Sen. George Allen called an Indian-American "Macaca," and it was seen all over the country on YouTube. That was the turning point that sunk his re-election campaign in the "Red" state of Virginia.
Preceding the Iowa caucus, some surrogates for Sen. Hillary Clinton used code words like "drugs" and "madrassa" in reference to Sen. Barack Obama. They were called out on blogs, forced to apologize, and Obama went on to victory.
In New Hampshire, Clinton faced a wave of misogyny. The "Iron My Shirt" heckler was exposed on YouTube. Chris Matthews displayed condescension and disrespect to her on MSNBC. Former Sen. John Edwards was seen as criticizing her expression of emotion. Women rallied to her side, and Clinton went on to victory.
There was a time when people criticized the use of racist and sexist code words, but lamented that they always seem to work come Election Day. Well, they're not working now -- thanks to our growth as a country, combined with the power of the blogosphere to quickly spread proper shame.
Folks in the political establishment that continue to traffic in bigoted politics better quickly learn the lesson, for their own sake.
I discussed the above in additional detail on today's installment of the LiberalOasis Radio Show. You watch that segment below, and listen to the full podcast (including a preview of the Michigan primary with MichiganLiberal.com's Eric Baerren) by clicking here.
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
MSNBC has become a a boys club of chauvinists who do not see themselves as they are. I quit watching Fox News a couple of years past, It looks like I am going to have to abandon MSNBC. Fortunately - the internet is exploding with a variety that has never been seen in News
Ohg http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/14/tim-russert-plays-the-gender-card/
The African Americans supporting Clinton must be extremely uncomfortable with the racist innuendos they are using. They should stand up and denounce this slime and realize they are on the wrong side of history.
let's not forget the Obama's racist attack on Senator Clinton
June 15th,
2007
12:01 pm As the son of an African, it is quite disconcerting that Obama and his camp would treat any group of recent immigrants as being sub-class Americans. I read the memos and noted that there is an undercurrent of this very attitude towards Indian-Americans. The memos draw together several facts, which are arranged in a deceptive way to make it seem that the sole reasons that an Indian-American would support Sen. Clinton is her connection to outsourcing. Though not as blatant as George Allen"s "makaka" comment in the last election cycle, the Obama memos speak of Indian-Americans almost as spies working for Indian interests, rather than as Americans who have a right to support whatever political candidates they choose.
It's absurd to suggest that racism and sexism and other bigotry are things of the past. If we're all so over it, what accounts for Bush getting elected to two terms in office? Gay bashing, race-baiting and religious wars are the featured staples of his presidency.
Nope. We're not past prejudice and bigotry at all. If there's been any movement at all, things have deepened and taken root in new places.
George Allen's "Macaca moment," and the lies he initially gave the press to try and explain it, were political mistakes. His constituents fiercely defended the man and still do. YouTube might expose the racism and sexism, but it certainly doesn't erase it.
As long as pieces like this very article casually imply that "drugs" is a code word for "Blacks," I know America has a long, long way to go before bigotry becomes a thing of the past.
The tactic of claiming that any accurate criticism of Obama is showing racial prejudice is self defeating as it will ultimately cause a large backlash. Further, it gives lie to the claim that Obama is a great unifier. Further, to keep putting forth the opinion that Obama came in second in NH due to the "Bradley Effect" will due nothing but work against the chances of Obama getting the nomination because it will constantly reinforce the idea that a black person can't win the election....And the party desperately wants to win the election.
I've been wondering....if Clinton wins the nomination, will the pundits say Obama lost due to racism? And if Obama wins, will it be Clinton losing because of sexism? And if Edwards wins, are voters both sexist & racist?? 'Cause one thing is very clear, whoever wins the nomination, Democrats will be branded as prejudiced...
I love how race has now entered into the equation, and it's important to ask who will benefit from this introduction: a man of mixed heritage and brown skin, or the WASPs?
Liberal Bigotry within the Democratic party will split the party. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton started this Bigotry with in there campaign weeks ago. The started with his school, he a muslim, he sold cocaine, MLK remarks, fairy tale remarks we could go on and on. They will pay for this you mark my words. They are stupid to think people can not get the information they need to decided in this election. Most of the younger baby-boomer use computers on a daily bases to pay bills and our shopping and to read up on current events. We did not like what was going on when we growing up. Some of us did not agree with our parents racial views. Now, we are tired of this 60's mess. It is time to move on and turn the page. This election is going to be won by the truth. Who do you trust to tell the truth.
America Hillary Clinton is going to Divide us!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't recall any "anti-immigrant ads". And, in fact, "anti-immigrant" is a code word for "enforcing our laws would cost the Democratic Party power and would cost money for those corrupt businesses to which Dem-controlling groups like the ACLU, NCLR, MALDEF, etc. are linked."
Thomas Edsall, in a column on Huffpo posted just yesterday afternoon (Jan 11) cites AIDES TO CLINTON thinking along the following lines (quoted verbatim from Edsall's column about post-NH strategy in the Democratic campaign):
Aides believe that, combined with a surge of support among women, Clinton's 'crying' incident, and the possible role of race in bringing white voters to the New York senator's side, they see the makings of a reconfigured strategy to carry the campaign forward.
If Scher is right, and I am seriously doubtful that he is, the Clinton campaign would be in for a serious fall, one hard to recover from. But I think his analysis is flawed. In Iowa, the issue of Madrassas and drugs was marginal, ground organization and the endorsements of Richardson and Kucinich for their supporters to pick Obama second (in a system where the voters are effectively corraled by organizers, rather than each acting truly independently, for better or worse), and other factors were crucial. So was the opportunity for independents to vote McCain rather than Obama.
Even given all these factors, SERIOUS questions have been raised about the sharp divergence of the final-and-especially-the-EXIT polls and the reported results. That wouldn't happen in the US? Wake up and smell the horse manure!
But, like I said, time will tell whether Scher's theory is right. My own guesstimate is that Obama has a stiff uphill fight coming, especially on the overloaded Tsunami Tuesday, which it appears at least to my inexpert eyes to be structured in a way that heavily favors Hillary Clinton, the best-known candidate PRIOR to the campaign, and ANY insurgent, such as Barack Obama.
As Clemenceau said in response to Wilson's 14 Points: "We shall see."
Loading comments…
Posted January 12, 2008 | 12:01 PM (EST)