When you defend statements like this:

"Some residents said they were concerned that he might not take into account the concerns of whites. `If Obama gets in, its going to be a black thing and its going to be all blacks for blacks,' said Victoria Mikulski, a 63-year-old clerk in Edison park. `Everything's got to be equal.'"

...with observations such as this:

"Some might call this racism, but it is nothing of the kind. After decades of affirmative action which has promoted  AA `s over white working class candidates, these voters are wary."

...and make assertions like this:

"Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to like white people." probably don't belong on a liberal website or in the Democratic Party. And if you've already been booted for making racially insensitive comments in the past, it's likely to be only a matter of time before you're kicked to the curb once again (this time, let's hope, for good). Fortunately, there's already a website in existence catering to like-minded individuals. It's called

Please: Don't soil the rec-list with this excrement any longer. Take it to a place where it'd be better appreciated.

Update [2008-4-25 3:28:16 by RP McMurphy]: Skaje points out another little gem from the diary whose name we dare not utter:
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. Over 200 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.[emphasis mine]
While it's certainly true that at least 200 white guys gave their lives on 9/11, so did countless black guys, gals, Hispanics, Asians, Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. -- Or, as I like to call them, Americans. Why the diarist feels the need to fixate on the race of these people is beyond me. Additionally, I'm fairly certain that the Democratic Party "took [its] hat off" to the heroes of 9/11, but perhaps not in the racially-exclusive manner that the diarist would seem to prefer. I'm not sure that a White Pride rally at Ground Zero, however, was ever in the cards.

There's more...

People who actually hunt and fish support Obama

It's a peculiar spectacle to watch the online supporters of Senator Clinton attempt to contort themselves into whichever identity their candidate is assuming at the moment. Currently, Senator Clinton is a varmint-shooting, frog-leg boiling, fish-sliming, Annie Oakley who learned to shoot at her Grandpa's "cottage" (We call 'em "cabins" in Minnesota) in Scranton, Pennsylvania. She's also a populist in the way that only a Yale-educated, multi-millionaire, corporate-lawyer, Wal-Mart-booster, mother of a hedge-fund manager and spouse of a former-president could be.

If Hillary wants to play make-believe for a day (or week, or month), however, that's fine with me; It's the disingenuousness of her online supporters that really bothers me. Given the demographics of internet users in general (wealthier, more urban) and the regional strongholds of Senator Clinton's support (California and the Northeast), I'd venture to guess that the majority of you folks aren't exactly avid outdoorsmen and women -- so please, stop feigning outrage over Senator Obama's remark about gun-ownership. Via the 2006 U.S. Fish and Wildlife survey, here's a reality check on who really hunts and fishes (percentage of population by state):      

1. Minnesota (32%)

  1. Montana (31%)
  2. Alaska (30%)
  3. North Dakota (29%)
  4. Wyoming (28%)
  5. Wisconsin (27%)
  6. Arkansas (26%)
  7. Maine (25%)
   West Virginia (25%)
10. Mississippi (24%)
   Missouri (24%)
   Idaho (24%)
13. South Dakota (23%)


39. Pennsylvania (14%)

As you can see, Senator Obama has won or will win 11 of the top 13 states for hunting and fishing. Pennsylvania, which I fully expect Senator Clinton to win, ranks a paltry 39th (deer-hunter country, my ass).  

There's more...

Selective standards of "bigotry" here at MyDD

I was just warned, and I fully expect to be banned (which will thankfully free up a lot of time), for the following comment:

"Yeah, it's not as if poor, elderly whites living in Appalachia are likely to be racist, right? Oh wait......"

To begin with, it seems highly hypocritical for the administrators of this site to warn me for making such a comment when numerous diaries authored by the site's proprietors have suggested the very same thing: that elderly, white, working-class voters in certain regions of the country (mainly Appalachia and the South) are uncomfortable voting for Obama because of his race; i.e. are "racists."

It's an undeniable demographic fact that racism is far more prevalent among the poor, the elderly, and within certain regions of the country. I suppose it's possible that the administrators seized on my use of the word 'likely' as evidence I was painting far too broad a stroke. However, let's look at some Pew survey results: php3?PageID=754

According to this survey, only 49% of whites born between 1913 and 1927 and 60% of whites born between 1928 and 1945 approve of interacial dating. Likewise, only 60% of Southern whites of ALL demographics express a similar sentiment. Since we know that the elderly are the most racist demographic, and the South is the most racist region, I think it's very likely that far less than half of all elderly whites living in the South approve of interacial dating.  Now, Appalachia isn't included as a separate region in this survey, but from everything I've seen, similar attitudes prevail there. So I'd say that my contention that elderly, impoverished whites living in Appalachia are quite likely to be racist is pretty sound and in no way "bigoted." I fully expect an apology from the administrators, and barring that, I will gleefully accept my banning. Though I die, La Resistance lives on!!!     

There's more...

McHutchence vs Greeley III

There's more...

Florida re-vote a no-go

Via Marc Ambinder:

Moments ago, Democrats representing Florida in Congress released this joint statement, effectively putting the kibosh on a mail-in re-do primary:

"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind."

Even if the candidates agree, there will be no expedited solution unless the courts somehow intervene, which, given a series of federal court rulings last year, is unlikely.

With Florida off the table, and no way for Hillary Clinton to overtake Obama's lead in the popular vote, pledged-delegates, or states won, this race is essentially over. It's now up to Benedict Clinton how much she'd like to wound our nominee prior to the general election.

There's more...

Obama should play hardball with MI & FL

It was none other than James Carville who once said "When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil." It's time for Obama to take Carville's advice to heart and quash Hillary's underhanded attempt at a Michigan and Florida re-vote.

We all know that neither Hillary nor her supporters truly care about Michigan or Florida -- had Obama won either one, we'd have had another state to add to the list of states that "don't matter." No, behind all the phony altruism is cold-blooded political maneuvering. Hillary's been knocked on her ass and now wants Obama to help her up so she can knee-cap him. Instead, Obama should take a page from the Clinton playbook and kick her while she's down -- something that Hillary herself would never hesitate to do. Obama could then prove to Hillary's supporters, albeit perversely, that he's tough enough to face the Republicans in the fall.

And so, I'm calling on Obama to reject any notion of a Florida and Michigan re-vote. Instead, he can simply split the delegations 50-50 when he takes control of the credentials committee. Clinton supporters will predictably cry bloody-murder, but such a course of action is well within the rules Senator Clinton agreed to. Moreover, for a campaign that employs every dirty trick imaginable, from lawsuits to poaching pledged delegates, to suddenly assert moral indignation would be laughable. So go ahead Barack, toss Hillary that anvil.


There's more...

Quit Whining about Caucuses

Out of a DEEP concern for democracy and the sanctity of the nominating process, many Clintonistas have adopted a decidedly negative opinion towards caucusing. The fact that Senator Clinton has lost the vast majority of caucuses by more than 20% has nothing to do with this. And disregard the calls for the Democratic Party to change its rules midstream and seat delegates awarded from unfair and uncontested "elections." Also, ignore the Clintonistas' fawning desire to see the super-delegates overturn the will of the voters. Both of these stances are so VERY principled, democratic, and respectful of the process. Moreover, neither is a transparent farce concocted in a last-minute effort to save the failing (and flailing) campaign of their preferred candidate. Afterall, who are you going to believe, me or your lying brain?                

There's more...


Advertise Blogads