This is what we need to address

I am an intern for the Democratic Party in a swing state. Part of my duties today (besides making coffee of course!) was to answer incoming phone calls. Some people in this area decide to call the local Democratic Party to vent their anger and frustration regarding the primaries and their results. Many of them are angry Clinton supporters, though there are some Obama people who are very upset that she hasn't stepped out yet. I want to tell this community of a conversation that I had this morning with a Catholic woman who identified herself as a lifetime Democratic voter.

This caller is a Clinton supporter and she started the conversation by asking, "Why did our party make this mistake of nominating an inexperienced candidate with so much baggage from Chicago?" I of course provided the company line that the Democratic Party has not endorsed a candidate and that ultimately we are going to support whichever candidate is nominated.

She pressed further, "but even him?!" This is when I started to engage with her and try to push her towards the candidate that does appear to be our persumptive nominee. In regards to the lack of political experience, I told her that Barack Obama has been in elected office for more years before the presidency than George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and many former presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. What matters in this election is judgement, which can be achieved through the sheer number of years in government or the ability to appropriately see a problem and find its solution. In regards to Obama, we know that he wants to push for an end to the war in Iraq, economic reform, and greater health insurance benefits. For McCain, we know that he wants 100 years in Iraq, no substantial change to our nation's "markets," and reductions in a number of items that affect our nation's safety net. Who has the better judgement there to solve our problems?  

From here, this caller discussed how women feel so shunned in this process because the Democratic Party itself decided to throw women to the side. I calmly told her that the party doesn't get to decide the nominee, that voters decide through the primary and caucus process. And I told her that women made up the majority of voters in all contests for the Democratic nomination, except for in Puerto Rico. She said that McCain and the Republicans "are moving towards the center and his policies really can appeal to me and many other women." I tried to point out certain policy proposals that I feel would really upset women, including cutting SCHIP, but this didn't seem to go over well with her.    

Finally, she went on about Obama's "baggage" which consists of "Chicago machine politics, Farakhan, Ayers, Wright, and that church of his which is so against what I as a Catholic believe in." This was a doozie. I started by asking for where she heard this information - and she said TV. Of course, I told her that she shouldn't accept everything she sees on TV wholesale, which she said that she didn't. I talked about how almost every politician will have a connection to a political machine - it's part of the game. The bigger issue is how a candidate attempts to run a campaign that is as clean as possible, which made me bring up that Obama doesn't accept a dime from lobbyists. I informed her politely that there isn't a connection at all between Farakhan and Obama and that the media, regardless of party, will always blow non-stories into front page news. I also mentioned that all candidates have baggage, include the Clintons.

Then, she asked, "well what about the church? They all hoot and holler." I, like the caller, am a Catholic. I also major in Theology at the University of Notre Dame, which has allowed me to experience all kinds of faith experiences. I told her that I have attended African-American churches that are much like Senator Obama's now former church. It is a completely different style of worship that is interactive and focuses on creating the fire of the Holy Spirit in the church members. It is a wonderful way to express faith and to form a religious community.

Her response, "but what about saying 'God damn' during church services?" I kindly pointed to the former rite of the Catholic Church that included many uses of the word "damn" or "damned." The word "damn" in a religious context has no value as a modern curse word.

Now this set her off, though. She went on, "A person from that kind of a culture that is not advanced on the evolutionary scale cannot serve as the President of the United States. Thank you for listening to me, good bye." Quite the horrible, race-based ending to our conversation.

This phone call shows what exactly we need to address during this campaign. Obama's lack of experience and "baggage" need to be artfully addressed. I obviously failed today because the woman was receptive to none of it. We need to be prepared for this sort of thing, especially as we unify this party. It is also clear that the media narrative about maverick McCain is too quickly accepted by even core Democratic groups. It's obvious that the minute that Obama hits the magic number, he needs to run a biographical ad, and then he, along with 527s and whatever the DNC can muster, need to put together a constant negative ad campaign out against McCain that highlights his many failures in judgement.

Finally, we need to remember that there is a race element to this campaign. That is the world that we live in. We need to find a way to not allow the media's narrative to become one of Obama being a "scary black man." Frankly, talking to this woman, and others over the past few weeks, I am afraid that we are unable to reach many voters who are in our base camp because of certain prejudices. What can we do to look up this base? We need to decide that as soon as possible or else John McCain will run away with this thing and be George Bush's third term.

*I'm not saying that Clinton supporters are all inherently racist. I am merely saying that race is probably a problem for at least some of her voters, which is a reasonable statement.  

Update: Thanks for placing me on the rec list, my first time! These are important issues and to move forward as a party searching to create change not only in this election but in our culture, we need to discuss them.

Tags: clinton, experience, gender, obama, race, religion, unity (all tags)

Comments

155 Comments

Stop

There are no racists in the Clinton campaign.  And none of her voters were motivated by race.

It's the Obama camp that is motivated by race, always playing the race card.

They played the race card in Vermont to steal that state from Hillary.

Shame on you Barack Obama.  Meet me in Puerto Rico.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-02 07:35AM | 0 recs
Don't feed the concern trolls

Please, if you can rate, hide this comment.

by juliewolf 2008-06-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feed the concern trolls

I thought it was snarkily pro-Obama...

by DaveMB 2008-06-02 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feed the concern trolls

It is.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-02 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't feed the concern trolls

He/she is a known parody troll, and in my opinion one of the more creative ones.  But still a parody troll, and probably worth a TR.

by mistersite 2008-06-02 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop

^^^^^

troll alert

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop

This comment lacks any basic credibility.  It will fail to persuade anyone who has not already adopted these empirically untenable positions.

by Strummerson 2008-06-02 07:45AM | 0 recs
is this snark???

because it's obviously divorced from reality...

by bored now 2008-06-02 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: is this snark???

Ah memories of Jeff Gannon

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop

OK.  It was funny for awhile.  But enough.

by TL 2008-06-02 08:15AM | 0 recs
I don't know

The parody troll said that Obama played the race card to win in Vermont.  You can't get much more ludicrous than that.  You'd think it's just too silly.  But then there are several people who actually thought it was serious in one way or another.  How a black man plays the 'race card' in Vermont is anyone's guess.  But people still take it seriously.

It suggests to me that parody troll is still exposing something about this site.  

People are making assertions that are about as stupid as this.  And, incredibly, they are often echoing the talking points coming directly from the Clinton campaign.  I think that's why people automatically fight back against such a stupid line.  They're used to doing it with people who actually mean it.

Satire is supposed to reveal something real about what is going on.  Unfortunately, I think this does.  

It's annoying as hell if you're trying to take this site seriously in the current environment.  But I think that's probably the point.  

by Sun Dog 2008-06-02 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know

I didn't see the race card in Vermont comment, but it sounds pretty hilarious.  I think I just wish that s/he hadn't gotten the first post because it is a little insulting to real Clinton supporters, but what can you do?

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-02 08:50AM | 0 recs
Oh yeah

it definitely hijacked the thread

by Sun Dog 2008-06-02 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop

Dude, I post the same type of comment only not with a parody name. I get tired of arguing absurdities, so it's often easier just to mimic them. Some of the stuff here is so ridiculous you can almost wear that persona as a suit.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-02 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

well, to be fair, if Hillary was the nominee, I am sure we would have had some knuckle-draggers as well

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Probably true.  I think it's more concerning with the Hillary "knuckle draggers" because a lot of these probably have voted democratic for a long time.  People who hate Hillary enough not to vote for her (if given the opportunity) probably weren't too strongly democratic before this race anyway (not a knock, just that he's tended to be more attractive to independents).

A portion of these Clinton/McCain supporters will not support Obama for various non-race-related reasons, but I'm worried about the portion that, when it comes right down to it like it did with the caller mentioned in the diary, are uncomfortable with him because he's black.

Don't get me wrong, I think we're in great shape for the general election.  If we can get 100% of Obama supporters and 80% of Hillary's supporters, it'll be a landslide.  Obviously 80% of HRC's vote isn't by any means guaranteed, but I'd be surprised if at least some portion of those people who say they'll vote for McCain over Obama won't change their mind.  Given that polls tend to have the two tied or even Obama winning, I'd say that this portends a good result in November.

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-02 09:01AM | 0 recs
I'm just gonna worry for them...

how's about that? ;-)

by RisingTide 2008-06-02 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Well the real problem I've had with Hillary continuing on in this campaign for so long is the manner in which she has conducted herself, not that she chose to continue on until June/August/whenever.

She has chosen to gin up her base with accusations that Obama and the DNC are disenfranchising them, hijacking her delegates, and stealing a victory that is rightfully hers/theirs.  

Normally, supporters of a candidate line up behind the winning nominee, but Hillary and her surrogates have convinced a substantial number of her supporters (the knuckle-draggers as you put it) that the process was subverted by Obama and his 'Chicago-style politics.'  

If Hillary lost, but made it clear that the process was fair, even her most hardcore supporters would most likely line up behind Obama.  She's unfortunately doing her best to outrage her supporters, many of whom seem prepared to vote for McCain, just to stick it to Obama and the DNC - consequences be damned.

It's her disenfranchisement rhetoric, seemingly designed to undercut Obama's legitimacy with a large chunk of the Democratic base, that has many observers thinking that she want's Obama to lose in the fall.  

by cato 2008-06-02 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

And this is my main objection to her continuing campaign. I wouldn't mind if she were to be saying "hey look I'm the better more qualified canddiate" that's what we expect candidates to do.

But she isn't she's blaming the process the media and the party and tarnishing what is an amazing victory for Obama.

Hell they've held this down to the point where Obama supporters aren't even allowed to be happy about winning.

by Skex 2008-06-02 11:48AM | 0 recs
If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

with rhetoric, she could be talking about having the race card played against her. I believe it was most definately played against her and so do many of her supporters.

Clinton is going to heartily endorse Obama and work like crazy to get him elected. That was always the case.

It's basically a 50/50 primary. She'll end up with more overall votes and he's got more delegates.

There is one solution and that's to have a unity ticket. Absent that, there won't be any unity this cycle and we all lose. That's reality.

It's Obama's call.

by mmorang 2008-06-02 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

You don't think it's damaging enough to imply that the contest was illegitimate?  Giving her most ardent supporters a reason to go on even when she drops out?

As far as the ad hominem attacks against him, I think she was warned by people on her own side after Indiana/NC and toned that down a LOT.  Don't forget that Bill Clinton already accused the Obama campaign of playing the race card on him.

by shalca 2008-06-02 01:25PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton correctly accused the Obama people

of playing the race card against him, because that's exactly what happened and I know it will come out. But that's history.

He either puts her on the ticket or its a third Bush term. Simple as that.

by mmorang 2008-06-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry you feel that way. . .

If you believe this, then we can't have an intelligent discussion, because you're refusing to acknowledge the divisiveness of Clinton's remarks.

by shalca 2008-06-02 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

Much like Obama couldn't be out and out opposed to the Bill Clinton Whitehouse, she couldn't really be too vocal about any perceived "race card" being played because she wants to have a future in the democratic party.  As racially contentious as the primary has been, if she were to win the nomination (or run again in 4 or 8 years) she would need the 80% of AAs who consistently vote democrat in the general.

I'm not making any claims about which group is more important to dems or which is the "backbone" of the party (we're a big tent party...lots of backbones), but she had to walk a very fine line not to burn bridges with AAs completely.

As far as your assertion that this is a 50/50 primary...well, can I say I agree that it's very close and leave it at that? :)

by minnesotaryan 2008-06-02 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama with rhetoric, she could be talking about having the race card played against her.

Oh, Bill already has -- emphatically. He then subsequently denied it despite the fact that he had specifically used the term "race card." For me, it brought back fond memories of that woman he did not have sexual relations with.

I believe it was most definately played against her and so do many of her supporters.

Then you're an idiot. You don't win a contest in which only 20% of the voters are black by demonizing your white opponent. It was in the interest of only one campaign to play the race card and it was something they engaged in frequently. And by and large, it wasn't Obama who called 'em on it -- it was the rest of us. I didn't need Obama to tell me that what Bill said in South Carolina and what Geraldine said and what Hillary told USA Today was designed to inject race into the election; It was the visceral disgust I felt in my gut that told me so.  

It's basically a 50/50 primary.

Only in your mind. There's a million different ways you can slice the popular vote, but the point is moot since the only metric that matters, per Hillary Clinton circa January, is the delegate count.

There is one solution and that's to have a unity ticket. Absent that, there won't be any unity this cycle and we all lose. That's reality. It's Obama's call.

Grow up. Every primary election, there's one winner and multiple losers. Obama won, Clinton lost, and Clinton supporters don't get to hold the rest of us hostage because they feel entitled to the nomination. If you win the nomination fair and square, the supporters of the losing candidates aren't entitled to some kind of consolation prize.  And if you refuse to vote for the nominee -- despite the fairness of the contest -- because your choice wasn't selected by the voters, then you are neither a Democrat nor a democrat; you're a petulant child who must be assuaged lest you throw a hissy fit.

by RP McMurphy 2008-06-02 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

Playing the race card is not a way to unite ANY party.

He either puts her on the ticket or he loses. He might lose with her on the ticket because he's such a bad choice this year, but he definately can't win without her.

In this election he was the race-bator, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

by mmorang 2008-06-02 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

More Linfar Brand© whinny white victimhood. Don't suppose you have any proof that the mean black man used race to convince all of those white primary voters (myself included) to vote for him rather than the nice white lady? Nah.

by RP McMurphy 2008-06-02 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama

In this campaign he's been a race-bator, that's reality.

His campaign sent everyone a memo showing different statements by the Clinton campaign and saying how it could be spun to look racists.

That was right before SC. There wasn't one thing wrong with Bill Clinton's statement. But the Obama campaign sent it out to all the reporters and explained why it was racists.

He's a race-bator and apparently his whole church is used to having preachers who race-bate so we can see where he gets it from.

by mmorang 2008-06-03 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

You have to add "mouth breathing" to knuckle draggers ;)

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 10:44AM | 0 recs
Mouth breathers?

I've always wondered why so many of you hate people with sinus problems.  

Sinus problems are not interchangeable with idiocy, folks.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-02 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Irish: Sorry the known troll (who I think is a parody troll but still) HillsMyGirl, crapped on your diary so soon. It is very interesting to hear these kinds of testimonials from folks on the front lines in any capacity. Please continue to let us know what is going on in your internship.

by wasder 2008-06-02 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

This phone call shows what exactly we need to address during this campaign.

I don't think there's anything we can do at this point to win over voters who think that Obama is from "that kind of a culture that is not advanced on the evolutionary scale."

by mistersite 2008-06-02 07:43AM | 0 recs
Addendum:

At least she believes in evolution ;-)

by mistersite 2008-06-02 07:45AM | 0 recs
I tend to agree..

While this caller was irrational and misguided, I think that it is not so much a knee-jerk racist reaction, but rather a question of unfamiliarity and overreliance on stereotypes regarding a different culture or group.

