I am Sad Because Ed Rendell May Have Been Right (Updated)

Remember the firestorm that erupted when Ed Rendell came out with these comments?

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," the Governor said, ironically, to a black reporter. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was -- well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I was pretty upset when he said those comments.  Of course they followed Obama's Louisiana primary victory.

As reported on the Huffington Post:

This is the second time in as many days that the topic of Obama's racial appeal (or, in Rendell's case, lack of biracial appeal) has been brought up by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday, the Senator herself suggested that Obama's weekend win in the Louisiana primary was the product of, primarily, the black vote.

"In the case of Louisiana," she said, "you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/12 /rendell-some-whites-won_n_86246.html

So, there has been all kinds of talk about the "race card" being played.  I for one, thought we had moved to a point where we are ready to elect an African-American to the highest office.  I still think we are, but after reading mydd over the last few weeks, it will be more difficult than I had hoped.

Then of course diaries began popping up that gave me pause such as one with an openly racist comment such as this:

When death reigned out of the sky on 9/11, 2001, and stock brokers and financial analysis's were running downstairs out of the burning towers, firemen were running  upstairs to rescue the wounded and the helpless. Close to 350 white guys gave their lives that day in the service of their country.  And the whole world took their hat off to them. It is about time the Democratic Party did the same.

And the diarist follow-up with these comments:

to me a racist comment would be I am not voting for some no-good n---. What she is saying is she is fearful that if an AA gets elected her little share of the pie will get even smaller. Working class whites and AAs have been pitted against each other for a long time. Those fears have to be addressed. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to like white people. His pastor is bigtime serious in this regard.

The sad thing is that comment was uprated by two users of this supposedly progressive web site.  See here: http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/24/1 93334/383/60?mode=alone;showrate=1#60

The diary can be found here:http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/24/1933 34/383

More below the fold...

Now a new diary says:

This is the worst aspect of racial preferences where the rules are changed to aid a minority.  Were a white candidate to run with the same qualifications:
say a dennis kucinch, john edwards, etc.
He would have no chance.

It can be found here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/27/1450 17/355

So, many of us progressives haven't moved as far along as we should  be.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't nominate Obama....it just means we will have to work harder to win some people's hearts and minds when we do.

UPDATED: Comment left in another hit diary.
Affirmative Action is evil; and Yes it is the reason why Barack Obama is ahead in the Primary.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/27/181245/542 Speaks for itself.

Tags: Barack Obama, racism (all tags)

Comments

33 Comments

Tips, etc.

Tips for moving on to a post-racial world.

by mefck 2008-04-27 05:51PM | 0 recs
I don't think anyone would accuse MyDD..

... of being progressive anymore.  It's gone from crashing the gate to Marie Antoinette faster than you can say Dixiecrat.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-27 05:58PM | 0 recs
Thank god
you aren't the last word on what it is to be a progressive. good on the diarist for calling out what s/he sees as racism. That doesn't give either of you the right to indite the rest of this site's users. It certainly doesn't give you the right to say we are all somehow not progressives. If you want to talk about progessive values, fine. Let's talk: tort reform anyone? universal health care? de-regulation of industry?
by linc 2008-04-27 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank god

tort reform?

by mefck 2008-04-27 06:33PM | 0 recs
Did you miss Obama on Fox?
He thinks its a good idea- he voted for it. Also thinks de-regulation of industry, in general, is a good idea... progressive values?
by linc 2008-04-27 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you miss Obama on Fox?

You are totally misrepresenting what Obama said.

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that, "You know what? If you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses -- let them figure out how they're going to, for example, reduce pollution," and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

Rules and incentives telling them what goals they need to meet but letting them figure out how to do it is not deregulation.

by map 2008-04-27 06:42PM | 0 recs
You are right, I am
I make him look better than he sounds. Yes, giving industry the keys to environmental regulation has really worked- like a charm.
by linc 2008-04-27 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right, I am

In what world does "some guidelines, rules and incentives" = "giving industry the keys"?

by map 2008-04-27 07:47PM | 0 recs
The world
we live in right now. Industry needs to be regulated- I remember a while back when everyone was saying that Obama would bring about the next new deal- why people said this, I don't know, but pandering to the rightwing on regulation isn't going to get us anywhere. Industry, particularly industry that pollutes, needs to be reined in now- like yesterday- with sincere regulation.
by linc 2008-04-27 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank god

Hey, its just a wakeup call to a lot of us, I mean maybe its cool for some people that the George Wallace wing has found a home here.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-27 10:10PM | 0 recs
As a person of color I would

love to live in an America lead by a black president. I just don't think it should be this particular African-American.

by LatinoVoter 2008-04-27 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: As a person of color I would

How about ignoring race when we think about candidates? Or gender? And just focus on qualifications? What would a black president bring that a Hispanic, or Asian-American, or et cetera, couldn't?

I can't wait until we all keep interbreeding until we're all the same shade of gray. Then we can all hate each other not for the color of our skin, but the content of our character.

by ragekage 2008-04-27 05:59PM | 0 recs
For a former

republican you sound a lot like Michael Moore there =)

Mojo to you!

by Student Guy 2008-04-27 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: For a former

I don't know if it's habit, but I just shuddered and got the urge to take a cold shower in liquid nitrogen.

by ragekage 2008-04-27 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: As a person of color I would

Gray?  

Yuck.

I picture more of a light brown.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-27 06:12PM | 0 recs
Don't be so optomistic
human beings would find something to argue about- maybe height or the color of eyes- we have already done the latter- ever heard of the gypsy's blue eyes?
by linc 2008-04-27 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be so optomistic

Interesting that you note eye color.  See this article:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/PTO- 20030501-000001.html

A few years later, a teacher in Iowa discovered how quickly group distinctions are made. The teacher, Jane Elliott, divided her class into two groups--those with blue eyes and those with brown or green eyes. The brown-eyed group received privileges and treats, while the blue-eyed students were denied rewards and told they were inferior. Within hours, the once-harmonious classroom became two camps, full of mutual fear and resentment. Yet, what is especially shocking is that the students were only in the third grade.

by fogiv 2008-04-27 06:52PM | 0 recs
Stop with the "isms"

You can say all you want about those racist whites, but they aren't the voter bloc voting lock step for one specific canidiate in this election.

Look, racism is much more complicated than the issues we present it as. There are some people that won't vote Obama because he's black and there are some people who won't vote Hillary because she's a woman. Is it wrong? Of course. But don't forget about sexism too, because it handicaps Hillary just as much as I think racism handicaps Barack.

by zcflint05 2008-04-27 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop with the "isms"

In general, true, but I think you're underestimating how bad Appalachia is - seriously.  It's unbelievably conservative first of all, and second of all they don't elect black people.

Democrats have been running on a "win Philadelphia and hold down your losses elsewhere" in Pennsylvania forever.  Same thing in Ohio, except it's based on Cleveland, Cincinatti, and Columbus.

And it's getting worse.  Bill Clinton carried Kentucky by 1 point in 92; in 96 he lost to Bob Dole by 3.  It voted for Bush by 20 someodd points.

by Mostly 2008-04-27 10:04PM | 0 recs
laughable racism charge

The laughable racism charge from Obamabots is getting tiresome everyday.

If a particular ethnic group vote 92% for a candidate of their own color, I don't believe this candidate's supporters have the credibility to attack other ethnic groups of being 'racists'. Look into the mirror yourself.

Don't assume all whites, hispanics and Asians are simply fools. If your candidate is determined to benefit from race politics in primary, well, you'll reap what you sow in the end.

by chaos 2008-04-27 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

Thanks for proving the point of my dairy.  This comment deserves a "0" rating, but I think everyone should see it, so a 1 it is.

by mefck 2008-04-27 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

well, I don't have 'white guilty' because I'm not a white liberal. Will you call me racist simply because I believe in qualifications, not affirmative action? As I said, it's getting tiresome, nobody is taking this 'racist whining' seriously any longer.

You should watch Pastor Wright's terrific speech earlier today. It's carried by CNN and Fox. It's truly scary this hate-whites pastor is actually the spiritual mentor of a possible future president. Very scary indeed.

If whites vote 92% for Hillary, you may have a case for racism, otherwise I'm afraid you need to lecture black community first.

by chaos 2008-04-27 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

Megadittos rush.

by Mostly 2008-04-27 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

What was wrong with the comment?

It seems like a pretty accurate assessment of the demographic breakdown we have today.  Is that bad to talk about?

by BPK80 2008-04-27 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

I don't know about you, but I don't think Obama is an "affirmative action" candidate and to suggest otherwise is racist.

by mefck 2008-04-27 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

Here we go, 'racist' bomb thrower, hehe. As I said, it's getting really silly, and you still believe this sort of charge will prevent people from challenging your stupid theory?

Whether he's an 'affirmative action' candidate is debate. But it's interesting the self-hating white liberals seem to feel ashamed about 'affirmative action'. 'Affirmative action' is not only to do with skin color, Kenney family is a great example of how bad 'affirmative action' is in politics. His son, a drug-addict, with no achievement in his entire life, is now representing Rhode Island. Well, this is also 'affirmative action'.

Obama's candidacy has set back all the social progressfor at least 20 years. He has polarized the race relationships, and reinforced the racial stereotypes among a variety of ethnic groups for each other.

by chaos 2008-04-27 07:44PM | 0 recs
You having nothing worthwhile to say

It is not debatable whether Obama is an "affirmative action candidate."  It's plain false to assert it and ridiculous to add the Fox New-style question mark ("Is Obama the Affirmative Action Candidate?").  When voters speak with their votes and their pocketbooks, there is no affirmative action; there's democracy.

Frankly, I'm sure you deserve the "racist" charge --- you seem to embrace it gleefully enough.  Denigrating Obama, his accomplishments and his campaign by asserting that he's merely the undeserving product of some mysterious affirmative action program is patently absurd.

So, maybe you should just stop with your nonsense; there are better websites out there to huff and puff about your affirmative action anger.

by Slim Tyranny 2008-04-27 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

Don't despair.  Six weeks, two months tops, and people here to stir shit up will start drifting away or flame out and be banned.

by map 2008-04-27 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: laughable racism charge

This comment?

"The laughable racism charge from Obamabots is getting tiresome everyday.

If a particular ethnic group vote 92% for a candidate of their own color, I don't believe this candidate's supporters have the credibility to attack other ethnic groups of being 'racists'. Look into the mirror yourself.

Don't assume all whites, hispanics and Asians are simply fools. If your candidate is determined to benefit from race politics in primary, well, you'll reap what you sow in the end."

No offense but I don't see "affirmative action" quoted or implied in there anywhere.  Affirmative action is theoretically a very good thing.  It's the taking of steps to begin a piecemeal process of redressing past injuries to the Black community and other oppressed groups to level the playing field and provide a more fair degree of opportunity to everyone.  It usually requires a sacrifice by the white majority.  But if white people are voting against rather than for Obama, it would seem to be the opposite of affirmative action.

So acknowledging that doesn't imply affirmative action, IMO.  

by BPK80 2008-04-27 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I am Sad Because Ed Rendell

With some of these people, I can't tell whether they even realize they're being racist/ignorant/insensitive. I found some of the comments in this diary disturbing, especially when I got into with someone who basically said slavery happened 150 years ago and that black people should get over it.

Some of these folks have got to be freepers.

by sricki 2008-04-27 08:57PM | 0 recs
I actually think

things are better than you suggest. It is very easy to become disheartened if you spend time in an opinion monoculture. On MyDD, the thing to do is hate Barack Obama. On Daily Kos, the thing to do is to dislike or even hate Hillary Clinton.

For example, I got into a huge fight there some time ago over choice, after I mentioned to someone that I am voting for the Democrat in November in part because of the Supreme Court. Several people stepped up and said they didn't consider Roe a fundamental issue.

The point I'm inartfully trying to make is that this primary is bringing out a lot of passions and, frankly, things that we thought we'd moved past. The good news is that what we're seeing is overall remarkably mild, and that despite everything, our champions are, indeed, a woman and a black man for the first time in history.

Twenty years ago, nobody would have thought that possible. And now, because of our unique historical moment, we are going to elect one of these two to the highest office.

Democrats have cause to be proud of ourselves. It's sad that the primary bitterness is hiding that somewhat, but outside of the echo chambers, people understand the moment we're in very well, I think.

by MBNYC 2008-04-27 09:12PM | 0 recs
the point of my diary referenced to above

is that Obama is not qualified to be in this spot, and because so many people, esp. african americans are rooting for him BECAUSE he's black. They are willingly ignoring it.

It used to be said, blacks and women in order to break a "ceiling" had to be 2 times better than whites or males.  

Not in this case. Obama is cashing in all of the racial chips from 200 years of racism, oppression, etc.

Excuse me if I resent the political capitial of african americans to be used on a man who is not qualified for president.

Were he qualified, he would be the nominee already.

That he is the prohibitive frontrunner shows the bad state of black america's psyche.

We "need" obama to win, or else...
dems are racist
this country is still "holding us back"
etc.

Doesn't sound post-racial to me.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-28 02:52AM | 0 recs
beyond sad

we'd best get beyond sad lest we face another four years of a Republican White House - talk about SAD!

regardless of who gets the nomination or how it is accomplished, Democrats have some serious bridge building and fence mending to do .. as Dean said yesterday, "49% of Democrats are going to be disappointed" .. he indicated it is the "responsibility" of whomever loses to build bridges within their base to rally around the winner .. that's one of the few things i've totally agreed on lately with anyone

irreconcilable gender and race issues, whether discussed by Democrats or used by Rovian Republicans, can become a dangerous smoke screen diverting our eyes from the prize of the general election .. if we buy into that, we may find the barn burning while we decide on who can best bring in the fall harvest

by MadDawg 2008-04-28 04:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads