 100 times better than Mr 100 Years War. If you don't see that then you really haven't been paying attention or are too much a shill to ever learn.
Can you explain how her statements were racists? Mind you. I am black guy who grew up down South, was called nigger while growing up, nearly was run over my some racists as teenager, had to with teh support of several people of color around me go to college on all schollarships because I was poor, etc. In other words, no one here can question my bona fides, but I honestly don't get why what she said was racist.
Actually the fact Clinton's name is Clinton, the fact she's a woman AND the fact that for many progressive, black=progressives are all part of this campaign season. The only one's lying about that reality are the various shills for the two candidates. We need to address these issues before teh GOp does in teh form of McCain- but I honestly don't think many of you can.
Sorry, but I am not going to play Obama plays race, CLinton doesn't play gender. "you go girl" give me a break. Progressive on race and gender will never happen in the context in which the Democratic nominees have framed the discussion and it will affect their presidencies.
Actually I made that argument for both gender and race. I think the extent to which id politics has skewed the discussion is really bad. ANd don't get me wrong, it happens with regard to white males too-- look at the GOP. THis isn't a question of a particular candidate, but to understand ALL of our blinders and to start to address rather than simply gloss them over.
I don't see how her point is all that controversial unless you are dealing with people who don't want to frankly discuss the impact of race or gender on their decision making. Many have said that we are willing to discuss these issues, but in general, no mattr how it couched, I find progressives to be mostly closed minded no matter who they are voting on the issue of discussing how race or gender inpacts our thinking. And yeah, the thought experiment is confusing only if we haven't thought through the impact
It's late,a nd i will keep this short. The latest dust up is irrelevant to me, and I only use its as a bouncing board for my greater concerns. If you want to go argue with some Clinton supporter (I am not one) over how bent out of shape you are about all of this, I would suggest you find one rather than bringing that to me because after this post I am going to ignore any attempts to try to turn this into Clinton versus Obama. Sorry, I simply have a low tolerance for someone selectively taking what I said and turning it into essentially another Obama is/Clinton is diary. Simply no longer interested since ther eare a plenty of places you can get that.
Also, I am not asking about pundits, I am talking about us the voters. If you could address that rather than try to side track the discussion into talking about pundits, that's cool, but if, not, I will simply move on.
You are constructing a strawman argument with the "all" and if you read below you will note i say gender is also id politics in this race. it doesn't require all to significannly shift the dynamics of a primary. just significant, and nor does it need to the only reason, it can be one of many