Hopefully Senator Obama can really make his campaign about showing how different groups of people are not as out of the mainsteam as people like this caller make them out to be. But we do need to know that this unfamiliarity is out there, and we need to combat that by educating voters and opening their minds to new ideas and conceptions of people.

by irish09 2008-06-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree..

Honestly, I don't know if he can do all that in the campaign.  There's an extent to which trying to overcome years of ingrained racism is going to be a less productive use of campaign time and resources than going after the vast majority of voters who are open to the idea of an African-American president.

On the other hand, after eight years of peace and prosperity under President Obama, a hell of a lot of minds could be changed.

If nothing else, people who think like that tend to be older.  The younger generations, who as a whole see race and ethnicity a lot differently, will outlive them.

by mistersite 2008-06-02 07:53AM | 0 recs
Obama could start

By denouncing ageism in his campaign, for example.  That would be a good thing.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-02 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama could start

Just so we're clear: were you referring to the last paragraph of my comment?

by mistersite 2008-06-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree..

Whats the difference between racism and an "overreliance on [negative] stereotypes regarding a different [race]"?  Especially if that stereotype is that his race (which I think is the plain interpretation of her comments) means he "is not advanced on the evolutionary scale"?  

by PantsB 2008-06-02 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree..

I think that racism, which comes mostly from being taught by one's family, also comes from basic unfamiliarity with another group of people. This unfamiliarity makes one base his or her opinion on stereotypes. I think that if we can break the cycle of unfamiliarity, then we can help to break the grip of racism on some people, such as perhaps this caller.

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree..

"These" people may only be reached by seeing him in person, hearing him speak and getting to ask him questions. This is going to be important for the Obama campaign.

by batgirl71 2008-06-02 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I tend to agree..
Whats the difference between racism and an "overreliance on [negative] stereotypes regarding a different [race]"?
There actually is one, you know. A "racist" has an emotional commitment at some level to seeing people of another race in a certain way. This is not exclusively a "white" thing, but applies to every racial group that I have interacted with on a long-term basis. (Yes, there are some people that believe that racism is a power-based thing, and thus that any ethnic group can not be racist by definition. I disagree. YMMV)

Someone who is exibiting an "overreliance on [negative] stereotypes regarding a different [race]" is someone who does not have an emotional commitment to seeing people of another race in a certain way, but rather (due to lack of exposure, social situation, or even conscious avoidance of the other group) have a lack of personal information, and are expected to make a judgement based on news reports, talking with other people they know (who may also have similar limitations), from jokes and humor, from articles spun to depict an entire group in one way, from unwarranted generalizations, or from any number of other sources providing a distorted or filtered picture of that group.

It doesn't only apply to race either. If I discuss "Street kids", "punk rockers", "S&M / B&D culture", "Leather", "Harley riders", "Bikers", "Metalheads", "Feminists", "Fundamentalists", or any number of other groups that you may not have interacted with, you will get an image - usually stereotypical, frequently derived from sources providing negative stereotypes (how many news reports of street kids living quietly, doing good, and not bothering anyone do you see in the news for example).

In their own way, many (if not most) peoples reactions to these groups comes from a low-information background relating to the groups. If you grew up in Portland, OR (as I did) in the 60s and 70s, well, we were frequently touted as the whitest big city in the country, and certainly the whitest state. I was low-information on the reality of non-Caucasian subcultures in America. (I got better).

All we can do is put out true snapshots of what is really happening in the subculture, be it punk rockers or black churches, and hope that people will listen. The ability to change preconceptions does, unfortunately, seem to degrade with age on the average, so most of those we can reach are younger. However, that will not keep me from trying.

Truth is the best answer.

by Vancouverite 2008-06-02 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

They all hoot and holler."

And the Clintons are working overtime to give people like this the cover of victimization for their racism.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Except, they're not.

by VAAlex 2008-06-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Yes, they are. Encouraging the idea that the game was rigged against her; that their latest metric is what counts, not the ones they were arguing about before; Bill Clinton has been encouraging the idea that "it's okay to pick on the girl".  Lanny Davis? Harold Ickes? Terry McAuliffe? That's pretty much all these clowns do anymore. Their victim card is this woman's victim card, and makes her feel comfortable going from that to her racist spewing.

This woman specifically mentions Louis Farrakhan. Have Barack Obama and Farrakhan ever met? Why does she associate Obama with Farrakhan? Maybe because Hillary Clinton kept bringing the subject up?

Obama specifically called on his supporters to not protest the RCB meeting. Where was a similar call from Hillary Clinton to Harriet Christian and Larry Sinclair?

in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.

"They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there," the blond Sinclair--who's looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket--says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of "Obama's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, "I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!"

He's not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers.
[...]
Justine, a self-described "diehard Democrat" from Greensboro, North Carolina, objects to the write-in idea. "It's gonna help Barack if you don't vote against him," she says. She and her friends got Sinclair to autograph their copies of the "Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" flier.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump /archive/2008/05/31/scenes-from-today-s- rbc-hillary-protest.aspx

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Sorry, your rants on 'the racist Clintons' hold little sway anymore.

by VAAlex 2008-06-02 08:58AM | 0 recs
Sigh

Thanks for completely missing the point. Can't respond to the most basic question, I guess.

Obama specifically called on his supporters to not protest the RCB meeting. Where was a similar call from Hillary Clinton to Harriet Christian and Larry Sinclair?

(And yes, Hillary Clinton has engaged in race-baiting. Sorry to have to tell you that.)

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh

Anyone can pull out whatever quotes from the internets they want to support whatever fringe theory they have. You want to believe they're racists? Fine. Thankfully your views hold little sway and the vast majority of people will reject it for the smears that they are.

Hillary Clinton never called on her supporters to protest the meeting. What's your point? Are we going to get into the game of specifically calling out what people shouldn't do as well? In that case I'm surprised Barack Obama didn't specifically call on their supporters not to go to bed without brushing their teeth. Also, he didn't specifically call on them to not hurt little puppies. Where's your outrage at that? Give me a break.

by VAAlex 2008-06-02 09:05AM | 0 recs
Wow

In that case I'm surprised Barack Obama didn't specifically call on their supporters not to go to bed without brushing their teeth. Also, he didn't specifically call on them to not hurt little puppies.

You really can't stay on a topic, can you?

The Clintons are actively promoting strife and resentment in the Democratic Party. Some people think they're deliberately trying to sabotage Obama so she can run in 2012. I am not one of those people. I think they are narcissists so caught up in their own narrative of entitlement and victimization they are no longer seeing straight.

As to racism, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly engaged in race baiting in this campaign. Why is Louis Farrakhan relevant to Barack Obama? How do you interpret "Hard-working white Americans"? A freudian slip? Certainly. But one that revealed her approach: Trying to scare super-delegates that the black guy can't win. If you want to argue that there's a big moral difference between being a racist and race-baiting to scare white voters and politicians, go right ahead.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

I'm glad you find playing 'the Clinton racist game' endearing; I don't.

Thankfully fringe theories are exactly that -- fringe. There's other people on here who will doubtlessly agree with you; feel free to step into that echo chamber whenever you'd like.

Good day!

by VAAlex 2008-06-02 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Still can't answer direct, substantive questions, huh?

That should tell you something right there.

I guess since I don't get emotionally invested in politicians, what is sometimes called a "cult of personality", I can see them more objectively than a lot of people. You have trouble discussing the facts because then you might have to acknowledge that your heros have feet of clay, that they have run a disgusting, lowest-common-denominator campaign of mean-spirited, fear-mongering demagoguery, from her Farrakhan-tourrette's to "obliterating" Iran. I get it.

I find it best to keep some emotional distance from politics. It's a bit less exciting, but the inevitable disappointments (they're just human beings, after all, with strengths and weaknesses and great qualities and big flaws) are easier to deal with.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I rec'd your diary and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the Democratic Party : )

Keep on fighting for us in Ohio!!!

by NYMinute 2008-06-02 07:44AM | 0 recs
Will do

I am committeed to this party and its ideals. It looks like Obama will be our nominee and I will fight for him as long as there is a battle (it'd be the same for Clinton or any other Democratic leader).

by irish09 2008-06-02 07:50AM | 0 recs
Winnable votes and unwinnable votes

One reason I didn't decide on Obama until the last day is his race.  Not because I believe a black man is less capable, but because others do feel that way.  For all the talk of sexism in the campaign, the MSM has been reluctant to openly discuss racism as a factor (even when it clearly was a major motivating factor).  

Obama is not going to win the racist vote (shocker!).  If a person is unwilling to vote for Obama because of his race today, that is not going to change by November no matter what Obama's strategy is.  The woman on the phone is not going to vote for Obama.  F em.

Obama can win the election - there are many paths to victory.  But the votes that can be swayed are not those who are making their decision based on race.

by PantsB 2008-06-02 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that's a key difference

It's like the age-old question, "are you electable?" The response: "well if you vote for me, of course I'm electable."

Same here, so what if you don't think the nation is ready for a black man. That sort of reasoning will ensure that we will never have one. It's time to break barriers and to vote for our best hope for the future - the Democratic nominee.

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:24AM | 0 recs
Give me a break

How about most Hillary supporters so want to elect a black man, but have found Obama to be lacking in judgement.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Give me a break

How did Senator Obama demonstrate a lack of judgement? Doesn't he have almost an identical voting record as Senator Clinton (both have votes that many here would disagree with)?

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Many thanks for doing this work!  

Keep up the good fight.  It can be tough, but well worth doing.

by TL 2008-06-02 08:14AM | 0 recs
Reminds me of Saturday

I was watching C-SPAN, and a caller phoned into the Washington Journal and said that, if Obama became president, "Sharpton and the Black Caucus" would "lean on him" until "we" were all "paying reparations."

The host looked like somebody hit him between the eyes. The caller said "Do you know what I'm talking about?"

The host responded, "Yes, I know what you're talking about.  Thank you for your call." Then he hung up on the guy.

Dude, we all know what you're talking about.

The amazing thing about this race is that it's kicking loose the rocks that all of the cockroaches of racist (and, to be fair, sexist and ageist) sentiment were hiding under.

Even my friends are not immune.  I was at a friend's wedding in Florida and, when I got picked up from the airport, I asked about their screwed up primaries. He barely knew what I was talking about, and when I said that I support Obama, he nodded and said, "I kinda like the black guy."

It took awhile for me to digest that.  My friend's always been a little anti-PC, but the fact that he considered Obama to be "the black guy" really brought home that not everybody is going to be an obsessive-compulsive politics-hound like I am, and there's still a lot of repressed racist sentiment in our country.

Here's to changing peoples' minds.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-02 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

The only way to change minds is to educate everyone, including those who come off as racist. Barack Obama is the first candidate since 1968 who has actively sought to expand the electorate to include all Americans, especially underrepresentated groups. He knows that the more engaged people become and the more educated they are regarding the issues, the better our nation will ultimately become.

I hope we engage in campaign activities that demonstrate this belief.  

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

really?? he's the first??? what's your evidence...

by jentwisl 2008-06-02 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

My evidence is that many campaigns attempt to keep the electorate at a consistent rate. New voters, are by their nature, unlikely to provide consistent results, which is not good for people seeking to win an elective office. Therefore, you get few candidates who want to truly expand the electorate.

It is generally agreed in the academic world that Robert Kennedy was the last serious major party candidate who sought to swell the voting rolls. Obama has done this as well; consider his recent decision to coordinate with the DNC's voting registration drive in all fifty states. Annecodately, here in Ohio, there are paid Obama staffers that are solely concerned with registering voters. I have never come into contact with a campaign that has conducted such a full scale effort as this one.  

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

Obama has the benefit of the internet.

I know in the 1980's, I was out there registering voters full scale.

I disagree with your assumption, because Bill Clinton changed the electorate quite a bit in 1992 & 1996

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

There are registration drives, but they are not done fullscale.

And I disagree with the idea that President Clinton changed the electorate in 1992 and 1996. In 96, only 49% of eligible voters came out, the lowest in years. In 92, Clinton change the vote choice of the electorate, but he did not fullscale change the size of the electorate. Participation was rather low, as well.  

by irish09 2008-06-02 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

1996 was low.

1976:  Carter(297):  40,831,881
       Ford(27):     39,148,634
1980:  Reagan(489):  43,903,230    
       Carter(49):   35,480,115
1984:  Reagan(525):  54,455,472
       Mondale(13):  37,577,352
1988:  Bush I(426):  48,886,597
       Dukakis(111):  41,809,476
1992:  Clinton(370):  44,909,806
       Bush I(168):   39,104,550              
       Perot(0):      19,743,821
1996:  Clinton(379):  47,402,357
       Dole(159):     39,198,755

now, how can you tell me that the Democratic turnout was low?

if you are going with post-Clinton numbers, well of course.  But pre-Clinton numbers, it is not low at all.

The only democrat to get a better EV count in the last 50 years is LBJ, at 486.  

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

I meant to post 1992 & 1996 were not low.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

I'm talking about overall turnout, not simply Democratic. This is about fullscale, across the board participation in the political process. I am not saying that we don't do a good job of getting the Democratic vote out. I am saying that political elites generally do not want to expand the electorate because it produces too much inconsistency and unpredictability, which destroyes previous campaigning notions. RFK and Obama have completely gone against this sort of concept: he didn't and Obama doesn't feel compelled to operate within the CW regarding the electoral map.  

And, yes, in the academic world I can't get away with stating that this is accepted in the academic world. I thought that a blog had a lower standard of citation, but to placate you, here are some sources that I, as well as my ND professors, have used. For further information, please see Piven and Coward 2000, Miller and Shanks 1996 , and Hudson 2004. If you would like to see my Works Cited list and my bibliography, please give more time.

As for the campaigns I've come into contact with. I have worked with the Democratic Party, a sucessful gubernatorial campaign, the Kerry campaign, and local candidates in my home state. Besides working with these campaigns, I have learned of how previous campaigns have acted from my involved father.

by irish09 2008-06-02 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

actually, what I have read from Obama's camp is that they will change the map, not expand it.  

It seems they are willing to lose historical states for new ones.

that isn't expansion, that is a re-do of the map.

and the numbers are clear - what I posted.  Participation is great - but if people don't vote despite the participation, what good is it?

I am sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis or the professors, because we have hard core data at our fingertips and the EV maps that show otherwise.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

You are completely misreading my point. I am talking about how political elites want to keep participation constant. If they get involved with manipulating the electorate size, they focus on turning their voters out or those likely to support them while supressing the other side. I'm not talking about the electoral college map...I was referring to "map" as a representation of overall participation.

It is apparent that Obama, like RFK, is trying to get people engaged in their own communities, to build social capital, and expand political participation. This goes against the CW that increased participation will wreak havoc on traditional electoral strategies.

by irish09 2008-06-02 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

Your core data shows a disturbing trend towards non-participation within American democracy, especially among the poor, Latinos, the young, and African-Americans. This is by design, especially from Republican leaders who have ultimately benefitted from this non-participation.

I say that lower participation rates are bad for the health of our democracy. Obama particularly is engaged in trying to correct this through his service iniatives and willingness to provide substantial resources towards registration.

by irish09 2008-06-02 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

I agree with that Obama is ramping up the participation - what I disagree is that he is the first one to do so since Bobby Kennedy.

also, considering we had 59,028,444 votes for Kerry, a candidate that a lot of folks were luke-warm about , in 2004, and we will continue to get more and garner more support in the upcoming years, tells me this is just a normal trend in a cycle.

the republicans had in the 1980's.  

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday

I agree that lower participation rates are not good, but until the final counts come out for 2008, I am not sure if we are going to break 52%

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday
"generally agreed in the academic world"????
in the academic world you would never get away with saying that.... about anything... without citation
by jentwisl 2008-06-02 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Reminds me of Saturday
sorry, i have to add:
you wrote that "I have never come into contact with a campaign that has...."
how many campaigns have you "come into contact with" exactly?  i mean you say you are an intern...so doesn't that imply you are new to this??
by jentwisl 2008-06-02 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

The most troubling part of this is that this person very carefully went through all of the approved talking points before dropping the mask and admitting to racism.  Most people like that would never admit to being a racist and may not even be conscious of their aversion to Obama because of his race.  This makes Obama's job tougher because he'll be required to address the things the caller brings up, but it may do nothing at all because the underlying problem is race.

To be fair, I think this is a hallmark of most political campaigns.  There will be a group of people turned off by the candidate for reasons unclear to themselves and therefore addressing the issues will to nothing to change some people's opionions.  For example, I would think George Bush was a terrible President even without the Iraq War.

by the mollusk 2008-06-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I hope that my diary illuminates that race does fester under alot of the nastiness directed towards Senator Obama. That's why I really believe if the Obama campaign engages in describing the particular aspects of African-American culture, people will be unable to so quickly dismiss it as against every part of their own culture. Being a part of the AA culture is just like being part of the Irish Catholic culture that I'm part of.  

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

One of my favorite parts of his speech on race shortly after the Jeremiah Wright video surfaced was when he described African-American Churches as being places where people are loud, raucous, and blow off considerable amounts of steam.  The videos were supposed about what Jeremiah Wright was saying, and that is partly true.  But they were also about showing the people in the aisles dancing and falling over themselves.  You know how bizarre this looks to Catholics and other top-down type Churches.  The intent was quite clear in showing the contrasting styles of worship.  It plays very directly into stereotypes about the Black community.

by the mollusk 2008-06-02 09:33AM | 0 recs
Years in elected office do not guaruntee

or prove you've attained judgement. I think that's even an Obama campaign talking point.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I heard this woman's spiritual twin on Limbaugh last week (short cab ride). She was ranting and raving about how the Democratic Party doesn't care about votes (she was calling from New York, so she voted, whatever), and takes women for granted. OxyRush was egging her one, telling her she'd been conned for her entire life, they were in total agreement.

Then out of nowhere, she started ranting about "What do they want? All the things they complain about didn't even happen to them! It happened to their parents and grand-parents, and all they do is complain! They were never slaves!"

Even Limbaugh was embarrassed, though probably only because she was saying out loud what her agrees with.

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 08:25AM | 0 recs
I heard a Hillary supporter

call in to Hannity's radio show. Very similar. She said that if Obama is the nominee, she's coming over to their side. WTF? Hannity? What I still can't get out of my mind is that if Clinton was the eventual nominee, Hannity and his FOX friends would be all over Hillary again.

by batgirl71 2008-06-02 11:28AM | 0 recs
His church-quitting press conference

kind of sealed the deal - after the congregants cheered on the Hillary Hate sermons he said he was quitting the church because his candidacy calls too much attention to that church. He said he would not denounce the church because there was nothing worth denouncing.

He had yet to apologize personally to Hillary CLinton - both publicly and privately - that the Hillary Hate sermons of both Wright and Pfleger, and cheered on by Moss, who Obama on Saturday referred to as a find young pastor, were unacceptable and outrageous.

He's not electable. At least I will not help elect him. He does. not. get it.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: His church-quitting press conference

You do not denounce a church community that helped to discover many aspects of your personal faith and your own personal identity. Do you really think that it would be just for a good and decent man to denounce an organization that helped him to do that?

He has publicly said that he disagrees with the radical views of Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger, who I must tell you is a great advocate for social justice. He called Fr. Pfleger's rhetoric "backward-thinking." What else do you need?

He is electable. Finally, African-Americans are voting in proportions relative to their composition of the population and young people are ready to really come out for a change in our political culture that Obama represents.

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: His church-quitting press conference

...as we were....for McGovern...

by jentwisl 2008-06-02 08:41AM | 0 recs
You can praise a community while

still denouncing what is unacceptable.

This is why people have a problem with organized religion - it's all under the guise of doing good but preachers can get carried away in dogmatism.

He doesn't have to denounce organized religion or that entire church. But he has a duty, as a leader of all the people of this country, to denounce unacceptable disrespectful Hillary-Hate sermons spoken from a house of god. He has a duty and he failed.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You can praise a community while

He denounced those sermons. I don't see where the complaint still is. This sort of hypernegativity regarding this church has forced him to leave it. I think that he has done more than enough to reduce your fears of him being some radical woman-hater.

by irish09 2008-06-02 08:45AM | 0 recs
He has not.

He didn't even have to quit the church. He just had to apologize the way McCain did. I'm sorry to put it like that but it is so painfully obvious McCain saw right away what needed to be said.

He's wondering how he can win over Hillary's supporters and attain party unity. That's what he needs to do.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:49AM | 0 recs
But that it's taken him this long

shows he does not have the judgement that told him he should have done it already. It's just...he just lacks judgement in the eyes of many Hillary supporters.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:50AM | 0 recs
So what it says is

he can't pick up on things when they are right in front of his face.

This goes beyond perceived slights - he cannot sense something as a danger to his campaign until it's really, really obvious.

Now you could counter that it hasn't hurt him in the Democratic primary, and I would have to concede. But this is the exact thing that will hurt him in the General Election.

And if he cannot sense a danger to his own campaign, how can he sense danger from rogue states? Is this far reaching? You will probably say yes. But it's exactly what runs through my mind, and I sense the mind of others, too.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: So what it says is

OMG DONT U GUYZ REALIZE THAT BARACK IZ TEH BOOGIE MAN?

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Um

Apparently, the only thing Barack Obama can do in this matter is concede the election to Clinton and quit politics. It's the only way to satisfy some people.

Seriously, what you're seeing here is an example of what the diarist is explicating: there are people who will look for and find something to "legitimately" criticize Obama over, whether it's a direct statement, or an association, or some idea indirectly connected to him that he must respond to. As each point is taken down, another will pop up. We can almost predict the order.

And no matter how strong an explanation you offer, or how clear Obama's own response is, it'll never be enough. Because there is something else lurking there.

It may just be late-primary resentment. It may be a tendency to overwrought emotionalism and hyperbole. Or it may indeed be simmering prejudice, or even full-blown racism. It's not going to be easy to define every time.

The other possibility, at least on the internet, is garden-variety trolling. People like attention. Losers like negative attention. They'll keep saying things just to keep getting responses. Expect a lot of that over the next few weeks.

by BobzCat 2008-06-02 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You can praise a community while
He did denounce the sermon.  Apparently not strongly enough for you, though.  You said previously that he needs to apologize for the sermon.  You want him to apologize for what someone not affiliated with his campaign said?  Should Clinton apologize for what Harriet Christian said?  This is ridiculous.
An apology is not in order.  I think Obama has repeatedly indicated he does not condone these types of remarks and I suspect nothing he says would suffice for you.
by bottl4 2008-06-02 09:05AM | 0 recs
Rec'd

Well written (wouldn't expect less from a Domer, of course), well argued.

Right now, the task is to win over Clinton supporters where you can with calm, informative arguments. They can then help us craft a better, stronger message that will be more appealing to the some of the hard-line Clinton supporters, who will come over, and continue the process like that. There's no way to win over 17 million people instantly. It'll have to happen one at a time.

by TCQuad 2008-06-02 08:37AM | 0 recs
I think what she was saying

or what I would say is it's absurd when the popular vote is about equal, that we're nominating the less electable, less experienced candidate. Especially now that all this baggage is coming out.

We can forgive our party for nominating loser candidates when none other were in the pool. But when one extremely strong candidate is right there for the picking - why would we choose (who we see) as the weaker one?

by catfish2 2008-06-02 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I think what she was saying

It seems pretty clear that she was saying that black people are ontologically inferior.  Don't try to hide that with talking points.

by proseandpromise 2008-06-02 10:49AM | 0 recs
I think she was saying

if he were anybody else, with all this baggage piling up and his electability growing weaker as the campaign wears on, the supers would nominate Hillary and be done with it.

But he's a black man, and we just can't risk pissing off the black community.

I'll re-read the diary.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I think she was saying
What baggage? The worst they've been able to come up with is guilt by association.
That's not baggage that's bullshit.
by Skex 2008-06-02 12:19PM | 0 recs
All of his associations are sleazy

does he have any normal friends? Where are his long-time friends?

by catfish2 2008-06-02 12:20PM | 0 recs
All the associations you mention are sleazy

I don't know about his long time friends, I don't care. I care about policies positions and getting things done.

I like the fact that he's proven to be a ruthless politician I like the fact that he ran his opponents all out of the race for his first Senate seat.

He could have no friends and I could give a shit.

You're just stiring up trouble. So how much is the RNC paying you per post?

by Skex 2008-06-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I think what she was saying

We didn't, we picked Obama.

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 10:55AM | 0 recs
Well, we believe she is clearly

the stronger candidate.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, we believe she is clearly

And those of us on the other side disagree.

by Skex 2008-06-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
And we're curious if you've evaluated

the Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, even the Carter losses. And if you see any similarities in voter base, in candidate's weaknesses. Just curious.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: And we're curious if you've evaluated

They were all weak centrist candidates also the demographics are substantially different from the 80s we're coming off 28 years of movement to the right and the country is ready to correct.

The left came out in 06 and started taking our party back 2008 we're continuing the process.

We're done fighting for a small slice of the middle we're going after the 50% of the population who both parties have ignored for the last 30 years.

by Skex 2008-06-02 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: And we're curious if you've evaluated

The Centrist Comment referes to Kerry and Dukakis obviously McGovern was much further to the left still things are different today than they were in 1968.

by Skex 2008-06-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

The "hoot and holler" comment is fair. I don't think the woman meant black but she meant that church culture. I was dismayed that Pfleger comments went over so well with African Americans in the congregation. The behavior I saw was not "advanced on the evolutionary scale." Obama attended this church for 20 years. How could he have missed this.

The behavior was not Christian, but more like something you would experience in a comedy club. I'm confounded that Africans Americans have embraced the Clintons are racists and they believed they are entitled to the presidency because they are white.

by feelfree 2008-06-02 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Worship styles are completely different. What I have seen in Obama's African-American church is similiar to some charismatic Catholic services, Pentacostal services, and even some Baptist services.

The behavior was uniquely Christian, especially when you consider the work that Trinity does for the homeless and the economically oppressed in Chicago.

by irish09 2008-06-02 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

i think the question is not "worship styles" so much as ....well....is it appropriate to mock any politician, not for what they stand for but for who they are?  to me, personal attacks feed hatred and not justice.

by jentwisl 2008-06-02 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Evangelical mega churches do it ALLLLL the time.

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

yep, and I call 'em freaks.

did you see Jesus Camp?  OMG

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Yes!  I love how it was Ted Haggard in it :D

by kasjogren 2008-06-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

But the media doesnt play the evangelical soundbytes 24/7 for 3 weeks.   Just like Cindy McCain, stole drugs from a non profit group, no mention of it on tv.   If that was Michelle Obama the media would of portrayed her as a crack addict.

by realistdem 2008-06-02 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

There is no question that worship styles are different.

I disagree that the behavior of the congregation had anything to do with worship and nothing about it was Christ-like.

by feelfree 2008-06-02 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

The behavior I saw was not "advanced on the evolutionary scale." Obama attended this church for 20 years. How could he have missed this.

Michael Pfleger spoke for twenty years? Cause that's the behavior you're talking about, right? You're not suggesting that all that "hooting and hollering", to use the other terms you've adopted, are "not advanced on the evolutionary scale", are you?

or.... are you?

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address


My point remains clear. The hateful opinions of Pfleger received a resounding welcome in that church.

Surely you are not denying that?

Are you advanced enough on the evolutionary scale to understand the difference?

by feelfree 2008-06-02 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I realize you got caught up in your own you-thought-it-was subtle game, but your point was that Obama observed that primitive, even subhuman, according to your terms, behavior, for "twenty years".

Were you positing that Michael Pfleger spoke there for twenty years? Or were you using the sub-human rhetoric to describe something else ?

by BlueinColorado 2008-06-02 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I was not being subtle. I wasn't speaking in code. Don't imply otherwise. I was very direct.

Michael Pfleger did not have to speak at the church for 20 years for the ATTITUDES to be cultivated and to know that Pfleger's speech would be receptive to the congregation. That took time and effort. Obama had to know that this type of offensive language is acceptable to that congregation.

It really doesn't get any clearer than that.
 

by feelfree 2008-06-02 12:34PM | 0 recs
Oh, but it does.

And the Rev.Wright talking points return.

Yes, those scary capitalized ATTITUDES, that one emerges an expert on, based on soundbites and a couple of video clips.

Those shocking, captivating ATTITUDES, that mysteriously ensnared all those that set foot in that church, keeping them UPPITY for life!

Why, even the perception of "sinful by ATTITUDE" people in our church would cause us righteously indignant folk to move, quickly, to another. Mercifully for our moving bills, that doesn't happen more than twice a year!

Sharing a church with all those imperfect human beings, how contemptible. Surely he knew this brand of sinfulness is particularly catching when you run for political office? Certainly Jesus wouldn't be caught associating with sinners. And nor should Barack!

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-02 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, but it does.

I agree the words and actions of that church in that video were wrong and contemptible.

You will not be able to convince reasonable people that that what they saw and heard was an aberration.

Even though Obama is closest to becoming the nominee the other side still holds an extreme amount of contempt for the Clintons.

That is what I saw and heard.

Based on your comments no matter how sarcastic they may be, you saw and heard the same thing.

by feelfree 2008-06-02 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, but it does.

You think it shocking that die-hard supporters of his show contempt for the Clintons? Have you seen any of Ferraro's sporadic spit slinging? Do you believe her bileous outbursts have been kind and solicitous?

I don't have evidence to prove that this was an aberration, true. But I for one would not want to be judged by any of my fellow-parishioners' attitudes - despite the fact that I don't belong to a mega-church where  fulminating against the powers-that-be isn't unusual.

In any case, I'm sick and tired of the guilt by association, the innuendo, the faux outrage and fear-mongering that seeks to attribute Obama with just about any dirt that can be dug up or fabricated on anyone remotely linked with him, no matter how far-fetched the association.

I suspect I'm not the only one.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-02 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Bomb bomb Iran
McWars at airpac

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex? id=4979945

by nogo postal 2008-06-02 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

by the way HillisMyGirl posts quality snark..
I respect such...mojo

It does highlight that comments in past months have been such that folks might think it is real

by nogo postal 2008-06-02 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

and pisses off Hillary Supporters who do not act that way.

You should not respect it or even encourage it.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Churches in Hillary county..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpVffsJ0O hA

by nogo postal 2008-06-02 10:00AM | 0 recs
Thanks for trying...

You actually did a great job.  Unfortunately with people like that woman I don't you could have gotten anywhere.  

I do believe that there has been a mysoginistic tone in the media this election season.  But with that said,  I also think that with certain people who claim they won't vote for Obama because of the misogyny of the primary, there is an element of projection involved. They think that because in their heart they have their own intense prejudices toward Obama, that must mean the prejudices against Hillary must have cost her the nomination.

Again, I'm not saying that about every Hillary supporter who feels that misogyny played a part in this election.  But a few (mostly older) women I've talked to in depth about this issue have expressed that sentiment without even meaning to.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-02 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

What you did was perfect.  What a wonderful example for the rest of us.  For reasonable voters, it will be enough.  For voters like this one, they will have to out themselves and go to McCain, or perhaps they will even be so embarrassed by their own actions that they could come around.

To a fellow student of religion, I'll quote Scripture.  Calmly addressing the issues as you did brings to mind St. Paul's instruction that we ought to love our enemies and in doing so they are exposed for who they are (as with Paul's purification metaphor of hot coals).  Good work.

by proseandpromise 2008-06-02 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I'm going to say something that is sexist - but I can, because I'm a woman that supports Hillary and would gladly follow her over the cliff of the Grand Canyon - she has inspired me THAT MUCH.

What men don't get (but Hillary does get) is that average women do not understand and play team sports.

Therefore - we don't lose well.  

We are, by nature, revengeful - ask any husband that's had to go through a nasty divorce.

We are also emotional. Something men -apparently- can separate from themselves.

And we are emotionally involved with Hillary Clinton, so if she loses - it is like cutting out a piece of our heart.

If you can understand that - then you can begin to understand where her women supporters are coming from.

We are taking this PERSONALLY because that is what we do.

It is just one more slap in our face by men who constantly try to keep us down and in our place.

And at some point - some of us - want to retaliate and scream "NO YOU CAN'T". NOT THIS TIME.

by nikkid 2008-06-02 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

So help me out (I'm a man that doesn't get it).  What if anything can you do with people in that stage (Harriet Christiansen comes to mind).  My first impulse is to say "good riddance" but I'm willing to try to reconcile with people if they are just hurt but can come around.  Is there hope for people at the "NO YOU CAN'T" stage or do we just need to let them go?

by proseandpromise 2008-06-02 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

If Hillary is the VP, there is NO WAY her supporters would NOT support her even though we think she should be in the top position, we could not vote against her.

I don't see any other way.

If they try to put another woman on the ticket - that is even a BIGGER slap in the face. If they put a man on the ticket THAT's a slap in the face.

I don't see a way around the hurt feelings - she has to be the VP.....

by nikkid 2008-06-02 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

At what point though, do you take a principled stand?  Isn't there some place for saying, "We know it isn't politically expedient, but we feel this move is correct, and if people are hurt enough to vote for McCain - to vote against their stated principles and their self-interest - than that is too bad."  At some level I'm not sure what's worse - losing or playing to the bottom rung?

by proseandpromise 2008-06-02 12:11PM | 0 recs
People who believe in taking

Principled stands aren't voting for Clinton since she's never taken one in her political life.

by Skex 2008-06-02 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: People who believe in taking

well, that is totally unfair.

I've seen her slammed for taking a principled stand in 1993/94 with her health care plan; not willing to give up the principles of UHC.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I understand what you're saying (though I don't accept your blanket statement regarding some characteristics of women).

However, you do know that you aren't investing in a woman, but rather her message? I mean would you be behind Elizabeth Dole if she were the GOP nominee for president? It's pretty clear that if you want to advance feminist issues, Senator Obama, and the Democratic Party, are your way to go, especially over McCain and his tendency to use the c-word in reference to his wife.

by irish09 2008-06-02 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

No I would not support Elizabeth Dole.

But - Hillary - is not an issue for us. She is a person that represents us and we have (after 16 months or so) attached ourselves to her.

So - we will be bitter and angry if she loses. But the sting will be far less if it becomes a unity ticket and she becomes the VP.

Otherwise,

we will always wonder - WHY isn't she the VP.

Why did HE do THAT to HER?

by nikkid 2008-06-02 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Does she want to be vice-president? Doesn't she have more power in the Senate than as VP?

I don't mind the idea of her as a vice-presidential candidate, but I really think that you have to consider whether her occupying that post will provide her with enough resources to impact change.

by irish09 2008-06-02 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

she HAS to accept it whether she wants it or not is irrelevant.

by nikkid 2008-06-02 11:51AM | 0 recs
Abort, Retry, Fail

I'm sorry, I got as far as:

I'm going to say something that is sexist - but I can, because I'm a woman...

before I had to do a double take.

How is this fair?

I can understand citing or giving examples of sexism or racism or whatever 'ism'.

But to argue against sexism by using sexism..?

My head asplode.

by CanuckinMA 2008-06-02 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I am hungry for a woman as president.

But not Hillary Clinton.  I've had nearly two decades to get to know her, and she is faaaaar from my first choice.

This isn't about her being a woman.  I'm doing her the courtesy of looking at her as I would any male candidate for higher office.  By my own standards, I just don't think that highly of her.

I would hold my nose and vote for her in the general if she won the nomination by running the best campaign.  She didn't.  I don't have to hold my nose.

You will see a woman president.  Any chance we can find one who doesn't have to reinvent herself in order to do it?  I remember her very well as the First Lady.  I remember the attempted steamrolling of Democratic members of the House in the health care fiasco.

I remember.

I want a woman president, but that doesn't override my other concerns.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-02 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

but that's what you DON'T understand. It's not about ANY woman president (as I said i would not vote for elizabeth dole) - it is about HILLARY - THE PERSON.

We are attached to her and we love her - pure and simple.

Obviously issues are not the only thing driving people, otherwise why would democratics cross over and vote republican as they have and why would repbulcians cross over and vote democrat as they have?

It's about the PERSON at the top of the ticket.

It's about CHARACTER.

I don't like OBAMA's CHARACTER - PERIOD.

by nikkid 2008-06-02 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Reality check. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but racism isn't going to magically go away with the nomination of Obama and there are people who simply won't vote for him because of it. Similarly, there are people who simply won't vote for Clinton because of sexism. People make decisions for all sorts of good and bad reasons, and they don't suddenly change because of who's on the ballot.  

(And by the way, it's a reasonable statement to say that race is a problem for at least some of the voters of any candidate. Don't try make it about Clinton supporters because of one conversation.)

by LakersFan 2008-06-02 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I intend to make this about Clinton supporters so that we can bring them back into the Democratic fold for the purposes of party unity. I know that race is a drivign factor for other candidates' supporters as well. And I know that some people won't vote for Hillary because of sexism.

And don't think of me as some naive college student. I know that the world won't be perfect. But that doesn't mean that I, or you, or anyone else, should seek to keep the world as it is. It is our moral duty to see a wrong and try to right it, whether we think we are to be successful or not. Racism is wrong, and we must do all that we can do to reduce it or prevent it from forming.  

by irish09 2008-06-02 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

Settle down there. I didn't call you naive and didn't even know you were a college student. Of course racism is wrong, but you're not going to cure all of society's ills during the Presidential campaign. If you can get Obama elected it will be a huge step. Expecting every individual to suddenly change their way of thinking is completely unrealistic.

If you really want "unity", don't make it about any particular candidate's supporters. You seem to think "unity" means that everyone is supposed to come over to your side. Perhaps you need to recognize that "unity" only happens when everyone meets somewhere in the middle.

by LakersFan 2008-06-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

How is this not about having Clinton supporters come to the side of Obama supporters? That is done through addressing their concerns as well as making compromises. My diary doesn't suggest that I'm against that.

by irish09 2008-06-02 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

"Unity" means coming together. That means you stop with the "us vs them" language and start talking about "Democrats" instead of supporters of a paricular candidate.

But now I've re-read your post above and I don't really think you're into "unity". You said you want bring Clinton supporters "back into the Democratic fold" as though we aren't already the core of the Democratic party. Plenty of us have been fighting for Democratic values for decades. Without us, there wouldn't be a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton on the ballot. So maybe you need to "come back into the Democratic fold" and realize that the party is much more than just Obama and his supporters.

by LakersFan 2008-06-02 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I think that you're reading too much into my postings. I don't mean to come off that way. And I am in no way playing down what lifelong Democrats have been doing. I think that you need to be a little less sensitive.

by irish09 2008-06-02 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I reread my diary and I don't know where you see the us vs. them language. I did refer to a woman and a group of people as Clinton supporters. They are a subgroup within the overall Democratic Party. And I am sorry for using the phrase "bring them back into the Democratic fold." A better phrase would have been to say "keep them in the Democratic fold."

by irish09 2008-06-02 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

I didn't mean your diary, I meant in your post above when you said, "I intend to make this about Clinton supporters". No biggie. I think you got my point.

by LakersFan 2008-06-02 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: This is what we need to address

That's sort of funny considering you responded in an overly sensitive manner to me, but whatever...(not in a condescending way, just in a "forget about it" way).

by LakersFan 2008-06-02 12:42PM | 0 recs
Add to racism fear of Muslimism

Compare newcomer liberal Barack Obama to say, U.S. General Colin Powell.

by catfish2 2008-06-02 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Add to racism fear of Muslimism

While he is black, he certainly isnt a muslim, give it a rest

by realistdem 2008-06-02 02:16PM | 0 recs
The last Democratic that won the nomination

without winning the popular vote was George McGovern and he was slaughtered in the general. He and Obama have very similar coalitions.

A Republican operative said that predudice in the country is worth about 15 points to McCain. If true, that pretty much negates Obama's advantage of being a Democrat this cycle.

I have noticed that hi-ranking Obama supporters on TV now seem much more open to puting Clinton on the ticket. I know his online supporters generally hate that idea but I hope Obama's influential supporters have seen the light and realize that the party is seriously split and we are about to lose an historic election.

Obama would have to name 3 different people as V.P. to give him what he gets from Clinton: women, hispanics, jews and working-class whites.

Are her negatives high? Yes, but so are Obama's and McCain's. Clinton's negatives were off-the-chart high in PA and she still one easily.

If you don't want high negatives, stay out of the game and don't push for any change. You want to make changes, you will get high negatives. The other side isn't going to sit back and let you do your thing.

This whole mess of a primary can be fixed and we can win the general election. But, only if there is a unity ticket.

Honestly, I will not be thrilled to vote for Obama/Clinton because I think she should be on top, but I will do it.

Obama and Clinton are professionals, they could work together and put the campaign behind them. Most of their supporters can too. But if Clinton is kicked to the curb, even if she heartily endorses him and campaigns for him (which she will definately do), many of her supporters will not vote for him.

Obama and Clinton can make positive history together or they can fail miserably apart. The decision is Obama's. I hope for the country's sake he chooses wisely.

by mmorang 2008-06-02 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The last Democratic that won the nomination

I'm sorry to weigh in on a controversial topic because I want to shy away from that, but the popular vote in this campaign is hard to determine and it falls under a variety of metrics. First off, do you include Flordia, which did not have any campaigning in the state? Do you include Michigan, which also did not have any campaigning, and if you do, does Obama get 0 because he wasn't on the ballot, or what? Do you include non-US state Puerto Rico or caucus estimates? It's a false metric, and it is open to manipulation to fit one's needs.

Also, the last Republican to win the nomination without the "popular vote" was Richard Nixon in 1968 and that election turned out pretty well for him. So, winning the popular vote, regardless of how great a metric it is, does not indicate automatic losses in the general election.

Obama's coalition is much broader than McGovern's ever was. This coalition includes African-Americans, young voters, middle-aged voters, and those with college degrees and higher. He has performed strongly with non-Appalachian working class whites (see Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin). Also, Obama has something that McGovern never did: he doesn't propose drug decriminalization, guaranteed yearly incomes, or abortion on demand (in 1972 terms, that was a big political killer). Furthermore, Obama is running at the end of the southern strategy, not at the beginning of it.

As for the veep spot, I wouldn't mind that Hillary receives it. However, you do have to consider as I put it out there in another post, can she do more there or back in the Senate?

by irish09 2008-06-02 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The last Democratic that won the nomination

I just don't think it's feasible, politically, to have Clinton in the VP spot on an Obama ticket.  There is just too much that Clinton has said herself that will come back to bite Obama in the ass.  I could see one of Clinton's people in the VP spot, but not Clinton herself.  

Also, If people wouldn't vote for Obama because he's Obama, putting Clinton in the VP spot won't change that.  It simply won't.

by shalca 2008-06-02 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The last Democratic that won the nomination

Clinton has said nothing that would prevent her from being on the ticket.

Obama supporters are far too sensitive if they think Clinton has been tough on Obama. The opposite is true. Now the dirty work is left to the Republicans.

Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics". They had a rough primary and then Reagan put him on the ticket. Kennedy and Johnson hated each other but they were professionals, so are Obama and Clinton.

She never came close to saying, even when pressed, that Obama wasn't fit to be CIC. But that's all Obama supporters heard...They heard what she was supposedly thinking.

It is beyond silly to think they can't be on the same ticket.

There are big things at stake. Bill, Hillary, Barack & Michelle are all professionals and can win this historic election...or Obama could just lose big like McGovern. It's his call.

by mmorang 2008-06-02 02:24PM | 0 recs
You're simply bargaining. . .

Clinton has implied on several occassions, though not outright said that Obama dioes not pass some Commander in Chief test.  Though Bush Sr. called Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" he never implied that Reagan would be less qualified than the Democratic alternative, which Clinton did.  She has used the same talking points that McCain has used against Obama.  You cannot have a VP who can be said to agree with your opponent on the fitness of the nominee.

And by the way, it works both ways.  Obama has accused Clinton of being the "old politics" on many occasions.  He would be branded as a hypocrite by his enemies (and some of his supporters) if he went ahead and chose her as the VP.  Both candidates have worked to lock Clinton out of that spot.

by shalca 2008-06-02 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You're simply bargaining. . .

First of all, he is a hypocrite. He say's he takes Clinton at her word for a statement she made while his campaign is sending out emails to reporters saying the opposite. That makes him a hypocrite and a race-bator.

The idea that there is "old politics" and new is moronic.

Anyone who thinks they can't be on the same ticket must be unaware of history.

by mmorang 2008-06-03 11:01AM | 0 recs
Need to face facts

Obama won't get the racist votes.  But hopefully most of those racists would have gone GOP anyway.

I will venture to say that more of Obama's supporters voted for him based on his race than Clinton's did based on hers.  Given the 90% support he gets from the African American community, this seems pretty clearly right.

So it is sad that race still plays a role in voter choices, on both sides.  But we shouldn't be worrying about how to capture hateful racists like this woman - it is a lost cause, and one that is probably unneccessary for victory.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-02 12:54PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads