The Monster, The Prince and the Good Ol' Boy

Democrats, divided we stand.

The Democratic Party has a serious problem. It doesn't see itself for what it is -- a big tent party that alternates between pandering to non-whites and insulting them.

I was thinking about this watching the South Carolina debates. If I were looking to win points with whites on why a black man can't be counted on, you'd bet I'd use these phrases:

CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

EDWARDS: And I respect your right to do that on any -- on any substantive issue. It does not make sense to me -- and what if I had just not shown up...

EDWARDS: What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? ... but I have a responsibility to take a position...

I'd add a seedy urban drug reference to remind them of the places black men like to hang out:

CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.

And, if I were a white man, I'd try this: "I'm a white guy in a racist country. That's why I can win!":

EDWARDS: And we can't concede places like South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri... we always do well in Chicago, or New York, or Los Angeles, Seattle... But what I would say that I think what that means is I can go anywhere in America and compete against John McCain and win.

For those unfamiliar with this mindset: "The typical slave could be expected to drink, run away, and steal a little . . . and masters were responsible for slaves' habits," writes Ariela Gross in her book Double Character: Slavery and Mastery in the Antebellum Southern Courtroom. In the American mind, while we may have evolved, we don't expect blacks to be "responsible," nor do we expect them to "show up" because they "run away" and are cannot be responsible for their habits of character. It's up to white people to reign blacks in, and you saw this dynamic with Clinton who took the tone of a schoolmarm, chastising Obama like a bad student. Thus, Sen. Hillary Clinton's remark, backed up by Sen. Edwards here that, you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern, has double weight for a Southern audience, which for hundreds of years believed blacks unable to hold themselves to account. And that has been a pattern has a deeper meaning as well: it says to the audience, you're just like the other blacks we know and don't trust.

This is below the belt stuff from the best from the Democratic Party. Where did it come from? Well, Democrats have a grandiose idea of who they are, which doesn't quite match their past. And you can't rise above that which you haven't accounted for. The Democratic Party has not paid its debts. And until it does, this will continue to keep the party from winning over most Americans.

*

I. The Democratic Party has an idea of its goodness or moral authority, but it's rooted in the ethos of slave holders.

A passage from Ol Strom, an unauthorized biography of Strom Thurmond, by Jack Bass and Marilyn W. Thompson, the authors both South Carolina natives, is a good reminder of this heritage:

"(Strom) Thurmond's political legacy is found not in the annals of legislative achievement, but in redefining America's political culture. As the segregationist Dixiecrat candidate for president in 1948, he won four Deep South states and shook the foundations of the Democratic 'solid South'. This psychological break opened the path for two-party development in the region. Elected to the Senate in 1954 in an unprecedented write-in campaign, he switched parties ten years later to campaign across the South for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. This symbolic act, after Goldwater voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, for the first time helped attract large numbers of the most racially conscious white Southerners into the GOP. It helped lay the foundations for a race-flavored "Southern Strategy" that altered the character of the party of Abraham Lincoln."

That Southern planter legacy becomes immediately apparent when you read, for example, Thomas F. Schaller, who writes in Whistling Past Dixie that, "...the South (was) the most solidly Democratic region since the end of the Civil War..." And the thesis of his book suggests ways Democrats might "recapture" Dixieland, after winning other parts of the country, "that said, Democrats should forget about recapturing the South in the near term and begin building a national majority that ends, not begins, with restoring their lost southern glory."

II. This fundamental character or spirit of slave culture lingers. It screws up Democrats' moral compass.

A good example of how Democrats get lost in the weeds with what's "right and wrong" according to their espoused principles was Eliot Spitzer, New York Governor, and his plan to issue drivers licenses to illegals. It was back in October, and Senator Hillary Clinton supported then abandoned Governor Spitzer. Both politicians "flip-flopped" because they lacked a certain clarity about the issue, they were not clear from the onset with themselves about what they would fight for. A reminder of the headlines from the time: October 31, 2007 - "A Day Later, Clinton Embraces Spitzer's License Effort" NYT; November 1, 2007 - "Clinton backs N.Y. driver's license plan for illegal; immigrants - Tries to steady her stance after debate stumble" Boston Globe; November 14, 2007 - "Spitzer Dropping His Driver's License Plan" NYT; November 15, 2007 - "Clinton says no to licenses for illegals" Associated Press.

Spitzer gave up on his grand idea:

"You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it's not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward," the New York Times quoting Spitzer, Nov. 14, 2007.

And Clinton made the move that was expedient:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system." (AP)

I was looking on the Clinton site for her statement at the time, and there was a neat little button for "pagina bilingue" and I thought that poetic: Clinton courting the bilingual voter, who might need or want to read the page in Spanish, whilst here I look for her statement on why she didn't support licenses for illegals, many of whom, of course speak Spanish.

This little nugget of a story, is just one example of how Dems help perpetuate the appearance that they have few principles, that they don't fight for anything, and that they'll abandon "you" -- in this case, once you-the-minority-excluded-from-American life -- are not convenient anymore.

Republicans, by contrast, do not have this original sin, which has enabled them to unify under a common set of values. And they, ironically perhaps, have managed to promote minorities to significant positions of power, without making a big deal about it. Now you might argue that Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo, Colin Powell, Elaine Chao, Alphonso Jackson, Alberto Gonzales, among other blacks, Asians and Latins who've held cabinet or other positions of power have to varying degrees lost their minds, but that is beside the point. This essay is not about liking or disliking the Republican ideology.

So while Republicans have moved beyond race, in a way Dems can only aspire to, Democrats pre-occupy themselves with notions of "inclusivity."

III. These ideas about inclusivity, however, are made out to be policy objectives instead of what they should be -- no brainers.

And because we say we really, really want to get along, and be cool and cosmopolitan together -- what do we do when we have a monster like this one in the closet? We pretend to get-along and spend a lot of time talking about being a "big tent party," as DNC Chair Howard Dean said back in 2005 when he took over as Chair:

"Dean described his party is a 'big tent' that represents the young, the elders, veterans, members of the armed services, and all working Americans "desperate for a government that looks out for them." (CNN, Saturday, February 12, 2005)

But Democrats use that "big tent" metaphor as if it were an end in and of itself. And then it becomes like a trap. Democrats like to talk about systemic problems, as Dean said back in 2005: Dems are for "fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought." What does that mean in specific terms? What does that look like in real life?

If you're a minority, you end up with this philosophy that the system is screwing you -- end-of-story. If you're a minority, you're frame is "victim" in the Democratic Party because Dems have few ideas about how to actually fix those problems. The New Amsterdam news ran a story back in June complaining about just this:

"... what about the low quality education in city schools, the violent crime rates that are up for the second year in a row, the unemployment rate among African-Americans that consistently doubles that of whites and the mandatory minimum sentences that keeps blacks crowding prisons across the nation?

Though African-Americans are adamantly against the war and immigration is on America's front burner, political observers say Democratic candidates have yet to tackle the bread and butter domestic issues that disparately relate to black people." (Presidential Candidates Silent on African American Issues, Amsterdam News//NNPA, News Report, Amber English, Jun 06, 2007)

Compare the above with Republican candidate Mitt Romney's answer to a similar question back during the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, where a black father and son asked:

YouTube question: "Hi, this is me and my son Prentiss. We're from Atlanta . . . what about the war going on in our country, black on black crime? Two hundred to 400 black men die yearly in one city alone. What are you going to do about that war? It feels like the Taliban right outside."

ROMNEY: "Well first of all Princess is pretty fortunate 'cause he's got a dad standing next to him who apparently loves him by all appearances there and that's probably the best thing you can do is to have a mom and a dad. And it's time in this country that we go back to the kind of values that allow kids to have moms and dads. In the African American community today 68% of the kids born, are born out of wedlock and so we're going to try once again re-inculcate the kind of values that have made us so strong family values. Second. (Anderson Cooper interrupts) Well, one, the war in the inner city is to get more moms and dads. That's number one. And thank heavens Bill Cosby said it like it was, where the root of crime starts and two, we gotta have better education in our schools. I think that the civil rights issue of our time is the failure of inner city schools to prepare kids in the inner city for the jobs of tomorrow and number three, of course, you gotta do a better job with our policing . . ."

Romney, like him or not, had a clear answer for that father and son: repair family, school, police. Plus, he honored that father and son by treating them just like any other family -- i.e. you -- kid are lucky to have a father who loves you -- implying that they are like any other healthy family. They're not different because they're black. They're Americans. His end goal was to talk about the notion of "family" and not to talk about blackness. Do you see the difference? What he said was "empowering" to this family because it didn't remind them that they were oppressed. Romney instead set a goal -- that again -- had nothing to do with race. That's the way you treat people who you believe are your equals. And what Romney said was of value to any Republican listening - it reflected their party's common set of values.

Dems, on the other hand, would rather minorities focus on being victims. Take vouchers: why would a black mother or father with a child in a crappy public school oppose vouchers? Well Hillary Clinton does, as Newsday.com reported back in February 2006, "Clinton raps vouchers":

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton slammed private-school voucher proposals yesterday, predicting that vouchers would eventually lead to the creation of taxpayer-financed white supremacist academies - or even a government-funded 'School of the Jihad.'"

Why do you think she really opposes vouchers? Because she has to please the teacher's unions, for one:

"Clinton, a longtime voucher foe who earned the backing of the city teachers union in 2000, says government financing of sectarian groups would incite ethnic and religious conflict - and encourage fringe groups to demand government cash to run their schools." (Newsday)

But how does that help the parent of a child in a shitty school? It doesn't. But that's just the system black parent. Why don't you and your kid take the day off and march on Washington or something?

IV. Which brings us to the latest flashpoint on this topic: you can't rise above that which you have not atoned for.

I remember producing a segment once between two Democrats, talking about the Civil War, and the hot topic became whether or not the Civil War was about states' rights or slavery. One Democrat was a northerner and was talking about his civil war hero who he wasn't sure ever actually knew a black person and the other Democrat was a southerner, a descendant of planters. The segment was boring and didn't go anywhere because both parties were unresolved about how to deal with this issue: one whose hero had only an academic connection to black people, the other, whose ancestors had enslaved them. Neither wanted to admit this. This, in essence, is the weakness of the Democratic Party.

A lot of good-minded progressives would like to think it's the media distorting Hillary Clinton's remarks over the past weeks about Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., or that this story is being overblown regarding the racial tension between her campaign and Sen. Barack Obama's.

The media is like a blunt but intuitive instrument. Its handymen are sometimes unable to say exactly what they mean, like they keep saying "race," and I think "race" is a kind of shorthand pointing at a real fracture within the soul of the party.

Clinton's just a product of a party that is unconscious of its true nature, the true nature of the alliances and how they work. Maybe that's naïve of me, I'm sure the spin masters are fully aware of what they're doing, that's why they do it. Either way, Hillary Clinton has revealed something very important about herself and the psyche of the American Democratic leadership. So let's look again at what she said about Obama on Jan 13th on Meet the Press:

"First, with respect to Dr. King, you know, Tim, I was 14 years old when I heard Dr. King speak in person. He is one of the people that I admire most in the world, and the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King. And there is no doubt that the inspiration offered by all three of them is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have."

I have to interject here before I talk about the actual claims she makes about Dr. King. It's alarming how white folks like to use their proximity or affinity for King (or blacks) as a replacement for the experience of actually being oppressed. As I watched Clinton at the South Carolina debate, in a state historically hostile to blacks, I could not help but think how comfortable she must have been. So comfortable she felt like she could say to Obama, "you never take responsibility," so comfortable that Edwards could say, "I can go anywhere in America," Yes, you can say this Clinton and Edwards because you're white and you like being white, don't you? It's good to be white in America. But it was perverse, their behavior said to Obama: You want to slap me across the face don't you angry black man, but you can't. Find the words black man to tell me how you feel about me white woman and me white man, and do it in a way that won't piss off all these good white folks. Edwards and Clinton paint themselves as progressive whites but they are 100% old school Democrats.

This is why Clinton, and I would gather Edwards, have no idea what Dr. King was saying. This is why King's teachings are academic to them but not reality. If you truly ingested King's teachings you would never tell a black man he wasn't taking responsibility unless he really wasn't taking responsibility. And if you did, you'd say it knowing the full weight of what those remarks mean.

Getting back to the Meet the Press quote, Clinton continues:

But I also said that, you know, Dr. King didn't just give speeches. He marched, he organized, he protested, he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving."

The items italicized seem to imply that Sen. Obama isn't doing what Dr. King did and that Obama, therefore is somehow inadequate.

Even if it were King's desire, the reality is it was impossible for a man like King to get inside -- into the place where Obama is now. King made the moves of a man locked out of the process. King's blessing to us is to have transported us out of that time. This dull thinking by Hillary Clinton shows that she doesn't get -- or would like to veil -- the fact that many of us in this country grew up never thinking we'd see a black person taken seriously in presidential politics. Many of us have had to deal with the fact that it's unforeseeable that a black man could just be a man, and not a minstrel or a tool. It seems like a small thing. But if you don't have this thing, you miss it very much. That's it, that Obama can be his own man, not a yes-man like say Colin Powell (who has intimated that he made choices and statements that were not right with him; Colin Powell is, after all, a soldier who follows orders.) But Obama is the embodiment of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. That's all Hillary Clinton needs to know, that's all she should dare say if she wants black voters. Maybe she doesn't think she needs black voters. But black people should certainly take note of this.

They should also take note of her obtuse remarks while campaigning earlier in January:

"I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"

Possibly, without King's strong pressure Johnson and Kennedy (had he lived) might not have been forced to make changes. King was a catalyst. But it's hard to discern the value of Clinton's statement (made just days ahead of MLK day). Should the slain civil rights leader have been grateful to Lyndon Johnson and JFK, both of whom were initially ambivalent about civil rights? (Kennedy voted against Republican Dwight Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act. And Lyndon Johnson, as a senator, voted against Democratic Harry Truman's civil rights program. The reasons they did this are complicated, and here I do risk oversimplification, but the bottom line is they did in fact vote against these initiatives.) Clinton shows a kind of cluelessness about these issues. We don't need a history lesson from her on why the marginalized need to ingratiate themselves with power. We don't need to be reminded that we live and die by their largesse.

A lot is being stirred up. And then pushed downwards, as we saw at the Nevada debates, how Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all pretended the campaigning had not revealed something desperate and ugly about the party.

Just as a sidebar, I should say that I suspect that the blacks endorsing Clinton are highly motivated by political survival. Magic Johnson, for example, where would he be without his neighbor, Bill Clinton's support in Harlem? The lackluster former New York Mayor, David Dinkins, said just as much with his cynical comment, "I'm with Hillary Clinton," said Dinkins. "If you go to the dance and you bring a girl to the dance and then you arrive at the dance and you see another girl who's got charisma and she's attractive and articulate and whatnot, you don't leave the girl you brought..." - a lovely endorsement indeed.

Also unfortunately, black people (like Democrats) often have a hard time seeing and believing in themselves. The endorsement of Clinton by the prominent New York City Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts, shows how complicated the issue is for black "leaders": "A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to elect someone who has proven through time to me and to this community and this country that she has the experience to make things happen and the vision to return us to a place of prosperity," he said. You hear here, I think, not only a sense of personal obligation, implied with "someone who has proven through time to me", but something more sad: Even if some are too cowardly to publicly admit it, all these black leaders have got to know Obama is not only a dream made real, he's a mirror of themselves.

V. Hillary Clinton is not alone. I don't mean to single her out; she's just an obvious example in a high stakes game, involving all of us.

We're part of this political process whether we like it or not, whether we're excluded or embraced, valued or ignored. I'd find it valuable for Democrats to admit they're just as craven as Republicans. Maybe they can make up some kind of hand signal - like "L" for loser - and do that as a disclaimer before they say anything on record - the way the kids do. just kidding. But I'm not joking about this: it's time to ask for forgiveness and to decide that there are certain lines you won't cross out of respect, out of penance, out of shame. This is not about being politically correct; I could care less about that. Doing this work will require a hard look by Democrats at who they are. And non-whites who call themselves Democrats should stop voting for party members who don't deliver, who use and discard them. And to Senator Obama, I would say, be innocent as the dove and wise as the serpent because you're in the pit with them now (my distortion of the old saying). In concrete terms: don't repeat the charges against you in an effort to defend yourself that just gives the claims more traction and implies that you think they're valid. It's up to all of us to change the conversation.

Comments

[ohiodem250]

after making a post about this article i went back and re-read it and i am even more upset at what this author wrote. first, i want to disclose two things so that all my prejudices are in plain view. 1) i am bi-racial and 2) am a supporter of john edwards. i disclose #1 b/c i think i have a unique vantage point on race in america: i am an outsider to the black and white community. i disclose #2 b/c perhaps i am just reacting to someone calling my preferred candidate a "good ol' boy." i only have two questions for logan: do you really think that mr. romney's youtube debate question answer was not patronizing to african-americans? (he told them that having a mom and dad and locking up young black men is what will stop black-on-black crime and mentioned nothing about reforming drug laws to treat, instead of incarcerate, drug users or seriously addressing income inequality -- he basically told blacks that they are living like uncivilized animals) second question, do you disagree with the statement that sen. edwards has repeated while on the stump when asked about income inequality among the races when he says, "decades of slavery, followed by decades of segregation, followed by decades of discrimination has an effect"? also, (although i admit that ad hominem arguments are very weak) did you read in the press (although i'm sure you haven't b/c the media has ignored sen. edwards) that MLK's son told him his father would be proud of his campaign and that he should stay in the race? i read that you are a producer for air america and go left TV. really?? you sound like a republican interning for clarence thomas.

[brooklyncitizen]

Great post and so completely on target.

THe worst kind of racist is one that is a liberal/democrat. The lack of introspection and perspective is completely absent and as such all minorities are forever viewed as "the other"; regardless of class, background or ethnicity.

Anecdotally, it reminds me of a recent incident in Whole Foods in NYC. While searching for spinach a white employee approached me and politely asked if I needed help. I told her I couldn't find spinach and perhaps they were out?she said she would check in the back. I hung out in produce and she returned and approached an older black woman to tell her about the spinach. I am a light skinned latina, about 15 years younger than the other woman. I watched for a bit because I knew she had gotten us mixed up.The african american woman said she had not inquired about the spinach; the employee looked puzzled and then she noticed me watching and she looked embarassed. She walked over to repeat they were out of spinach; I thank her and smiled.

The african-american woman came over and we had a good laugh over it (although inside it maked me sigh) and we chuckled over comments about "how we all look alike".

This reminds me of the Democratic party : sort of well-meaning but not paying attention when it comes to people of color and continually giving themselves away through their condenscending behaviour.

[Memorye]

Both parties are into the big money.If you are not in the top one percent we are nothing to them. Now they tell lies and think we believe what they say.What is so sad most do. The one and only person who was telling the truth was Dennis Kucinich but he did not have his hands in the pockets of big business.So were is he?

[Memorye]

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) reduced several federal taxes in the United States.
Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%.
Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families.
The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles.
The $600,000 estate tax exemption was to increase gradually to $1 million by the year 2006.
Family farms and small businesses could qualify for an exemption of $1.3 million, effective 1998. Starting in 1999, the $10,000 annual gift tax exclusion was to be corrected for inflation.
The act also provided tax relief for education savings and retirement accounts. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended.
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997

[itsnotmyfault]

It seems that your basic premise is that one cannot be critical of a black candidates position or action without eliciting comparisons to the reprehensible behaviors of hardcore racist white Americans. If Obama had issued exactly identical observations about either Clinton or Edwards, there would be no presumptive assumption of racially charged encodings or subtext. You may be right and the facts you have asserted may simply be a byproduct of unrepentant years of slavery and racism.

It is, however, a tough standard to meet. It is also a standard that has allowed Obama to not address issues that linger and could ultimately undue his candidacy. His Rezko connection, setting aside the slum landlord crap, has compromised his ethical standing. He obviously capitalized financially through this sordid relationship, when he purchased his Chicago house and the adjacent land parcel. Obama has conveniently addressed only the campaign contributions, which he has pledged to return.

Obama's cocaine use needs to be addressed. In 2000, many liberals sought to disqualify the Bush candidacy based on his suspected cocaine use. I twas a legitimate point then and seems to be one now.

[andy65]

it drives me crazy how liberal whites like bill moyers and josh marshall are in denial about the significance of the lbj quote. this is the way i believe it was heard. WHITEY WILL TELL YOU WHEN, AND IT AINT NOW! it was remarkably stupid and provocative thing to say. i'm kinda glad she did though. it gets it out there.

[tbone99]

Insightful post- howevr I think there are two problems not addressed:

1.) Allowing a Repug to take the WH would be catastrophic, not just for the U.S. but the planet.(both enviromently and social justicewise- which means, economic equity, increased opportunites for the marginalized and equal justice)

Even if you admire Romneys words now- where was he, when his church wouldn't even allow blacks into Heaven? Tithing and doing his missionary years, despite the fact Civil Rights was in the front pages ever day.There's a reason Bush never spoke at the NAACP, until the year he didn't face an election.

2.) Electibilty-
The electoral college method gives unjust weight to small rural states in the overall.
White voters in these states are not going to vote for BO, no matter what -white older voters are still the voting majority in this country with more financial assets to bring to the race.
.( I won't even bring up the latino vote - but they tend to be just as racist).

Yes, its sad and infuriating that Edwards can say " I can go anywhere in this country"but it is the truth.To say that he LIKES to say it, is to lose an ally. Likewise to turn the questioning of a candidate as to his voting record is not necessarily about stereotypes of a black man but the kind of questions candidates throw at each other. Better get used to it -its going to get much worse, especially up against the Repugs.

Calling out racism everywhere,though it may be so,is not productive for A.A. 's in the long run.Politics is defintely for the thickskinned.Although I don't support Hilary at this time I do give her credit for experience.-
not the experience of passing laws , but the experience of being spit on for decades and yet rising yet again. In that way she's awesome.

[Purple Girl]

I understand the underlying rhetoric, but I can not excuse the actions they are referring to. His Votes, NON Votes, Timed Votes and his staying in step with Hillary has been a major mistake.
Hillary has far more to answer for- She has blundered or caved/paved on every important issue- Am I inferring she is a Wimpy woman, fickle, stupid, cows down to men? NO...She was WRONG and her motives leave me with many questions and concerns.
Same goes for Obama, and Edwards and of course All the Repug Candidates. I see same shit, different year- regardless of the window dressing.

[MariaHopeful]

One of the most insightful article I have read in a long time. Job well done, Ms Logan.
I wonder why there wasn't more discussion about the condescending tone Clinton used when addressing Obama. And let me tell you Edwards is disgusting and a panderer of the worst kind. It is not squabbling to defend yourself.

[Inkognegro]

I find it interesting that this post lacks any of the inevitable plea copping that accompanies any post that dares to question the Clinton moral compass.

going on two days....i guess it wont be happening.

Wonderful, wonderful, post.

[OtayPanky]

Diogenes walked about with a lamp in midday. Asked why, he replied that he was searching for an honest man.

You are an honest man.

The democratic party is broken for all the reasons you mention. And those reasons both include and transcend race.

It comes down to CHARACTER. With pitifully few exceptions (like Russ Feingold), the dems as a party don't have it.

They pander, they are craven. They are unwilling to make the hard calls and take the unpopular, but truly righteous positions. Case in point: their unwillingness to shut down the Iraq war by cutting off funding.

For the nation's "first black president" to so blatantly, so shamelessly, play the race card is repugnant to watch.

Yes, I too voted for him twice - but came to see his true colors over time. He is hopelessly narcissistic - a man with no moral center. And yes - he is truly the head of this wretched excuse for a party.

This party needs to be deconstructed and rebuilt from the ground up - with men and women who will not let lust for power, and egocentric desires, drive their actions.

Is it possible? Of course it is. There are plenty of people like that here in America...certainly enough to remake this party on the basis of character FIRST - and then competence.

[lynnn]

Wow. spot on. However, the two party system needs to go, perhaps that will be just one of the legacies of this election (2009) ; )

[Clinton]

Excellent, Excellent, you hit the nail on the head. So many democrats are nothing more than sanctimonious posers. This says it all: 'It's alarming how white folks like to use their proximity or affinity for King (or blacks) as a replacement for the experience of actually being oppressed.' Striking the noble pose, it's nothing more than another way to vogue.
Another only too true statement:'The Democratic Party has an idea of its goodness or moral authority, but it's rooted in the ethos of slave holders.' That's right, the democratic party has turned condescension into a fine art.
The Clintons are absolute virtuosos, which is why they've been so ugly of late when confronted by a black man so clearly superior to them.

[Purpladi34]

Thank you for such an informative article. I too, a Black female has come to the same conclusion of the Democratic Party. I am not one of those that does not know who they are and whose they are. I am no longer willing to walk lock step with the Democratic Party no matter what.

I just finish watching the Republican debate, and I am here to tell you this Black female that will be voting for a White male from the Republican party in the general election. Also, I will be leaving the Democratic Party. Becuase, I am not poor nor am I on welfare. I am a tax payer.

[BadChristian]

Thank you for a thoughtful post, on a difficult issue.

I wonder if race is ever going shake hands with place in this political system... Democrats have pretty much owned urban America my whole life, but they let it go completely to seed, while tending to wealthy suburban voters, and wooing the "Cowboy" culture of Ronald Reagan.

If Democrats want to help urban centers, they should help urban centers, by focusing on the communities, which are extremely diverse, and can't be pandered to like they are all the same "Culture of Poverty".
How individuals choose to live their lives is up to them, but the places in which they live should be capable of sustaining people, not just storing them. We couldn't fix New Orleans ninth ward by just focusing on race, it was the infrastructure that broke.
I would be really curious to know your opinion on how the two factors seem to shield the single objective of making a more perfect union.