Hillary's remaining advocates have said that she was only 'telling it like it is,' albeit with what they'd call a little awkward phrasing, when she told the AP last week that "hard working Americans, white Americans" will never vote for Obama. Okay. As long as we're telling it like is, let's go for it: Phrasing aside, when it comes to a avidly racist percentage of white working Americans she's right. But the problem is, a lot of those voters probably won't vote for a woman either. In fact, it could be the only way they'll vote for a woman is if her opponent's black (and she's not).
They're so reluctant, in fact, that 7% of the voters in West Virginia voted for John Edwards, who isn't even in the race. That fact is nothing short of stunning. Faced with a black man and a white woman, these voters chose a white man who isn't running. And these are Democrats. Among Southern whites, this makes them the Left.
No Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without West Virginia? Make that argument all you want. The fact is, Democrats kissed off West Virginia when they repudiated Edwards (and it's questionable whether he could've won it either).
Run a woman against a white male war hero, in places like West Virginia? It's not impossible (neither is a black man), but it's a definite long shot.
And, down South, Hillary's not just any woman. She's the woman who dissed Tammy Wynette. Have you heard Tammy sing? Southerners have -- and when that woman's voice breaks it's enough to bring a tear to your eye. If they're still holding a grudge over the Civil War, do you think they'll forget that Hillary seemed to mock them -- and Tammy -- in 1992?
(Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating the importance of the Tammy Wynette factor. But do you really think Hillary can carry West Virginia against a white male war hero?)
Democrats may not want Plan B -- the one that doesn't include states like West Virginia -- but they rejected Plan A back in February. The ongoing primary race has been good for Obama in the sense that it's forced him to deal with setbacks, address his weaknesses, and step up his game. But for some time now the choice has been between Plan B with all its liabilities, or Plan B with the Clintons amplifying its liabilities.
The "black candidate is unelectable" discussion is one Democrats usually hold in private. In public they're supposed to say :"If you won't vote for my opponent because of his race, I don't want your vote." (Wink, wink.) Hillary broke that rule, which was an offense to Democratic polity. Her candidacy was on life support after North Carolina. When she made that statement in the media, rather behind closed doors, she pulled the plug on it herself. She convinced a critical mass of superdelegates that her candidacy was too destructive.
To succeed in politics, you have to deal with ugly facts sometimes. Here's one ugly fact: Some voters won't vote for a black man. Here's another: Some of the same voters won't vote for a woman. It's foolish to think you can advance the rights of one group by inflaming prejudices against another. The best way to fight racism or sexism is to fight all prejudice.
The superdelegates haven't shut this thing down yet, because Democratic insiders don't want the Clintons to go away mad. But they sure want them to go away. They're hoping that the Clintons will have enough good will left toward the party that they'll dissuade Hillary's supporters from staying home in November. It's a tough calculation: End the race now and alienate the Clintons, or leave it open and hope no more damage is done.
Personally, I sure hope that works out. Obama can win in November by bringing in states like Colorado to replace ones like West Virginia. But amplifying his negatives and allowing Hillary's supporters to keep feeling mistreated undercuts his chances. And if Hillary continues to argue that seating the Florida and Michigan delegation is a "civil rights" question -- which is almost an obscene argument, given her tactics -- she runs the risk of splitting the party in two. Why? Because as flawed as that argument is, many of her supporters believe her.
Never mind that she signed a pledge against her current position -- and that, if she really thinks its a "civil rights" question, that was the moral equivalent of agreeing to uphold segregation. Never mind. Some of her supporters will still believe her. Only Hillary can persuade them of the truth, which is that she lost fair and square.
She can't win, but she can still do some serious damage. The result might be defeat in November.
And that would be kind of like a Tammy Wynette song: enough to bring a tear to your eye.
____________
UPDATE: A number of people have written in with replies that are mostly on the "no, YOU'RE the racist" level. Most of them say "I'm calling all Southern whites bigots," or words to that effect. Several points: First, they're not very careful readers. In my first paragraph I said there is "an avidly racist percentage" of this group. Second, I didn't call them racist: they called themselves that. Roughly 1 in 5 white West Virginia voters said race played a strong role in their vote, and they went overwhelmingly against Obama (80% for Clinton). And if 1 in 5 said that, a lot more than that feel that way.
Clinton beat Obama by forty percentage points. 1 in 5 white voters = 20% of 95% of West Virginia voters, or nearly half of that Clinton lead. At that's a very understated number.
Yes, I'm speculating about the John Edwards voters. But to suggest they like his progressive policies, when he wasn't even running, seems far less plausible. But I hope they're right, as unlikely as that seems.
So, now we know I didn't call them racist, but merely echoed the polling data. But somebody did, most recently on a phone call with the Associated Press when she suggested these hardworking whites would never vote for her opponent. Live by the race-vote argument, fall by the race-vote argument. And to to express indignation at my observation while being fine with that AP interview shows very selective outrage, to say the least.
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect; Healthcare Blog
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Actual Clinton quote from USAToday:
"You know, there was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina) who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coaltion on."
So, uh, when YOU "merely echoed the polling data", your motives were pure... but Clinton (who cited the EXACT SAME polling data), by throwing in the Tourette's-like campaign boilerplate "hard-working Americans", was "liv[ing] by the race-vote argument"?
Live by the disingenuous, selective interpretation...
besides her argument was very fallacious considering that her husband won with roughly the same percentage of the white working class vote that obama is now carrying.
talk about disingenuous.
hillary lost the NC black vote 92 to 8. if she'd only been able to retain 30% of that vote, she'd have carried the entire state instead of obama. and this is a statistic readily voiced by the very MSM pundits whom hillary clinton and her supporters constantly berate and decry.
emphasis on the "cry".
you've never heard obama say that hillary's support among men was weak, even when it was. he never spoke to narrowing clinton's lead among older voter or women even when he was.
but the entire clinton strategy is based on dividing people among their knee-jerk prejudices, getting them to squabble, then coming to save the very day that they made so dark.
When she actually wins (especially in states where citizen comments all but confirm this by making stupid, inaccurate, biased comments)--
it only confirms the fact that they are-and she IS race-baiting.
Why would ANY delegate want to associate themselves with someone using known race-baiting tactics--where guilt by association should not be given a free-pass.
A sports commentator, commedians, and blogs. Interesting where we have to go to get the truth. While we only approximate "truthiness" from the corporate media.
I live in Kentucky, and I'm hoping against hope that we aren't about to repeat last Tuesday's results. A large percentage of this state's population resides in Louisville and Lexington, cities with fairly progressive attitudes.
According to LEO, a local newspaper here in Louisville, in the past week Hillary's local appearance drew under 1,000 supporters and Barack's drew more than 10,000! So, I'm still hoping that Barack may do better than expected in Kentucky next Tuesday.
But a better question is why would you think that a "white country" wouldn't want to be, or can't be, represented by a "minority"? Comments like that say more about your feelings about race than anything else.
I have no intention of voting for either Sen McCain or the eventual Democrat candidate. All three of them are disgusting individuals and really poor excuses for custodians of the Constitution. It's clear that none of them either has read the document, or agrees with it. If they take the Oath of Office, it'll be with fingers crossed.
It's not the case, as these characters (don't quite) say, that rights are for whites more or less than blacks--or any of the other groups--but that rights are for all. Equally. There should never be a box in a form that asks "race."
Are we so vindictive that we would exclude almost half the votes/people of our party - are we so childish/reckless that the black voters will sit it out if HRC "wins" and the HRC voters will actually vote for McCain if Obama "wins"? We are on the verge of a climate change that will end all life on this planet as we know it and our constitution and civil rights are being decimated. Another Republican in the White House will be the end of us all. These things scare me more than all the negatives, that can be raised about either democratic candidate, put together.
On the same page with you about where the US/humanity is today.
If it's a "white male war hero" who sucks up to a hate-mongering preacher for an endorsement, kisses the pant leg of a president who trashed him and his family, supports Junior's veto of a bill banning CIA torture (oh, the friggin' irony!) and wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"?
Uhh... yeah.
Even "war heroes" who get shot out of the sky while dropping 500-pounders on people they can't see are susceptible to Alzheimer's, and Johnny's well on his way... "my friend".
BTW are there no living POWs from the Hanoi Hilton who were there at the same time that McBush was? I'd like to hear their story about his time in the "joint". The Republicans managed to find the swiftboaters to disparage Kerry's service.
"if it wasn't for the millions of "war mongerers" who sacrificed themselves on a foreign soil for your freedom, you wouldn't be writing this post."
"if you call him a coward, I'm sure you have a deep resume of "service" to your country. However, I would gamble that is not the case and you're a keyboard hero."
---------------
I didn't "criticize his military service", Einstein... I put it in perspective. Not everyone who fires a weapon or drops a bomb for their government is a "war hero", unless you're including the entire German and Japanese armies in WWII. A man can act with honor in captivity, but that honor doesn't automatically extend to the actions which LED to his capture... unless you still believe the Gulf Of Tonkin fabrication.
Those who "sacrificed themselves" during The Big One were contending with two nations whose MILITARIES had ATTACKED US or our allies. Did North Vietnam? Did Iraq? Does that make a difference to you, or are you just on a patriotic roll?
Finally, I didn't "call him a coward"... I called him a hypocrite "who sucks up to a hate-mongering preacher, hugs a president who trashed him and his family, supports Junior's veto of a bill banning CIA torture and wants to bomb Iran.
How's that, keyboard patriot?
Oh, and it's "war monger"... or are there "fish mongerers"?
I also think there are many levels of racism and not all are mean-spirited.
If I am a black person and I feel more comfortable around black people, am I racist? I would say no. Same thing goes if I was white. The problem today is that there are no grey areas. If a white person says a racially insensitive comment...they're in the same category as a member of the KKK in the eyes of many. Long story short...don't accept gross intolerance but understand that human nature will cause people to do or say things that may be "insensitive"......just remember that it doesn't mean the person is being mean spirited.....they may only be acting HUMAN.
Did you ever watch little kids of mixed racial identity play in harmony? Did you ever have friends at an early age that are not of the same race as you and then that friendship goes south when you get older?
Racism, intolerance is taught. If certain people did not want to feel superior to others, did not cherish the priviledges and preferences that come with being of one race or another there would be little if any racism/intolerance.
My father who was Black served overseas during WW II and said that the Black troops were always accepted by the indigenous citizens until the White troops poisoned their minds against the Black troops. Maybe you heard the tale about how the Europeans would ask the Black troops if they would turn around so they could see their "tails" which the White troops told them the Blacks had. My father said they informed the locals that the "tails" were in the front.
Racism and intolerance stems from fear.
Peace in the Middle East
Unfortunately, we Blacks do not vote for our Brothers and Sisters enough as a voting block.
Charlie Rangel (who I respect and admire) and that Johnson dude are staunch supporters of Hilliary.They are very high profile Black men who are not supporting Obama. I understand it politics and that's the way it is.
We are probably the most fair and impartial voting block of all the ethnics in this country. Don't fall into that trick bag that are vote is racist as opposed to the "fair and impartial" Jewish voting block which is heavily courted, the Catholic vote, the Irish vote, the Hispanic vote (going to be used to counterfeit the Black vote) etc. etc.
I like seeing and hearing some White folks voicing their unadulterated prejudice against a Black candidate. At least it's out there. You know what you're up against. It's that insidious smile in your face bigotry that is hard to combat.
His life in serious debt and his worries about his family escalated to make his decision for him. On a promise note to Obama he has declared he would not only take all the democrats that Hillary has won, but he will do it with her own policy and ideas. There is no way Obama can even begin to crawl out of the mess he has created for himself without the endorsement of himself, Senator John Edwards.
The timing of this was to take the air out of Hillary's' win in WV that she worked so hard for and to try to persuade her supporters to follow John Edwards. If he did not win them over the first time, what makes you think he is going to do it now?
Wouldn't be ironic if those delegates for Edwards has or is in the process of already giving them to Hillary?
America deserves to know the truth, to see between the lines and to make their own decision and they definitely have the right to vote on who they think the President should be.
AMERICA ONE! YES WE CAN!
It was interesting to hear Senator Edwards’s speech that praised presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and what a great President she would make then to copy her ideas and the issues that she so strongly believes in after her winning the WV primaries by such a large margin against Obama. Panic definitely set in on the Obama side and this was their trump card, knowing that Senator Edwards sent out a plea to get rid of his heavy debts that he has incurred and with a promise of maybe he could be the next Vice President if Obama won. Senator Edwards 19 delegates that he won during his campaign was a leverage that he could use to have Obama accept his endorsement also Senator Edwards had no choice as he had to withdraw from the original election due to Hillary winning over democrats and he had no choice as Obama will pay his outstanding debts.
have no trouble voting for Harold Ford, but Tennessee chose to elect a white guy, it's about
who is electable at this point.
We're gonna be real patient while you gather your thoughts and DOCUMENT "her decision to deliberately insult, belittle and marginalize black voters."
Recycled cable-TV narratives are not acceptable.
Twisted, misreported and spun "quotes" are not acceptable.
Entries in Crayon are not acceptable.
Your OPINIONS are not acceptable.
... and don't even DREAM of invoking the South Carolina "Jesse Jackson" fabrication. You'll regret it.