Who is it?

And if this is Fear and Loathing, what are the drugs of choice?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I would like to read the post, even if these small segments set my teeth on edge. This election is so going to be viewed through so many different lenses of prejudice it's not funny, and while race is a major one, it isn't going to be the only one.

"Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
Carl Schurz - U.S. Senator 1/17/1872

here's the thing. I know why I don't like Obama. Because I view him as a more conservative, more pandering version of John Kerry. And I think the facts back that up.

Why do all of my white OFB friends love Obama? I've been struggling on this one. And I think that for at least SOME of them, it's because they see a black Democrat, and assume he will be a liberal. It's completely beyond their comprehension that a black Democrat could be part of the elite, or relate more to Big Business than to the working class, or be a center-right, LSE/U.Chicago economics aficianado. This is why they call every criticism of Obama racist. This is why they must necessarily view Rove's critique of Obama as a country club suave dude as racist. This is why they must necessarily view the charge that Obama is an elitist (because he grew up in an upper middle class household, unlike every single Republican in this country, who all grew up rich, which is the only reason they became libertarian and Republican) as racist. Because it is inconceivable to them that a black Democrat, let alone a black Dem who was a "community organizer", could be a centrist, pro-Wall Street, pro-Establishment, politician (just like Evan Bayh or John Kerry).

So who's racist? Certainly many Republicans are, and this is where we're likely to see the most vilely racist rhetoric emerge from. But I'd argue that many Obama supporters are also deeply racist, because despite the overwhelming evidence that Obama is, philosophically, intellectually, and substantively, another (less experienced, less worldly, and less urbane) version of John Kerry, that is to say, a center-right politician with a deeply held belief in not upsetting the status quo, they only see a black Democrat, and so they assume he must be and necessarily will be a strong liberal who will rock the establishment.

Fuck that shit. Obama IS the establishment. And if you don't understand that, then you're just as racist (if more benignly so) than those Republican fuckers.

I think 'Barry''s selection and defeat/or win in the GE will ultimately way heavily on the true AA's of this country. The people who are choosing him because he is half black don't understand that choosing a CAPABLE candidate is paramount and choosing a dumb dark skinned person is bad for all our concerns. There will probably be a backlash for either scenario.

and although this is exactly the kind of discussion we need, I'm not sure I'm up for it tonight.

That said, I think we need to distinguish two common uses of the word. Confused, they lead to a lot of pain. (And I know there are people here a lot more expert than I am, so bear with me.

1. Racist. A person who hates other people based on the [constructed|projected] color of their skin.

2. Racist. A person who benefits from a system based on the [constructed|projected] color of people's skin.

The two definitions overlap, but not completely. Most white people are #2, some white people are #1. When the OFB say "You're a racist" they mean #1 (in my experience. They have to, because #2 requires some sort of analytical context, including actual knowledge of my skin color, which is not possible online). The intent is to silence, discredit, ban from the discourse, and above all, to banish from public life, because the charge is that toxic, which is why the false charges of racism against the Clintons mattered and will continue to matter.

And basically, that pissed me off so much, and still pisses me off so much, that I find the whole subject very difficult to discuss.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

the big question should be: what is the candidate doing to appeal to voters who might not be klansmen, but are uncomfortable?

For one thing, I'm going to note that I know several people who are favorably inclined toward Obama because he's part black, and I know no people (AFAIK, as the saying goes) who are disinclined to support him because he's part black.

That's not to say that there aren't anti-black racists because of course there are, but this supposition that racism is the swing factor in this election is based on what, exactly?

Is it the poll that shows that 5% of whites -- and 6% of blacks -- don't want to vote for a black man? And quite likely most of those are Republicans who wouldn't vote for any Democrat.

Are they going to give us a ballot in November that says this?

[ ] Barack Obama
[ ] Sorry, I'm a racist. Give me the other guy.

You'd think the primary ballot I filled out in February read like that, substituting "gal" for "guy."

...is our heritage, it is our bane, it is our legacy, it is our piebald albatross. Barack, a Black & White man, will not receive millions of votes from people who will not vote for a "mixed race" candidate, much less an African American. It's not that recondite a subject: he is the "other" to those who hang on to old ways of thinking.

btw: a study was performed (sorry, no link) that found Americans who profess to great patriotism ("my country, right or wrong, don't question the conservative President's motives," et al) were by and large more racist than those who held a more nuanced position on patriotism (i.e. love the country but want to make it better, want to look at the problems critically, etc.) I confess, I don't think of the Clintons when I think about racism. I think about ignorance and fear and group-think and slavery and entitlement and skin-tone supremacists and stupidity and southern strategies and on and on. I look at Obama and do not see a mixed race man. I just see a man.

Obama will speak tonight. I will give a listen. Though everything and everyone in this world is flawed, I will listen to him, knowing he is but a human. That being said, he already has my vote.

I am a member of the Democratic Party, and I approve this message.

++++

That it's going to be hard for me to watch Obama at a public event like this and not worry about his safety.

that is what Atrios keeps saying and he is right.I thought living thru Wilder's campaigns prepared me for this, but this is different.

"What impact to you think race will have on this election, how and why?"

Chicago Dyke,

A book can (and most likely will) be written on this after November 4th. Actually, probably only if Obama loses on that day. But, let me say that coming from you and the way you asked it, the question is inherently loaded. It's a false characterization. What the question really is is:

"What impact to you think race will have on this election, how and why, since you all deny that it has any bearing on this election?"

Let me say that I haven't seen a soul pretend that race will have absolutely no impact. Let me be clear that I haven't seen one fool, here. You're question is loaded with the other question of resonability. Who is being unreasonable, here? Those saying that race can be explained as the root of Obama's problems, or those saying that he has far bigger problems than his race? To me, the answer is clear.

Let me tell you what I believe, the people that won't vote for Obama simply because of his race don't vote Democratic, anyway. The people that won't vote for Obama simply because of his race didn't vote for John Kerry.

For whatever problems Obama does have because of his race, and it's a measurable part of the electorate, those are far outweighed, this time around, by what he's achieved and gained because of his race. Geraldine Ferraro was right; Barack Obama was right.

Do you want me to tell you who Obama should really be looking out for? It's those disingenuous white liberal congressmen who'll smile in his face and run around the country for him, today, and stab him in the back as soon as he becomes president, tomorrow. You want to know Obama's biggest obstacles? It'll be those white, guilt-ridden average Joe's who'll "give him a chance" because he's "an articulate" black man, today, and will curse his presidency into the very dust the minute something goes wrong, tomorrow. It'll be those individuals who'll find pride in having a "new black friend", today, and treating him as a stranger, tomorrow, when the novelty of their "new black friend" wears off, tomorrow.

Obama shouldn't be looking out for the enemies he can see; he should be taking into account the enemies that hide under rosey 'tolerance' and smiles. One can smile and smile and still be a villian.

You wanted an answer, huh? You got it. The truth hurts, dun'nit? Obama's already out-manuevered institutionalized racism; the question is whether or not he'll be able to out-manuever fake support?

I'm all for discussing racism. I've been discriminated against and threatened and know there are places in this country that I would not feel safe having a car brake down. I know a bit more about the white supremacist groups than most people also, for reasons I won't go into.

What I'd like to see is a discussion of institutionalized and individual racism. I'm sure there is some fancy schmancy studies, but from my view, there is no way we will ever really change everyone's hearts--whatever that means (and the same goes for class divisions which seem to me to be intimately tied to race). But there are definite institutional barriers to Black Person A and Brown Person B (some tied to the individual racism) that I find more pressing issues than converting Joe Blow White Person into a Black/Brown/Red/Yellow lover.

fear and loathing in denver

Another theory going around... I've heard it TWICE in conversations, from a client and friend of friend:

If Obama, an ostensibly black man, is elected President of the U.S. (seen by many as the most powerful position in the world), there is no more complaining that can happen from the AA about being held back. NONE. Its time to park that wahmbulance and get out and do something because its just been proven that a black man can do anything in the U.S., including, yes, becoming President.

Aside from the obvious flaws in this thinking, it has a simple ring to it that will appeal to a lot of closeted racists (and not so closeted).

Bill Clinton proved that you can be raised in any economic situation and still come out on top. Obama may prove that you can be of AA descent and still come out on top. So we've broken class barriers, and maybe race barriers... what's next? Oh yeah.

So indeed, if this is the point where the AA community is cashing in its chips and credits, is Obama the candidate they want to represent this achievement?

[or maybe it'll make you feel worse, i dunno]

here in almost-alabama, we've got a lot of both covert and overt racists, of both the institutional and individual variety, some soft, some virulent, but a surprising [to me] number of them are uniting around one thing -- their hatred of john mccain. they honestly seem ready to vote for either a black man or shrieking harridan white woman before they'll vote mccain.

this from a racist, sexist [some of them virulent misogynists], religionist, pro-military crowd, a handful of whom truly are just a tiny bit afraid that obama really might be the anti-christ.

i almost feel sorry for them, seeing as how it must be sheer hell to have to choose from the lesser of two evils if that's your outlook on life.

I just noticed that my response way out of place in the thread. I kind of went off on a tangent, and read something I guess I really didn't see. Sorry about that. Since I can't edit it out, it's going to be awkward. lol Sorry, to Chicago Dyke for the misread. There should still be something that can be gleaned from it, though, so maybe it's not a complete loss and embarrassment, for me.

has an article up at Black Agenda Report on what it means if Obama loses - how race will almost certainly play a role this November, but it's not the only factor and so it will be hard to judge the extent to which it matters.

Personally, I think there are people who would never vote for a black man, but I think it's a relatively small percentage and most of them are Republicans anyway. I think the larger group are probably people uncomfortable voting for a black man but could get over it with the right motivation. It seems this week Obama tried to address that by trotting people out to testify that he's not a scary black man. I don't think that's as needed as having him be able to convince working class folks he'll do something for them. Because Obama has two things working against him with non-AA working class folks - his race and his culture (which is urban upper class). Kerry did lousy with these voters and he's white so it's not just about race. Doug Wilder, for example, did better in the 9th Congressional District (Appalachian Virginia) than John Kerry did. It's a mix of race and class/culture. Obama can't do anything about his race, but he can work on convincing people that he understands their economic problems even if he doesn't have the same ones and that he will fight to help them. That will, IMO, help some of the people over the race hurdle (just as there were many Hillary voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania that I heard interviewed who said they never thought they'd vote for a woman).

And it read as a pretty traditional blog about the observations of a trip, and it didn't really have much to do about race. There wasn't any focus on much of anything beyond the random observations of the blogger, so, I'm not exactly sure how this is supposed to be a catalyst for a discussion on race, or from where or which way we're supposed to start discussing the issue.

I'm now more confused from having read than from when I originally misread the initial post, though, the more I look back I think my initial annoyance may have been partially justified, because of the tone and accusatory nature of the initial questions.

All that said, I'll try to answer the question(s), now, after having went back over everything.

- I think race will have a relatively small impact on the actual election, and largely at the margins. I think that much like in the primaries, race will still help him more than it will hurt him, though to a lesser degree, of course. I think the exoticism and novelty of his candidacy is ultimately a plus, pulling in more folks at the youth end of things than it loses elderly end of things. It probably will not be enough of adavantage, though, to make up for the negatives of being labeled a "liberal elitist." And, I think Obama's biggest built in obstacle that is now out of hist control is his incredible newness to the national scene, which prevents him from being able to define himself how he'd like to, especially considering that he's running against the guy who's been in this long enough that he's ultra-defined and toned in the image he's created for himself. I've said this before, but the smears against Obama could not be used against a Colin Powell or even a Jesse Jackson, so his biggest problem is not his race. I truly believe that he passed the "race test" or race threshold some time ago. Exactly where, I can't tell, but I think it's pretty clear that he learned how to use his race as a net advantage. It's really quite brilliant, and if for nothing else he gets points for figuring out what so many other minority candidates could never find.

