We KNOW that there is a certain segment of the population that would not vote for a black man. We know this just as we know that there is a certain segment of the population who would not vote for a woman. And, although not relevant in this election, the same would hold true for a Jew, an athiest, or a San Francisco, latte-drinking, sushi-eating liberal.

Sadly, there are racists, sexists, bigots, snobs, and insecure hicks in our midst. I can say that because it is true and I am not running for public office.

I am curious to hear who exactly David Plouffe is insulting that does not deserve to be insulted.

and leads me to believe all is not well in Camp Obama.

Perhaps this is why, via Talk Left, Howard Dean today:

Superdelegates “have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election,” DNC Chairman Howard Dean told the Financial Times.

Said Dean: “If it’s very very close, they will do what they want anyway… I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.”

Reading my Kremlinology tea leaves, I see the DNC renewing discussions with Clinton on forming a joint finance committee for the general in the last two days. Dean is reserving the party’s right to go with whoever it thinks will win in November. Now, this might all be cover and they’re in the tank for Obama, but then why all the spinning from Obama.

I’m dizzy from all the spin coming from Obama’s camp and I don’t take the need to spin like crazy as a sign things are going well in a campaign. (For example of spinning, see this pathetic cherry picked polling memo to SDs, David Axelrod’s historically inaccurate comments (one Democratic presidential candidate won the working class vote, here’s a hint, he goes by the handle Mr. President), and Obama lying about his success with white blue collar voters.) And in the middle of primaries they now need to win and while they are spending like drunken sailors to do so, they suddenly decide to start up a national voter registration drive. I can’t believe they wouldn’t rather wait until June to do this. And let’s not forget Clyburn is out playing the race card (which I think will backfire badly with white in NC and IN).

All in all, I’d say Obama’s folks are very worried. Even if the polls look decent for him in Indiana.

As for Plouffe’s comment today, I thought Barack Obama transcended race. I thought he was going to win over Republicans and Independents. Are they saying he can’t do this? It’s like I don’t even know who Obama is or what he stands for.

What’s not to like? Who’s going to complain?

We was all gonna vote for Osama, but then he told us he don’t want nobody what hates niggers!

Even Wolf would have a hard time solemnly intoning,

Harsh words from Obama today, announcing he’s not going to court the votes of - get this - white supremacists! But first, Lindsey Lohan’s controversial pictures…

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

I just find it funny that this is excuse has been used to explain why Obama can’t win over Democrats, and before he evens closes the Democratic nomination, he is out explaining why he won’t close with Republicans either.

Many of Clinton’s supporters have been pointing out that yes there are voters who won’t vote for a black man, but these voters aren’t Democrats.

And yes, MyIQ, everything you just pointed out that Obama’s campaign is in free fall. Clinton’s came in February, which will allow her to finish strong. Obama doesn’t have enough time to recover, if this keeps going.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

to Republicans and Independents since he’s essentially calling at least some percentage of McCain supporters racists. And indeed suggests the vast majority of racists are non-Democrats.

I don’t actually dispute that the racism levels in the Republican party are much higher than in the Democratic party, see its Southern Strategy. It’s just that presumably the Democrats would like to win over some Republicans and Independents in November and the best way to do this might not be to suggest that a lot of McCain voters and Republicans are racists. Again, it might be true, but pointing that out isn’t necessarily going to win you votes even among the non-racists. It’s also odd hearing it come from a campaign that has bragged about winning over Republicans and Independents.

And, of course, what Aeryl said (which is brilliant):

I just find it funny that this is excuse has been used to explain why Obama can’t win over Democrats, and before he evens closes the Democratic nomination, he is out explaining why he won’t close with Republicans either.

but candidates and their top surrogates don’t say stuff like that.

McCain and FOX will be on this like stink on shit.
“The Obama campaign called the GOP racists.” Don’t be surprised to see them say “Obama plays the race card again.”

By tommorrow Camp Obama will be walking it back with an apology.

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

simply by spending tons of money and a week on a bus in small towns going thru the motions.

Maybe they were believing the press coverage and thinking it reflected Democratic voters?

but…

(a) It is objectively true;

(b) I personally have no desire to punish candidates or their surrogates from speaking the truth;

(c) so far it is Corrente, and not Fox or McCain, who appear to be on this like stink on shit;

(d) so far it is Corrente commenters and not Fox or McCain who are accusing the Obama campaign of calling Republicans racists; and

(e) I find it incredibly short-sighted of Hillary supporters to try and shut down (or mischaracterize) honest discussion of the impact of racism and sexism in politics. There are reasons that there have never been black or female Presidents or Vice-Presidents. It isn’t a coincidence. Both candidates have the right to address the issue (hell, call it spinning if you like) without being accused of playing the race card or the sexism card.

I would assure you I’m just scratching my face.

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

and an insult to millions of voters Obama falsely assured us he could attract.

But I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to do it in an accusatory way right before an election. All that’s going to get you is more heat than light. When you start a discussion with an insult, nobody hears anything after the insult. If Obama wants to have a meaningful discussion of racism and sexism, I will cheer him on. I have seen no indication from his campaign that he does. In fact, the tactics used by his campaign to date I believe actually inhibit discussing race in any kind of constructive manner. Once you’ve successfully smeared Bill Clinton as a racist - a man with one of the best records on race relations in the thirty years - what white politician is going to want to say anything about race? Deliberately Misconstruing Clinton’s LBJ comments as a racist attack on MLK (when in fact a more helpful discussion would be the collaboration of the two) is not indicative of someone who wants to have a serious discussion about race in politics. Dropping the national conversation on race you said you wanted to start five seconds after your speech kicking it off is not indicative of a serious desire to discuss race in politics. And, repeatedly using sexist dogwhistles is definitely not a sign of any desire to discuss sexism in politics.

All I have seen from his campaign is the repeated attempt to label people who won’t vote for him as racists. That’s not the same thing as discussing racism in politics. When he wants to do the latter, he’ll have my support.

We all have our bright days apparently :D I think a lack of sleep brings it out of me.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Amberglow, when exactly did Obama promise to abolish racism?

But I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to do it in an accusatory way right before an election.

B.S. Here’s the question he was asked [emphasis added]:

Q: Well, one of the things to which some Democrats point — the Clinton campaign has not said this publicly at least, but one certainly hears it in talking to supporters in more of a background way. Look at the racial polarization in the last several contests — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi — is that going to be a problem? Is race going to be a problem for Barack Obama in the general election?

So it’s perfectly fine for the Clinton campaign (on deep background, of course) to plant the seed that Hillary is more electable because some White voters won’t vote for Obama. But it is “accusatory” (of who, other than racists, I have no idea) for the Obama camp to spin back, “that’s a non-factor, Hillary wouldn’t be getting those votes anyway”?

It’s that they’ve been saying it. Obama’s campaign, much more forward than using “background”, have been implying that Clinton supporters are racist.

Now, we are all racist, we are indoctrinated to be racist from a young age. But Democrats know their party stands for civil rights. They are not the ones who will be voting against Obama because of the color of his skin.

And, yeah, I don’t like being lumped together with Republicans, which is now what they are doing.

And Obama’s whole selling point is that he would transcend race, which is what amber pointed out(not that he said he would abolish racism, WTF?)

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

And Obama’s whole selling point is that he would transcend race,

Really? I didn’t realize that that was his “whole selling point”.

Both Obama and Hillary — to both of their credit and to the credit to our country — have transcended race and gender in the sense that both have largely been judged on their merits, as any white, male candidate would be.

This doesn’t mean that race and sex do not enter into the picture whatsoever. There are still racists and sexists in this country. Both a relatively small number who are overtly so, and a larger number of people who harbor biases that they probably do not admit to themselves.

But neither candidate is personally responsible for eradicating the biases that remain. Obama is no more deserving of blame for failing to “transcend” the racism or bigotry of some right-wing kook than Hillary is for failing to transcend the sexism of Chris Matthews.

Whoever loses the nomination can be proud that they were the first african-american or woman to be seriously considered for the highest elected office in the country, if not the planet. Honestly, I consider it rather petty to treat residual racism or sexism like some broken campaign promise that the candidate failed to meet.

the troll wins.

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Regardless how much he complains about being sick of the primary, he only chimes in on those threads(I am guilty of that as well, but I live in KY, so :b )

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I hate to break the news to you but for a LOT of Democrats, neither Obama nor Hillary was their first choice. MANY of us have had to suck it up and accept that BOTH candidates have significant flaws.

Well, I’m all for holding politicians’ feet to the fire and pressuring them to fight for progressive policies, too often that isn’t what’s happening at Corrente. While attacks on Obama are often couched in pseudo-left phrases (i.e. suggesting that Obama is a Lieberman-esque Unity candidate), too often that is just a sham excuse to bash Obama with whatever object is at hand. And too often the posts here mirror something one would hear on Fox News or at a wingnut blog.

This latest slam really takes the cake. It is quite obvious what is going on here. The Clinton campaign is taking polling data from states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where some voters have openly admitted that race was a factor and that they might not vote for Obama in the general election, and starting a whisper campaign to the press and unpledged superdelegates: “Gee whiz, we are the party of diversity but, gosh, look at these poll numbers and these are just the people who ADMITTED to these feelings. Isn’t it too darn risky to send Obama up against McCain?”

And the kicker is that if the Obama campaign even responds, even attempts to minimize the effect of this whisper campaign, they are attacked for … [cue pearl clutching] … insulting these poor, white blue-collar workers who committed no sin other than admitting to being unwilling to vote for a black man because of his race. How dare his campaign acknowledge that?!? Transcend Obama! Transcend!

You constantly complain about the focus on the primary, but it’s all you seem to talk about it.

The Clinton campaign is taking polling data from states like Ohio and Pennsylvania,

Have any proof of this, b/c the Clinton campaign suspended internal polling? And looking at studies like Paul Lukasiak’s, it seems obvious that Clinton is losing more voters to sexism, than Obama is losing to racism, and it seems stupid that Clinton could actually give someone an opening like that if her campaign really was saying “Isn’t it too darn risky to send Obama up against McCain?”, because the obvious retort is that it is even riskier to send Clinton against McCain(not that Obama has bothered to acknowledge the sexism that has so helped his campaign, but whatever).

Clinton wasn’t a lot of people’s first choice here either, so you should stop saying that like its some magical troll accusation shield. And Obama’s campaign has done more than just “acknowledge” that some people are racist. Every time Obama loses, the fault is placed on the voters who are just too stupid to be enlightened by him. It takes no consideration into account that people don’t feel he speaks to their issues.

And if you don’t feel that Obama’s Unity schtick is harmful, make the case for it, instead of being mad at us b/c we don’t buy it, and feel it is hurting the party. Arguing why it is a good thing, would be more effective, than accusing good democrats of buying into the Right Wing.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

you’re much more than that.

But I understand how you might be offended by my comments to my good friend aeryl. I gave some generic advice and you felt the shoe fit you perfectly. In fact, I wouldn’t blame you if you left and never came back.

But my words were objectively true. You were incorrect on your facts. Others noticed before I did. Saying that there are people who won’t vote for Obama based on race is calling those voters racists.

That is an insult, and the fact that those voters are members of the other party doesn’t make it okay. You claim that is “objectively true” but offer no data to support this.

But thank you for your concern.

BTW - Hillary was my fifth choice, after Gore, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden. And I really am just scratching my face.

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

is for consistency.

I don’t care if you don’t vote for Obama because you think he’s too inexperienced or whether you think he has big ears. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinions.

I just don’t care for arguments that insult my intelligence. And when I see so-called Democrats making flat-out dumb arguments that harm the party, I will point it out.

In this case, I see three objectively dumb arguments being made. The first is that it is an insult to point out that there are people who won’t vote for a person because of the candidates race. Nobody is saying that Republicans are racist. Or that White Democrats are racists. Just that racists are racist. That isn’t an insult, its a tautology.

The second dumb argument is that has been implicitly made is that it is insulting to say that Obama is impacted by racist voters (which is true) but it is not insulting to say, as Aeryl does, that Clinton loses voters to sexism (which is also true, though I doubt anybody really knows which has the greater impact).

The third dumb argument is that the Plouffe interview indicates that the Obama campaign is blaming race for any difficulty in winning White voters. Over and over and over, explicitly and implicitly, Plouffe dismisses the impact of race on the campaign:

Plouffe: The lion’s share of Democrats are going to be supporting the Democratic nominee.

…

I think if you look at what the election is likely to be with only a Democratic nominee, a Republican nominee — McCain adopting all of the Bush policies — the Democratic Party voters are going to vote in huge numbers for the Democratic nominee.

…

Q: Is race going to be a problem for Barack Obama in the general election?

Plouffe: We really don’t think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain’s camp already.

Plouffe says that race won’t be a problem in the general election and this is spun to mean that the Obama camp is calling people racists. By the way, the GOP has courted racists for years. It is called the Southern Strategy. The only insult is the insult to my intelligence in denying that this is true.

The only reason that the racists in the GOP wouldn’t be “firmly in John McCain’s camp already” is if they perceived him to be not racist enough because of his relatively non-hardline immigration positions.

of the party by calling the other party racists.

If McCain’s campaign manager said that the terrorists were voting for Obama the Democrats would rightly be outraged.

BTW - If the racists are voting for Hillary now, when it’s only Democrats voting, what’s going to happen in November?

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

If it were just us little people saying Obama wasn’t winning because of the racists, that would be one thing, like I said about Clinton and sexism.

But Obama’s campaign has made repeated attempts to smear his opponents supporters as racist, blaming the voters for his own problems in connecting with them. White males are the swing voter. Clinton has gotten the women’s support, and Obama has gotten the black support. Obama must appeal to white males to win the primary or the GE. He’s not appealing, and according to him, the fault lies with the voters, not with him.

What Plouffe is saying now is different than what the campaign has been saying for most of the primary, and that’s only because a journalist finally made the conclusion that if Obama can’t win white Dems now, how does he win over white Reps later. So now they are backing off, which is why this statement deserves attention, IMO.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

If McCain’s campaign manager said that the terrorists were voting for Obama the Democrats would rightly be outraged.

It won’t be McCain’s campaign manager that will advance this charge. It will be the left to the Level 3 of the GOP machine - The States Level GOP (with the tacit “approval” of the National GOP) and the 527s ’concerned with Obama’s shady past and not wanting to see an Anti-American elected to POTUS, especially over an American War Hero.’

The “pulled” commercial from NC and a second commercial that called Obama “Soft on Crime” AND “Untrustworthy on Terror” are the first real salvos. There will be others - and soon.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

David Plouffe is Obama’s campaign manager.

That’s my point.

————————————————————————
Real Democrats aren’t afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy