What Oregon Says About America
As we all know, the dominant explanation coming out of Oregon and Kentucky's differing Democratic primary results will go like this: Oregonians are wealthier, better-educated and racially homogeneous, and therefore free of the kind of racial politics we have seen in other states recently. Hence their support for Obama. Kentuckians, by contrast, are poorer, less well-educated and are in a state with legacies of racial difference. Hence their support for Clinton. But before this story congeals into the inevitable conclusion that white working class folks simply won't support Obama, It is worth remembering two things. First, as Sam Stein pointed out in a post two days ago, Oregon is indeed a working class state. Second, it is a mistake to imagine that Oregon is somehow free of the racial history that formed the nation more generally. Oregon's lack of diversity is not an accident -- it is itself a legacy of white supremacy. The territorial constitution of the 1850s barred the settlement of both slaves and free blacks, and patterns of racial exclusion continued at least through the mid 20th century. Even in liberal Eugene, the entire African American community dwelt in a shanty town at the edge of the city up into the 1940s, as housing covenants and racist renting practices kept black families out of the city proper. People of color routinely experience racism in Oregon today, be it personal anti-black sleights at the grocery store or on the street, or English-only political campaigns, as is the case in many states. But true as that fact is, the Oregon primary shows that even where racism is a personal or social phenomenon, it is not necessarily the case that race always triumphs politically. Indeed, Oregon voters are clearly not driven by racial animus. Perhaps that is more true than we might think elsewhere as well.
If we trace back the evolution of the so-called "lunch-pail" Democrat (as if working people of color don't also eat lunch) we come first to the Reagan Democrat, a species first discovered outside Detroit by pollster Stanley Greenberg in 1984. Go further still and you find Nixon's Silent Majority -- the first modern attempt to peel working class voters away from the Democratic party on the basis of race. But Nixon strategists knew that there was no Silent Majority out there to be found; it was a political concept in search of a constituency -- something Nixon strategists such as Kevin Phillips were quite clear about at the time. The result has kept us in the long shadow of Nixon and Reagan.
Clinton, with her southern, conservative Democratic Leadership Council background knows this strategy well. By talking about "hardworking Americans, white Americans" she claimed simply to be saying what pollsters were already showing. But by invoking a relationship between hard work and race, she helps conjure up resentments that may be mobilized politically under the right conditions. Racial political identifications start with appeals first, and become settled assumptions afterwards. Journalists and scholars should be wary of falling into the trap of confusing political strategy for demographic realities when analyzing this election. As Oregon shows, white working class people -- just like anyone else -- have the capacity to vote their concerns, interests and beliefs in terms other than race. Indeed, if Obama seriously addresses the problems of economically marginalized people, he may help find a way out of the racial machinations of the modern right.
Loading comments…
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
I am so happy Oregon voted for Obama. He wasn't my first choice, but he was certainly my close second.
I am not of the opinion that Clinton should drop out of the race. She has given it her best shot and come up short. Although I am wearying of the perpetual primary, I cannot remember the last time a campaign has been so riveting and taken down to the wire.
Now, Obama needs to choose a running mate that will help him in the areas he has the most trouble with the constituency, and I think Jim Webb or John Edwards are two excellent nominees Obama should consider for that spot.
She needs to stay in it so her defeat will be clear to all.
While I'm sure the author of this fiction is intelligent, his facts don't stand up to the light of day. Oregon is a highly educated state with most in the cities having a college degrees, phd's and grad school. The 16% black population combined with the highly educated and college going group are the only reason he won,just enough to win a primary but not enough to win an election. We ran two other super liberal guys the last two times, and they lost. In special elections accros the country and 06 the dem's who won were centrist aka a Hillary type of democrat. Latino's and the white working class are not going to vote for him ever and before your undies go twisty it's not race it's that knowing they have to live and be practicle influences there voting. if it's between super lefty (just missing the cape) and a man who's right but for the most part to the center they will go for the center, Or like me will stay home I will never vote for a Republican but I will never vote for a canidate with ZERO experience especially after this guy on the other side has demonstrated that lack there of is a death nell to our country.
Fact check, missing a decimal point: Oregon is 1.6% black, not 16% black. Thanks for playing!
haha
I have a feeling he didn't make a mistake but was intentionally inserting that % number in there. If you look at the context of what he's saying, it does look like subterfuge by "fact -overload". 1.6% looks very different from 16% and its not easy to make that kind of mistake. I'm going to flag him, hope others follow my lead.....
"if it's between super lefty (just missing the cape) and a man who's right but for the most part to the center they will go for the center, Or like me will stay home I will never vote for a Republican but I will never vote for a canidate with ZERO experience especially after this guy on the other side has demonstrated that lack there of is a death nell to our country."
right- Cheney and Rummsfeld were complete new comers to the political sphere... certainly not old hands with entrenched interests... THAT's why the Bush administration has been so disastrous... no, no...
Thats well said stateMachine, Cheney and Rummey were old timers inWashington, but also....
Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama and he is widely considered our best president. The guy before Lincoln was Buchannan who had 10 years in the senate and was secretary of state for 4 years and yet is considered one of the most ineffective of presidents. It took someone without any national experience to end slavery. But you know what, I dont think dmslvo2 is really cares about the country because he is willing to give away the country to the republicans rather than see one of the greatest liberal minds win the presidential election.
Not Intelligent ?
Not everyone has kept the same old dusty blinders as you.
The reality of the times, have made the path ahead clear, for those that won’t allow whispered rhetoric from behind trees to slow our progression to a new beginning, no matter which Democrat leads the charge.
The past election cycles had their own unique curtains that the republicans could hide behind, which today are thread bare, leaving only race, as their hidden message, an irrational fear, which comes at too high a monetary cost to real day to day living for anyone who cares about their own well being, if not, that of their community, their country and the world at large.
So mentioning the past as a measure of the present is out of phase and irrelevant.
You can stay home and give your vote to McCain by proxy, however if he steals the reins, your excuses of 'experience' ect won't ease that burning feeling of knowing that you are, and never were Democratic material.
True Democrats are about making a positive difference in the quality of lives of All Americans, and would not allow something as immature as spite, to prevent us from contributing all we have to make sure that our American hope becomes reality.
To do so, would be definitely NOT intelligent.
By the way Great Article Joseph !
See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile
"I will never vote for a Republican but I will never vote for a candidate with zero experience"
If people don't vote for Obama, they're letting McCain win. For God's sake, show some backbone. Be an American. Make a damn decision: do you want McCain in the Oval Office, or Obama? Because it's going to be one or the other, and you can't keep blood off your hands by staying home.
Choose. Or it's your fault.
You're obviously not one of those highly educated Oregonians you're talking about. If you were, you'd know that Oregon's population is approximately 2% African-American, not 16%. Why don't you confine your comments to whatever topic it is that you know something about?
There is also something that grows "socially progressive" roots in the Pacific Coast waters - whether looking at the Canadian or American border. The people living on the edge of the Pacific Ocean tend to be more environmentally conscious, be advocates for social equality (like same-sex marriage), be concerned about homelessness, and take a bigger role in looking after their own health. They haven't fallen into the "learned helplessness theory" pit. Even the conservatives are liberals. There is open acknowledgement of problems that infringe upon everyone's quality of life, and new solutions are more widely accepted and implemented. I'm not sure why this is, but it is heuristic rule that holds true much of the time.
I lived in california for 25 years, and I found that those same people, were also self centered and arrogant, and they were so sure of their rightousness that they tried to cram it down everyone else's throats. Nice place huh? So why the mass exodus?
Being from Vancouver, BC - capital of N. American vegetarians and bicyclers - it is something I've experienced from travelling West to East. Maybe its the temperate climate, the pot, or the setting sun - Vancouver is the opposite of Toronto. California and Florida may both have Disney - but that's where the similarity ends. I was a contributor to the World Urban Forum for sustainability, and I was incredibly impressed with the way a city in Oregon had dealt with its growing homelessness issue. The municipality actually bought buildings that helped put a roof over people's heads so they could get to a place to actually put their life back in order - whether that involved seeking mental health help or kicking a substance abuse problem. On the streets - they were only privy to the crime world and brought down the neighbourhood. Maybe it wasn't California that was the problem - perhaps you just didn't see things the way they do. I don't know about any mass exodus - but I imagine the economy could be an issue and the cost of housing seems to be untenable for the 'average' joe.
The California I know though not perfect, is alive with world culture, thus the reality of what it is to be human is more evident compared to many places in America.
Also Mixed marriages & unions are very high.
As to the exodus, if there is such a thing when people move in, as quickly as others move out, is due to the high cost of living, which in turn is due to population growth.
I grew up in Indiana and have lived in California for 36 years. The people I have met here are far more tolerant than those I grew up with in Indiana. They are generally not self-centered and arrogant. Indeed, some of the most arrogant people I have known are ignorant people from small towns in middle America. Perhaps you are one of them or perhaps you attract your own kind. (And of course there is no mass exodus, more like the opposite.)
avicenna
Coming from NZ, and we are surrounded by the sea, this is my simplistic theory. It's living close to the sea, it gives u perspective.
Part one--
Outside of Portland, Ashland, and Eugene, most of Oregon is just like California if you leave SF or LA--their collars are blue, but they bleed bright red. The difference between Oregon and Pennsylvania is how the media is allowed to operate.
In Oregon the people still receive a broader covering of the issues than in Penn. Given the consolidation in media, this is remarkable; that a state still has access to reporting that covers the many sides of a story, not just the NYT or Murdoch approved position. THIS is what allows the people there to make informed and considered decisions that reflect their own best interests; not those of the lap dog corporate media who control the flow of information in other states.
Last month, Obama mentioned the reflexive way in which some folks in Penn. (and other rural, isolated states) grab onto the familiar even when it has been proven to be to their own detriment; how their feelings of betrayal and anger at what this government has done to them are manipulated, causing them to vote in ways that only perpetuate the very things they hate.
Two formerly very red areas in blue Oregon are making a transition to blue. My county in Central Oregon, Deschutes Co. (biggest city Bend) and my daughter's county in Southern Oregon, Jackson Co. (biggest city Medford) both went for Obama yesterday by 20+ points, and I think you will see these two counties go for Obama over McCain in November.
We see similar changes in Calif where more farmland becomes suburbs and the people have different priorities. Great to hear about those counties as Obama will need every vote this fall--I have folks in the Salem area, so travel your way often. As someone mentioned, maybe it is a coastal thing, but if we could educate the working people of the old iron belt and coal regions the way you have your citizens, then they would begin to understand what they are Really angry about--and with whom!
Oregon has come a long way from the time they laughed at my son and I when we asked to buy some free range chicken to make southern fried. The meat market guy we were finally sent to turned to his buddies and said, "Gosh, these Californians is looking fer free range chicken, haw haw. Well, dang, i guess you'll just have to go find yourself a farmer!" True story. Now the food and restaurants are some of the best on either coast!
Part two--
When Obama said those things, he could have as easily been standing in Oregon, as Pennsylvania. It is not a wealthy state--their largest growth industry is prisons. The difference is the flow of information and education in Oregon, and those two things allow people there to vote their concerns, interests and beliefs in terms other than race, or class, or geography.
Compared to Oregon, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are still Company Towns, owned and controlled by vested corporate interests, just like the little mining towns owned by Peabody, or Anaconda. Breaking through that Coal Curtain to deliver opposing views, let alone quality education--even in this age of the internet--is a daunting task. If Oregon proves anything, it proves that Obama has his finger on the pulse of working class people in this country, and that a truly free press and universal education give people the power to decide what's in their own best interest.
Well said, Rule of Law!
One of the TV talking pundits was comparing the percentage of religious people in Kentucky and Oregon and stated that Kentucky had more people in religion. Now that brings up an interesting question. How could a state like Kentucky, that is supposed to be so religious, vote for someone who is a known liar and has a history of involvement in corruption? Obviously, they didn't vote their religious convictions.
Yeah and Rezko's issue isn't anything. B O lying about not talking about Clinton's mistatement wasn't a lie nor was it a lie that he ran to end the Iraq war and wouldn't vote for the money to fund it. Oh Yeah he did so he is a liar. As to the racist bit. I'm from KS and if you want a racist state go there. He won that and they are very religious there. Of course he'll never take that state in the general but hey he won't win so who cares. the 20% who said that were in an older age group for what I saw but the 80% who voted for her were younger. So if you make the assumption that a vote for her is racist than you must make the same about B H O voters especially if they are black. Seems they just want a black man could be anyone as long as he's black. You'd see them flooding to polls for republicans if Condi was running against a white person. That's just as racist but hey who's gonna say that. Then there are the complete mysoginists you know men who voted for B H O against her. Take the coal from your back side it's a diamond and relax,he's not going to win in NOV, I'm staying home as are of the last count over 660,000 others who are dems but won't vote for a zero experience no real plans guy.
You're really revealing much more about yourself with this post than anything else. You might have noticed early on in the primary, african-americans were hesitant to support Obama...
(certainly wouldn't suppor a Rice candidacy)...
then they heard him speak, realized he was special, and flocked to him...
Obama actually has the soundest policy portfolio in the election at this point, hence the support of the Robert Reich's and the Former Joint Chiefs of Staff and what not...
what do you know about policy that they don't?
Well, and only because you brought it up, you know he's a black man. I mean that's 80% of your post above, is, he's a black man, and black people support him, and yada yada yada... I wouldn't accuse you of being obsessed with his blackness were you not so obviously obsessed with his blackness...
if you're that blase' and unconcerned about the utter destruction JohnMcCain and the Failure Party would do to this country, you aren't a Dem, anyway, so stay home and you won't vote for McCain that way...
I live in Salem, Oregon. Born and raised in Portland. Lived her my entire life. I am 42
Oregon does have a strong history of racism. If you do a little research, it is quite interesting. Race shaped this state. It was a leading factor in where people lived, worked, shopped -- everything. But I really shouldn't say "was". It is still highly segregated. The small population of blacks that we do have often complain of facing subtle or not-so-subtle racism here. So, that's the background.
However, as a counterweight to the racism, we are also a state that is more freethinking and independently minded than many other states (very generally speaking). We don't go to church nearly as much as people in other states. We have one of the highest rates of bookstores per capita in the country. We like to elect people who think a bit outside of the box, and who plan for the future. We don't vote out of fear as much as other states might.
There is a strong sense of trying to heal the past instead of trying to preserve it. I am *guessing* that in West Virginia and Kentucky etc there are more folks who vote from a place of trying to preserve the past, no matter the problems that brings.
As far as "working class"? All I know is everyone I know and see is working their ass off.
What Oregon says about America is we want change!
Nice note above; makes sense. One problem remains. Over the years when Democratic president hopefuls profess "change", then seldom if ever say exactly what "changes" they mean. Additionally even when they do specifically mention what they would change, they never say how they will do it , or how they will pay for it. Obama is marching in step with his predecessors. Change is the word, but he has no plan. Like it or not, you all know that a ticket of Hillary as Pres and Obama as Veep would defeat any GOP candidate, but no......the guilt feelings of racism run deep, and we Democrats are destined to loose another round because we are more concerned with political correctness than winning in November. Obama's inexperience will be exposed. Hillary has shown she has balls and can weather almost any storm. Obama as #2 would give him time to mature in foreign affairs, military matters and other areas of his shortcomings. It would be anice springboard to 2016. Wake up everyone. Obama should put his ego aside. Do what is best for the party.
See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile
"One problem remains. Over the years when Democratic president hopefuls profess 'change', then seldom if ever say exactly what 'changes' they mean.... how they will do it, or how they will pay for it.... Change is the word, but [Obama] has no plan...."
Obama's 64 page "Blueprint for Change": http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
As for Hillary as veep: all she's shown me is that she plays dirty, has no allegiance to her party let alone to Barack Obama, and that she doesn't know how to run a campaign. And my genetically Republican mother says (stunningly) that she'll vote for Obama over McCain -- but she hates Hillary so deeply that she won't vote for Obama if she's on the ticket. Among Republicans, she's absolutely not alone.
--- a couple of things:
The voters of this country decided that Sen Obama, despite Sen Clinton's assertions, is 'experienced enough'. That has been the challenge for the Obama campaign since the beginning. Historically, in a 'sea change' election year, experience has taken a back seat to 'experienced enough', charisma and an ability to inspire - which Sen Obama has clearly demonstrated he has and can do.
It is absolutely a mis-representation to say 'he has no plan'. He has stated repeatedly what he plans to do.
The 'Dream ticket' would be a surrendering of Sen Obama's vow to not do 'politics as usual' by becoming allies with someone bought and paid for by the medical and pharmaceutical industry to name two. The Clintons represent all that is wrong with American politics.
When you mention ego, step back for a moment and ask yourself this: which can talks exclusively about what "we can do" and who speaks exclusively about what "I will do"?
and why in the world should the person who has more popular votes, has won more states, has more delegates, elected and non-elected decide to elevate the loser to the president - that IS NOT the will of the people and I, for one, would encourage revolt against such tyranny and dis-enfranchisement of my vote.
"Even in liberal Eugene, the entire African American community dwelt in a shanty town at the edge of the city up into the 1940s, as housing covenants and racist renting practices kept black families out of the city proper."
The fact that this somehow is supposed to be evidence of Oregon's contemporary racial intolerance is laughable. What states didn't practice some sort of institutional racial intolerance in the 1940s.? Today, in Eugene, you'll find a whitewashed constituency with no qualms about voting for someone of a different race. In Kentucky and Appalachia, you'll find a constituency with no qualms about disregarding a candidate simply because of his skin color.
The United Mine Workers of America endorsed Barack Obama for president Wednesday despite his recent defeats in primaries in coal-producing states where many of the union's members vote.
"Senator Obama shares the values of UMWA members and our families. He understands and will fight for the needs our members have today and the hopes our members have for a secure future for themselves and their families," union president Cecil E. Roberts said.
This campaign has raised some issues for me.
I have looked at the democratic party as the party of working class and progressive Americans of all complexions. I wonder, is it acceptable within the democratic party to appeal to "white Americans" to identify with a candidate because the candidate is white? If that is the case, I am in the wrong party.
When the shouting and screaming ends, I will support the national democratic ticket. However, if a candidate who tried to appeal to "white Americans" based on similar skin color were to run for office in a senatorial or congressional district in which I live, I would reject that candidate.
It is interesting to see the Dems react to the injection of race. As a conservative, I honestly think this is the first time the mirror has been shown back on the Dem party in terms of race. Everyone always had claimed that Dems 'rose above it all'...we know that is a bunch of hooey.
The reason I think McCain will win is simple. The American people, no matter whom they are, want the best candidate for the job. They trusted Bush more the Kerry, Bush more than Gore, Clinton more than Dole, and Clinton more than Bush. It had little to do with their VP, their policies, or their background. Let's be honest -- Bill Clinton is a womanizing hick -- but people trusted that he was working for the American people. With W, they appreciated his personality, flaws, and that they thought he was a straight shooter.
Where I think Obama will miss is simply that people don't trust him. There are some significant issues that have been brought up that turns off the middle to lower class voter -- whether it is his comments about religion/guns, his elitism, and his anti-American rantings by close associates.
There are too many questions that Obama hasn't answered -- and he seems to be a selective speaker. People want the straight shooter -- and I think that is why McCain will prevail in Nov.
Good grief, if John McCain is no more a straight shooter than Dick Cheney. McCain will say and do anything to help John McCain. He also has a long history as a hot head, not so bright (he brags about it) in school and is not a maverick (it is his shtick, his act.) He doesn’t even vote for his own bills when they are independent of the GOP box.
Oregon is a state where people value their independence of thought. They have gone their own way regardless of the rest of this country and more often than not they were right. They value their environment (which is beautiful and spectacular), they care about the economy, education and the war. They reflect the interests of the American people.
McCaint is a wolf (G.W.Bush) in sheep’s (McCain) clothing. He will pander and kiss up to whomever he needs to in order to win an election. He is old an out of touch with reality. He has not needed for money, multiple homes, a jet at his beck and call, while Obama and his wife were paying off their student loans.
Finally we have a candidate who cares about and will deal with the issues that matter to all of us. It gives this old white woman much pleasure to think that he could be (should be) our next president. It gives one hope.
McCain is a "straight shooter??!!" ROFL
If the American people "want the best candidate for the job", then there is no way they could possibly pick J.S.McCain. The best thing you can say about him is that he is no longer in the Navy.
Indeed, the appeal to "white Americans" -- in the same breath as "hard-working people" -- is despicable. I think it's one of the reasons that so many Democrats are re-examining the Clintons, and not liking what they see.
I would challenge you to see it this way: when a body has an infection hidden under the skin, a small puncture to the facade of normalty will result in a flood of pus and bodily waste. In order for this infection to heal faster, it's best to fully bleed/drain that sore in order to move forward with treatment and healing.
This presidential election has shown us that the Democratic party has sores of racism and even a little sexism hiding beneath the skin. It's best to go ahead and get all of that nasty *%!* out NOW than to have let it fester even more. This has been a painful process for many people (myself included) who thought the party was above this kind of nonsense. Now, I know better, and perhaps we can go about repairing this and getting the infestation out, whether through education or giving party members the option of supporting someone they dislike superficially or moving to a party that bests serves their biases.
Excellent analogy.
It is a good analogy, but given the number of Independent voters involved and the quantity of members of the Failure Party 'crossing over', that "Democratic party" should be changed to "United States"
Thank you oregon. At least you were able to rise above the racism of Hillary clinton.
I am so tired of hearing that the Clintons have played the race card in this campaign. Anyone with a brain knows that Obama's surrogates have played the race card and blamed it on Hillary. First, Rev. Wrights' "Hillary doesn't know what it feels like to be called a N****r" in a sermon in 07 when Hillary had 67% of the black vote based upon the Clinton history of civil rights. Recorded an sent around the country to black churches. Then there was Jessie Jackson Jr.'s "I wouldn't put any stock in Hillary's tears; she didn't cry for the victims of Katrina" on morning TV shows after Hillary won NH even though Obama had been predicted to win in by a landslide. And that hypocrite, neutral Rep. Clyburn rears his ugly neutral voice before important primaries....SC "Bill should chill out about "race", and NC where he said "The Clintons are alienating the black vote", and now again before these important last primaries...saying I am neutral, but...............What a hypocrit!
You know I understand and really don't blame them for wanting the black support, Obama wouldn't have a chance without it. What I do object to is their playing of the race card and blaming
it on the Clintons. Why couldn't Obama earn the b;ack vote? Why did they have to try to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have always been sympathetic to the black cause?
That is what many of us will never forgive.
Exactly. The dirtiest trick of the entire campaign, and it was played by Obama's people. They are not the nice flower children with dreams of utopia everyone on this board thinks they are. He's a ruthless Chicago politician, perhaps more ruthless than even the Clintons. He's also an expert at selling himself. That's a positive thing, in my opinion, when it comes to winning in November. But the deliberate trashing of the Clinton legacy is something that leaves a bad taste in our mouths. He spent the entire fight lumping the Clinton administration in with the current one. That is wrong. That should have been a scandal. But no, race trumps everything, and accusations of racism are proof of racism. It worked wonders for Obama.
Maybe you, as a clear representative of what does and does not constitute 'playing the race card,' can describe how Jessie Jackson, Rev. Wright, black churches and even Clyburn (who intentionally has not endorsed) somehow speak for Obama... Because they're black??
Believe it or not, the race issue has come from every person BESIDES Sen. Obama. When asked a direct question about it, he'll answer. Honestly (what a concept). The last thing he wants is to be labeled a cheater or whisper politician as the first African-American to earn the Democratic party's nomination.
Wanna know why we Oregonains support him?
WE DON'T CARE THAT HE'S BLACK.
We're that lefty state people like to call progressive. PROGRESSive. Forward-thinking. Evolved. 'Tree huggers' that manage to live in the highest per-capita timber industry in the country.
How do we do it?
Understanding. Problem solving. Symapathy.
You don't know everything and neither do we... But I'll tell you this- Have a discussion with our citizens about your points of view and we'll listen. We'll discuss. We'll think and we'll respond.
That's what Obama had done, and that's why he'll be the next President.
Ask yourself this: IF he's elected and IF he shows he can do the job we expect from our leaders and IF he makes your life and our world a better place, are you humble enough to admit you were wrong? That's between you and who you see in the mirror each day.
Regardless of the "why" rationalizations, it still comes down to the same thing:
If Hillary wins, we get "Business as Usual", and the inequality curve continues to soar until its weight eventually pulls the United States down.
If Obama wins, the vast majority of the nation - those who don't reside in the top 5% of America's wealth aggregators - at least have a chance.
Since I'd rather see more people living the American dream than a neocon/neoliberal lie, I support Obama.
And the American dream is in color, and open to all sexes...
Business as usual -- from an economic standpoint -- has been pretty darn good for the country as a whole. You can debate different measures like specific tax cuts and NAFTA -- but generally speaking, the economy of 1975 and the economy of 2008 are so far apart it is scary.
The 2008 economy -- with all of its tribulations -- is a powerful economy. 5% unemployment is an amazing number. With the housing crisis -- home ownership is way up -- taxes are massively lower -- and inflation is well under control. Oil is still an issue -- but no POTUS can fix that in the near term, unless we drill for oil.
I would rather have someone that has been in the game --- than a newbie learning the ropes. Washington is not a place for a newbie -- you get cut apart.
And if by American Dream you mean -- the ability for a black woman to become Sec of State -- or for a black woman to become the most wealthy entertainment powerfhouse (Oprah) -- or a woman to legitimately run for POTUS -- or for home ownership to crest past 60% -- you name it.
Considering the Carter administration -- which is the closest economic policy to the protectionist, tax increasing, 'wear a sweater when its cold' policies of Obama -- I would much rather live in the present.
Are you crazy? Unemployment is at 5%!!! That does not include the fact that most of the jobs are gone or that over 50 million people are injured or ill because of poor or no helathcare. Inflation is under control???? How do you figure? Because our dollar is worth less than half since the Bush years. So minimum wage is really $2.65/hour, & inflation is over 400% higher.
" If Obama wins, the vast majority of the nation - those who don't reside in the top 5% of America's wealth aggregators - at least have a chance."
I don't how old you are or where you were in the 90s, but the economy under Bill Clinton was pretty d*mn good for everyone. The vast difference in income between the richest % and the poor has happened under La Bush. More people are in poverty now, the middle class is disappearing and the "upper crust" incomes have concentrated a bigger part of our national wealth. I read these sweeping statements made by Abaminations, and I don't think they know WTF they are talking about. Maybe all that koolaid leads to edema of the brain and interferes with rational thought.
There is very difference in the policies Obama supports and those of Hillary; the biggest one, and perhaps the most significant is Hillary wants everyone to be covered by health care, and Obaa doesn't. Anyone with a brain cell also knows that either candidate will be lucky to get a few of what they have promised they will do actually delivered, For example, as long as we are spending billions in Iraq, little can be done domestically, unless, of course, Congress wants to go into debt to the tune of having our grandchildren's great-grandchildren paying for it.
cont'd
So who is prepared and experienced enough to actually bring about the changes we need. With Obama's slim resume',,,,8rs as a state legislator and 1 1/2 years in US senate, if you discount the 1 1/2 yrs he has been running for POTUS. I think Hillary Clinton is far more prepared to handle the problems Bush leaves and change policies which help the poor and middle class. More qualified to get us out of Iraq with honor and safely, which is why 35 retired military leaders, including Hugh Sheldon and Wesley Clark after seeing what she did on the armed services committee in the Senate.
I keep asking for Obama supporters to list his accomplishments and list those things he has
done to help others, but to date no one has answered that question.
please don't perpetuate the corporo-media fantasy of "hillary winning". She has lost this election, plain and simple - continuing to advance this media fantasy will just help to demoralize the Clinton supporters that she has convinced that she has more than a .001% chance of being nominated -- it would take a complete immolation of the Obama campaign for her to get the nomination fair & square... did you notice that he pretty much stayed out of WV and Kentucky? Why put himself in a situation that will do nothing but inflame her and open himself to attack? It's kinda like putting in your middle relief pitcher to carry your team through until the 9th when your closer can shut it down...
Huff Post and the MSM need to stop sanitizing their analysis and call the portion of the country from central and southwestern Pennsylvania, through West Virginia and Kentucky, including southern Ohio and Indiana what it actually is.
THE BIGOT BELT.
I know. I was born and raised there, left, and retired back there after 50 years. I know it well. The bigotry factor is also evident from your post election analysis.
I agree with you completely. My background is similar to yours. I remember when people from Kentucky and Ohio wouldn't vote for John Kennedy because he was Catholic. Yep, you nailed it.
Me, I'm not going to pick on Appalachia no matter if I believe they are bigots.
The fact is that almost everybody who has ever had any political power in Appalachia has lied to them and encouraged division as a means of keeping them poor and docile.
And it has worked. They are poor and do what their Party bosses tell them to do.
While it's fun to heap scorn on benighted hillbillies, it might be wise for democrats to consider the fact that it has been the white working class which has felt itself to be the most put upon as a result in changes in national racial policies. They never had money to opt out of the public school sysytem, so it was their kids who got bused across town. They were at the bottom of the labor pool, so it was mostly them that found themselves in competition with Black for jobs that had previously been theirs and their relatives' to have. Rich folks were the beneficiaries of a labor pool that was now more populous, which drove wages down, as there was more competition for the same position. And rich folks never had to give up a dollar or a square foot of property as restitution for slavery, inequality and discrimination.
By not recognizing this inequity deriving out of the civil rights movement, democrats have mostly blamed poor whites for their lack of magnanimity, but have done but little (apart from quietly doing as little as possible to enforce and expand civil rights in areas of the country they hope to acquire or retain in elections) to make peace among Blacks and the white working class, apart from trying to shame resentful whites into acquiescence. With the results you see in national elections: No democrat has enjoyed the support of a majority of white working class voters since 1964.
Your argument fails for the simple fact that the Appalachian region of the country doesn't have a large enough percentage of black people to create legitimate concern about jobs, busing, and "restitution for slavery, inequality and discrimination" (whatever that means) among the white working class.
Note that the vast majority of the Appalachian counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, etc., are overwhelmingly white (90%+). They aren't competing against blacks for jobs and their kids aren't being "bused" to schools with African-Americans (and never have been).
Plus, your theory falls apart when you consider that in urban Appalachian areas of the country like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Lexington, Kentucky, and Knoxville, Tennessee, where blacks and whites live in much closer proximity to each other, and presumably concerns about competition for jobs and schools would be more apparent, Obama actually does better among whites than in rural, all-white counties.
How could blacks possibly be much of a threat to Appalachian whites' jobs and schools when there are very few blacks around. For instance, West Virginia has a black population of 3.56 %, while Kentucky's share is only 7.98 %. These blacks overwhelmingly live in urban areas of these states, where the white support for Obama has been the highest in their respective states.
Rural, working class white Appalachian voters may have many proper concerns about how they've been marginalized and oppressed, but don't try to legitimize such concerns by rationalizing unjustified racial animosity.
My 'theory' is a fact-- NATIONWIDE no democrat has won the majority of white working class votes in any presidential election since 1964. Never mentioned Appalachia in my comment even once. Thanks for reading with your home projector turned on full blast.
And thanks for shooting at the messenger. Everything I wrote remains unrefuted by you, however, so you missed.
I am so proud of Oregon this morning.
However, I do get tired of hearing that Oregon is just a liberal, wealthy, college educated state. That's not most parts of Salem, and not most parts of the state, even many areas of Portland.
Oregon is a swing state. Republicans can win here-- Gordon Smith is fairly conservative, and Governor Kulongoski barely beat the perennial loser Kevin Mannix. Every few years we have to deal with another anti-gay ballot measure, most of which are defeated by an uncomfortably narrow margin.
I know many Republicans and independents who support Obama but would never vote for a Clinton. McCain is the kind of Republican (or has been in the past) who could do quite well in Oregon. Obama's resounding victory in this state shows that he can win voters whom Democrats don't usually win.
An older white couple told me, "We're Republicans but we want change, so we're voting for Obama this year."
"Gordon Smith is fairly conservative," ?!?!?! come on SammyJane, don't perpetuate that myth -- he votes with the Failure Party 95+% of the time! He starts talking the 'moderate talk come re-election time...
What does Oregon say about America? Nothing more than Texas, California, Florida, or any other single state says about America. There are some voters who believe Obama would make a better president and there are some voters who believe Hillary would be better. Nothing explicitly racist or misogynistic about that, just people with different views, yet there are some, mostly in the Obama camp, who accuse those in the other camp of being recalcitrant traitors to the cause. Seems that if you don't vote for Obama you're a redneck, a racist, or both... If you don't vote for Hillary you're a misogynistic pig... On face value, both statements are racist and sexist without knowing anything more about the individuals (other than their vote) of whom you make the accusation. It is ironic and fitting that the party that prides itself on being the most inclusive is the one most divided along racial and gender lines, and thus divided, likely to go down in defeat. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
