Exodus of Clinton's Superdelegates Not About Black and White
The talk of politics this afternoon is an AP story reporting that some Democratic National Convention "superdelegates" that had been supporting Clinton are moving into the "undecided" category or now supporting Obama.
It's a great story, so why does the AP's David Espo have to screw it up by trying - inaccurately - to make it about race?
Two of the superdelegates cited by the AP are US Representatives from Georgia - David Scott, who has defected to Obama and civil rights pioneer John Lewis, who is talking about the possibility of doing the same - and the story, titled "Black Lawmakers Rethink Clinton Support," notes that they're members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But the story cites other superdelegates from other parts of the country that AP reports have also defected:
Two other superdelegates, Sophie Masloff of Pennsylvania and Nancy Larson of Minnesota, are uncommitted, having dropped their earlier endorsements of Clinton.
Let me introduce you to Masloff, who turned 90 last month, who was a delegate at the last two Democratic National Conventions and is the former mayor of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
And Nancy Larson, former Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor and State Auditor, is from Minnesota:
So what gives with the AP headline?
This story originally appeared at The Field.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
in every state over 80% of blacks voted for Obama. If over 80% of whites had voted for Hillary they would be called racist.Let's be honest.Take a almost all white city like Boston with a black Mayor if 80% of whites voted for someone else he'd be out looking for a job.
Absolutely correct roncraw, and no sense in denying it. This Primary is showing clearly just how racist back Americans are. FULL STOP!!!!
It seems that if it wasn't about race and gender, it would be like trying to ignore the elephant in the room.
It is ironic that the MSM's attempts to turn this election into a race war are themselves racist. I'm sure they're are people in America who have voted for (or against) a candidate because of race or gender and some of them will again. I'm not one of them, and most of us are not, and Obama is not running to be "the President of Black People." As Oprah said so finely, "Don't make me small."
Not just the MSM
From Dailykos:
A black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. "There's nothing going on right now that would cause me to" change, he said... ...In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations. He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House? "I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded. Jackson, an Obama supporter (correction: Obama's campaign chair), confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.
www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/14/21400/9601/567/457085
They can't help themselves.
But WE can.
I agree that the mainstream media - particularly the AP and CNN - have tried so hard to make this election about race and gender. We are treated to yet another CNN special - THE POLITICS OF RACE AND GENDER. Not again - haven't they been doing this all year? AP's coverage of this story is a case in point. This election is less and less about either race and gender and more about which candidate we believe will do a better job. The media needs to catch up with the people - as does former President Clinton. We don't like this kind of coverage - get over it already.
But, but...Obama's black! That's the story!
Well - I think it's clear that it's not just black "superdelegates" but the fact that they are defecting is significant. I'm an African-American, and I have never been more insulted by people who claim to represent me than I've been in this election. Imagine being told by someone who supposedly is a "black leader" that black people shouldn't do what "feels good" - as if we aren't able to think for ourselves, and conclude that one candidate is better than another without regard for race? The "black leaders" have long assumed that they could just shepherd the black vote - the very opposite of what they are supposed to be doing - namely *representing* their constituencies. I've been grateful that blacks have simply ignored them and voted their conscience. So - no, it isn't just blacks - but the fact that these black superdelegates are among the defectors IS news.
No defection of superdelegates IS news, the fact that they are black is maybe important to you but it is not relevant to the story when half the cases cited are white. The blogger aptly points out that the title could have been White Superdelegates defect but it wasn't. Why? Because there is an undercurrent by media to inject race into this election at any cost in order to aide Clinton and hurt Obama. Their main problem is failure because Obama supporters are the smarter members of society, the analytical ones; we see the ploy for what it is and make another donation or volunteer another hour for every unscrupulous transgression---this has been part of Obama's success, our supporter pledges to counteract every negative punch with a lift-up with either volunteer time, money or both to our candidate. We counteract the racism by strengthening support.
I respect your views, but in other states,like Delaware(I don't know if you are from there?)the rhetoric targeting these voters by Obama representatives urges them to choose based on supporting the black candidate. While other superdelegates, like one from New Jersey, are switching sides as well. If you read the article you understand that she did not do it based on her conscience but based on seeming popular with her children. How is this excercising a vote pointed at the real issues?? These superdelegates are the ones putting their foot in their mouths and that is why this process reeks of black and white. Also, I see that Sen. Obama is not even capable of uniting black leaders with respect to the delegate issue eg. Julian Bond vs. Rev. Al Sharpton. With all due respect, it is apparent that Brack Obama is the more divisive candidate here and not Hillary Clinton as many of the bloggers on The Huffington Post would have us believe. But, like you said, you are quite capable of seeing the real issues with respect to voting and can and will vote your conscience. Peace.
My Queen you are sorely misinformed....Just look at the results state by state and how the votes split along racial lines. It IS all about race for the African-American community. SC, GA, DC, VA.....BO won between 85 to 95% of the black vote. Are you now going to tell me that's not a voting block? Yet white people are examining both candidates and are barely breaking more for Clinton. So just how is this not about race????? And yes, I do think it is a sad commentary about our country, but the networks have it right. The African-American voting block proves this to be true. I'd be happy to hear anything you have to say to the contrary that is factual.
Then maybe you can answer why Hillary led among blacks by 40+ points only a couple months ago. I can't believe so many ignorant people point to the black percentages without FIRST admitting a supermajority were in Hillary's camp before being won over by Barack or lost by the Clinton's tactics. He EARNED his black support just like he EARNS his complete support across America! He does it by appealing to the people's needs and desires, not their fears, like Senator Clinton has now decided to do.
The real question should be why has Senator Clinton's support dropped so rapidly if people were strong in backing her? So the reality is Clinton's support has always been based on name recognition and her husband's popularity, while no one knew Obama until just months ago and many continue to only learn about him daily.
BTW, John Kerry won 88% of the black vote in Louisiana in 2004, so why was Kerry more popular than Obama? Was it because he was white? See how stupid this entire line of illogic actually is when confronted with reality?
Based on you statement 95% of Black people have no ability to analize the opposing views of each candidate and come to a conclusion based on the facts...Using your rationale since 95% of all serial killers and random acts of violence are commited by white people should we say that that should be applied to the Whole White Block!!!
Again, Hillary and her supporters are trying to use racism to incite anger against the Black community and Obama.
Honestly, their decision to flip-flop is not about Obama or Hillary it's about one or two things. Either they are trying to maintain their own political standing within their communities or they simply want to win the White House and feel that Obama can pull it off.
...or are being made monetary promises for the bulk of their constituency by the Obama camp who gathered to try and win over the superdelegates already on Hillary's side. How do you think he got them to switch, by giving them milk and cookies?? People, let us all stop behaving in such a naive manner and see it for what it is. These superdelegates have just shown the world to be CLASS A PROSTITUTES!
..so much for PIMPIN! But I bet the media isn't accusing Obama for this either, now are they?
Why did it HAVE to be a story about race?
Three words:
Conflict driven narrative. (the lifes blood of info-tainment news.)
John Meecham in an interiew with Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show":
"I absolutely believe that the media is not ideologically driven, but conflict driven," Meacham said. "If we have a bias it's not that people are socially liberal, fiscally conservative or vice versa. It is that we are engaged in the storytelling business. And if you tell the same story again and again and again - it's kind of boring."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/01/22/newsweek-editor-jon-meacham-says-media-bias-toward-conflict-not-ideologic
But, we can actually change the race part. Yes WE can.
GObama in '08!
Jon Stewart would find it laughable that you are sourcing his program for the benefit of your argument. That is the problem here! Young male voters going to Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert for the news and THIS is who we are allowing to fucking dictate our future!???
Wouldn't there also be conflict in the headline "2 White Women Superdelegates Drop Hillary Clinton"?
The media is dead set to make this about race and gender. Its so sad...
It is about race. Clearly.
Loading comments…
Posted February 14, 2008 | 11:01 PM (EST)