- What am I doing about it? I think this is what I'm talking about when I called parts of the initial post "loaded". It's either a loaded question or a leading one. That question is implicatory and accusatory. It implies that Obama's race is a net loss for his candidacy, and then accuses and assumes that we're not doing anything (or enough) about it, if that were the case. And, I guess if I keep following the question, I'd get to where I'd ask "would electing Obama be any kind of solution to our problems with race in itself? because the original question seems to assume that, too.

It is certainly a central and unavoidable topic. We should give each other wide and uncritical latitude to avoid stifling the dialogue. We shouldn't have to worry about looking back (too much)over our shoulder in case we said something *shudder* "wrong". So, with that prophylactic (ha! starting right in!).....

1.) I think it's important for everyone to acknowledge that out of the people who will vote primarily based on race, the subset voting FOR him based on race will primarily be Democrats, so no real change from what would have likely happened anyway. The subset voting AGAINST him will primarily be Republicans, so no real change from what would have likely happened anyway. Ultimately I think we are looking at a non-issue regarding electability based on race. Until the polls start correlating the question to republican/democrat/independant status, the data is not really usable.

2.) Anecdotes are useless. I would include blog posts like the one quoted as an anecdote. Anecdotes are going to come from everywhere and we need to reject them. Anecdotes are the personification of truthiness.

3.) Race is just as likely a GOTV for either side. Given that most of the people who will primarily vote on race are either Republicans (against) or Democrats (for), race is likely to be exploited by both sides! Republicans (except McCain personally) are nearly certain to shamelessly pound the "affirmative action" trope. Since Obama's lack of experience/resume gives them ample "excuse" they won't even be shy about it. On the other side, the Obama campaign has long been obliquely using his race to boost his Dem vote. They likely will pour on the juice in that regard, challenging Dems to back them lest they want to to be seen as racists. Oh, wait, they would never be THAT shameless, right? Har!

4.) Running on their background and history is easier than running on policy for either candidate (for differing reasons, McCain because nobody likes his policies, Obama because he really doesn't HAVE any concrete policies, all is negotiable so maximum flexibility is required), race is inseparable from background and history. This further makes race one of the dominant factors in this, uh, race.

5.) Since it will be an unavoidable campaign topic, we should be asking tangential questions. The question most intriguing ones to are inter-related:

Scenario one, If Obama wins:

How will "white" and "black" people feel regarding "racism over/diminished (i.e. "I just hope that black people don’t start thinking they’re superior.”)

Scenari two, if Obama loses:

What will be the different reactions regarding the racial impact in different constituencies and around the world.

6.) I think if we have the conversation extensively, up front, and early it will be healthier in the long run to making sense afterward (no matter the outcome). Because the conversation won't end with the election. That is guaranteed.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

please don't read my post as accusatory; it wasn't meant that way at all. feel free to be annoyed with me, but understand i'm literally just curious to know how, if at all, people are finding themselves talking about, or taking action to counter, both the 'daily, regular' sort of racism they encounter (if they do) and that which is generated by obama's campaign. i said "hate me for it," because i know this is a very tuff crowd, and obama supporters are few here. still, i'm very glad that people are willing to say so much on this topic. i find myself over there with RedSox; we seem to be very much on the same page.

herb- i don't think anecdotes are "useless." not by a long shot. they aren't meant for use in science, absolutely, but i've learned a great deal from anecdotes in my life. sometimes, they can capture the essence of a thing better than a 000word academic paper. and they can be very, very effective, if applied properly, in convincing the less discoursive/critical/analytical out there.

Yeah, we got racism where I grew up. All over. All sides. Hatfield vs. McCoy stuff. DINOcrat vs. Reptilican.

Which is my response to

It’s wonderful that I can vote for a black man. Except I’d also be voting for a black man who voted to destroy the rule of law and gut the Fourth Amendment by giving retroactive immunity to the telcos.

Hey, we're all part of the Matrix. You breathe out CO₂ too, right?

Yeah, Obama's got issues. He's a little closer to the original gene pool than many 'Merikans. Yeah, the One had to do the Uncle Tom thing a little bit to get close to the Source. In case you didn't notice, so did Hillary.

They both got so close to the Source that you could say fairly that they're both part of the algorithm, too. Although around here for some reason it's only the darker of the two chameleons people can see among the Bu$hes. Believe it, the golden girl was there eating the flies and processing the code for the Company awhile before he was.

[Yes, I'm back, cd, at your request, mixing metaphors and breaking hyperbole again.]

So maybe you'd rather vote for a guy who sees no issue with World War with both Team Russe and Team Xinhua as long as he has a good driver to take him to Starbucks for his mocha?

So maybe you'd rather vote for a guy who'd rather share his birthday cake with Commander Bunnypants while Greenland melts and Philly becomes part of the Continental shelf?

Be my guest.

Obama isn't Pure Lily White Progressive meat. People notice. No one is, that I'm aware of, it's just some are more aware of it than others. Especially at $election time.

Obama's a helluva lot more human than the botox domme Queen Cindy and her gigilo soldier of fortune John Sidney McCain. You all have a helluva lot of a greater chance surviving the next four years with an Obama preznitcy than with a McCain-Cheneyburton oligarchy. If you vote "Mc$ame" like Rove wants, or you simply sit out this $election on your hands in petulance, you, personally, are making one of the biggest mistakes of your life.

Whatever the color.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

so glad to see you around. hope all is well with you and yours.

CD, I take your point, anecdotes have a use, but they should be used sparingly, and this issue especially often devolves into the battle of the anecdotes, where you start battling over the meaning of the particular anecdote rather than the larger phenomenon (I'm not going to link to the most recent example of that which irked me so badly right here at Corrente). Anecdotes happen millions of times every day, and people are able to pull up an anecdote which supports their side even when "reality" doesn't. Anecdotes often leave people of goodwill in a no win situation where they start arguing at the extremes. Anecdotes are rarely used to find common ground or healing (YMM truly vary on that though).

Anecdotes are the Sriracha hot sauce of a conversation. Sometimes really good to spice it up but they have to be put onto something more substantial. They aren't a meal in themselves.

Anecdotes can be true, or they can be truthy. I just wanted to get that across.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

"I guess that shows what kind of country we are."

+1

I think I have a mason jar somewhere in the garage filled with things that "show what kind of country we are"!

People in Eagan, Minnesota have to drive 5 miles to buy a roll of toilet paper "I guess that shows what kind of country we are."

This could/should be it's own post. Pick an anecdote that "shows what kind of country we are".

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

In many ways, Obama is helped by his race, and he is also hurt by it, electorally.

It has been easier for his opposition to paint him as an out of touch Other(though he hasn't helped that perception either). But it's also been easier for him to paint criticism of him as racist(read: bigotted), which has become the pariah of our discourse, and prevents voters from looking at his deeper flaws.

I think Paul is correct, that a white candidate with Obama's resume wouldn't have gotten very far.

What am I doing about? What I can. I am in the generation that Obama is overwhelmingly winning, so outright racial bigotry isn't too large a problem, though gender and religious bigotry are. I call out people when they use racist memes. My boss(very sweet and CLUELESS white woman) has gotten to the point, all I have to do is look at her after she says something, and she goes "That was racist wasn't it?"

With most people, like her, it is not that they are deliberately racist, they are just educated that way, and don't examine it further. She's perfectly willing to hire a black candidate for a job, so she can't be racist, right? The challenge is making people examine their privilege.

The other thing I do, that I think is the greatest contribution, is I'm trying to raise my daughter with a very conscious idea of what racism is. I send her to a school where, with her white skin, she is the minority(48% black, 17% hispanic). She has also been slapped in the face with gender bigotry as well, as she watched the primaries unfold with me.

Most of this crowd isnt even (apparently) equipped to deal with Kai's post. And to reduce it to "anecdote." They clearly are not familiar, either, with the tired tradition of invalidating Personal Story. Or what that means and when it is done, and who does it. And I ain't here to teach today.

It's a good conversation you want to have CD, but this ain't the place for it. This is the site to talk about misogyny and to virulently react against obama....with never a real, considered, discussion of racism.

Think about that for a minute.

Claro.
___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Just don' tase me, bro'!

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky