home

How Obama Supporters Can Hurt Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

We at Talk Left have always really liked John Cole and his site Balloon Juice, even when he was still a Republican. But I think he and other Barack Obama supporters do Obama no favors with these type of statements:

Anyone who is remotely surprised by this has not been paying attention:

Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

Now I don’t want to throw the state under the bus (since that is so fashionable these days) because I love it here so much, but anyone who is surprised by this simply is not paying attention. Racism is alive and well in central PA, SE Ohio, and much of WV. . . .

Cole protests that he was not saying that all Hillary Clinton supporters in West Virginia are racists:

I am not claiming that anyone who refuses to vote for Obama is a racist. I just am not. But there are a number of things working against Obama in WV, and chief among them is the presence of a number of people who will, under no circumstances, vote for a black man.

Indeed John. There are many. Many sexists too I would bet. Most of them vote Republican. That is why no Democrat will win in the South whether the nominee is an African American man or a white woman. West Virginia can be won by a Democrat, perhaps even by Barack Obama. I guess it is inconceivable to John that West Virginia Democrats support Hillary, as did most Democrats in ALMOST EVERY STATE. Maybe the insulting explanation is NOT the first one you should reach for John.

< McCain Aide Suspended For Pushing Obama/Wright Video | Obama "Passport Information" Breached >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How Obama Supporters Can Hurt Obama | 175 comments (175 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i am not claiming that john cole (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    is a fool. i am not.

    False logic is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    A lot of Americans are racist.

    A lot of Americans choose to support HRC.

    Nobody would suggest that these groups are mutually exclusive, but it sounds awfully like some people are suggesting they're coincident.

    I think that Obama is rapidly losing any credibility he may have owned as a racial "uniter," and his surrogates are not helping.

    That wasn't Cole's argument though (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    he did walk it back...to his credit...but this is not thickly veiled

    Now I don't want to throw the state under the bus (since that is so fashionable these days) because I love it here so much, but anyone who is surprised by this simply is not paying attention. Racism is alive and well in central PA, SE Ohio, and much of WV. . . .

    The bolded THIS refers to:

    Looking down the road to May 13, Senator Hillary Clinton holds a huge lead over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia Presidential Primary. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the race shows that Clinton attracts 55% of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Obama is supported by 27%. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.

    He IS saying what he was accused of saying...that the reason Hillary is doing well is because she has the support of racists...he walks it back...but he said it.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A big factor in Hillary's support (none / 0) (#57)
    by Friday on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    is fear that Obama is unelectable because of Republican attacks on his black pastor (Wright videos!!!) or just a fear that others won't vote for a black man.

    Truth is that people who won't vote for Obama because of his color are voting McCain anyway. They've been the core of the Republican "Southern Strategy" since 1964. They are the core of the 27% percenters who still think Bush is a godly man.

    No candidate will have them voting D.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by dk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    even if you meant well, this statement is likely wrong, or at least completely unsupported by any actual evidence.

    Perhaps the really "big factor in Hillary's support" is that people actually like Hillary or, at the very least, support her campaign promises and ideas for this country.  Or perhaps a "big factor" is that people do not like where Obama has positioned himself on the issues.

    [ Parent ]

    But (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    Obama has worked so hard to convince Democrats that nothing good happened during Bill Clinton's presidency his followers naturally jump to the conclusion that anyone supporting Hillary is racist.  

    [ Parent ]
    yes... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    but lets just say true logic doesn't often prevail when people are reacting viscerally (and claiming it as logic)

    [ Parent ]
    So (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    can we extrapolate from this that:

    BARACK SUPPORTERS ARE MISOGYNISTS?

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    A big factor in Hillary's support is fear that Obama is unelectable because of Republican attacks on his black pastor (Wright videos!!!) or just a fear that others won't vote for a black man.

    Because it has obviously been the deciding factor in  many primaries and caucuses since Wright's stuff hit the MSM...

    This theory is off the wall...

    [ Parent ]

    reminds me of how folks (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    talked about Kerry toward the end--hedging their bets in case he lost.  "He appeals to the educated voters."  "He is the antidote to stupidity."  So, if he loses, then it's not the smart peoples' fault.

    Same here.  If Obama loses, it's because everyone is racist.

    Actually, it makes me feel kind of good to hear this kind of utter sh*t coming from Obama supporters, because it tells me that they have felt the shift in momentum, too.

    Hope they are having fun up there on that high horse.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point (none / 0) (#150)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    the hedging does show the underlying momentum shift...

    It is clear, Obama has some big problems, his campaign seems unable to deal with not being handed this nomination, they don't seem ready for a fight (not to mention his advisers have never seemed ready for prime time)...

    I don't think the Obama free ride is over though, but I think it is clear something needs some tweaking.

    [ Parent ]

    And let us point out (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    the findings of Paul Lukasiak on the role gender may or may not play in this election.  Complete with ANALYSIS.  GASP.

    Paul

    I'm not exactly sure what a Democratic racist looks like, in terms of broad primary numbers.  But I'm beginning to get a picture of what a Dem sexist looks like.  Maybe it's the a-holes who wrote "Hilary [sic]:  Shouldn't you be cooking Bill's Dinner?" on a poster when she came to their school.  
    But anyway, it's hard to turn 4 jerks into 400,000 without EVIDENCE.  And it is indeed stupid to create commentary suggesting that states that Obama hasn't won are racist, en masse.  
    They give sociology a bad name.  Which is why I'm basically unimpresed with the blogosphere as a whole.

    This, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    is the kind of thing a lot of people mean when they say they want to have a "dialog" about race. What they really want is a sermon given by them to all of those "other people" who don't see things the way they do.

    I'd give Obama credit because his speech did adopt an attitude of willingness to actually have a dialog and to attempt to understand other people's points of view, without surrenduring his own perspective.

    I haven't seen much from his supporters that would entitle them to the same credit.

    We Are Getting (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    A rare chance to talk about racism and sexism in America. It is no wonder that people are sounding stupider than they normally are. Hopefully with practice and lots of adjustments the level of awareness will rise and the discussion will continue.

    It is refreshing (and awkward for some) not to just have a bunch of white guys to pick from.

    Rare chance? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    I think the chance is there every day right?

    [ Parent ]
    Sure Is (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    And just in case anyone forgets that, we have a historic situation going on right now that can remind everyone how awkward we are now, for not having taken that chance every day.

    [ Parent ]
    right on (none / 0) (#32)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:52:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've actually heard and read quite a few very (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    intelligent comments with regard to racism lately.  Not everyone is stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Cole is not stupid either (none / 0) (#21)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    And I would probably venture that you could find many intelligent racists...(Rev. Wright seems to be intelligent, but he holds apparent racist views...as does Dr. Watson of DNA fame)

    but the position/statements/beliefs are obtuse, narrow minded, etc...

    [ Parent ]

    still waiting (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    on an intelligent dialogue about sexism and misogyny.  

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too. But please don't hold your breath. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh boy, here we go. This is going to be very, (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    very, ugly.  

    Cole is another guy (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kmblue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    I used to read every day.
    Then he pretty much denied sexism in this
    campaign, and I stopped.  Oh well!

    Thanks BTD. (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
    To be fair, the Republican party in West Virginia is so deeply moribund that all but the most conservative people tend to register as Democrats and/or independents.  There are still parts of WV where the primary essentially determines the outcome of local races.  (That said, there are significant parts of SE Ohio where the REPUBLICAN primary determines the outcome of local races, which tells you something about the respective histories of the states, even taking into account the deep cultural ties the whole Appalachian belt shares.)  

    West Virginia has a very unique labor history, and the entirety of the state is within the Appalachian region, unlike - well - every other state with an Appalachian region.  

    I'm sure there are racists in WVa, and I'm sure that there are some in the Democratic party in WVa, but broad accusations of widespread racism based solely on stereotypes (and perhaps a need to excuse one's favored candidate's poor performance) is 1. stupid; and 2. unfair.  

    I am sure there are sexists in West Va (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    and all other other states. They do not constitute the totality of Obama's support.

    [ Parent ]
    Feel sad tonight (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    though I can't lay any claim to being an Obama supporter.  My spouse came home mad as heck about the typical white woman thing.  Soldiers tend to be a bit protective over those they feel loyal to and their favorite candidate happens to be a white woman.  He says that Obama is washed up and done, no way to come back from this now and Clinton will be the nominee no matter what must be done to make it so.  Can't know if he's right or wrong but it is sad to see people so ticked off at other candidates in the party over words like these having been said.

    this seems to be resonating (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    that remark has caught the attention of people very quickly... Hmm, Lou Dobbs was just covering it and played the clip.  O'Reilly just led with it.

    The right wing media still drives narrative.  Bad times for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    That remark bothered me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:05:34 PM EST
    But I am not happy about the wingers running with it and trying to divide us further.

    [ Parent ]
    What remark? (none / 0) (#48)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:38 PM EST
    What remark are you speaking of?

    [ Parent ]
    This comment (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    she's very proud, and that she's not like that anymore, and she's just a typical white person, who when she's on the street and sees someone she doesn't know has a reaction that's been bred in them that due to our experiences comes out the wrong way

    Apparently that is beyond the pale.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what happens (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    when you go outrage on Ferraro.

    the timing of this "controversy"'s launch by the Right Wing is obvious. Axelrod played the outrage card on Ferraro - Olbermann made a FOOL of himself with the worst Special Comment he has ever made and then blam - they dropped a bomb.

    [ Parent ]

    This stuff was going to come out (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    The race stuff was going to come out sooner or later anyway.  Wright was in the backpocket of the RNC and Hillary whenever it was necessary.

    I'd imagine that the RNC is a little disappointed it came out now.  They would have much preferred this came out in August during the convention.

    I will stick to my belief that this stuff will fade away.  When it's all said and done the Wright stuff isn't changing anyone's mind.  If you were the type to be offended by that stuff you weren't likely voting for Obama anyway.  

    [ Parent ]

    Of course it was (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    The timing by the Right Wing was brilliant though.

    [ Parent ]
    hey BTD, did you catch Daschle on CNN? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    Trying to justify the opposition to Michigan revote by resorting to that pathetic excuse of "we would be disenfranchising the voters who voted for the Republicans and now would not get to vote again"

    [ Parent ]
    Speculation is (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    that there are at least 100,000 people who voted in the GOP primary because the Dem one wasn't contested.

    [ Parent ]
    Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:43:55 AM EST
    didn't necessarily crossover because of the delegate situation.

    Among the Democratic activists I know there was a feeling that any Democrat could win and that only McCain could possibly spoil election day. They voted in the Republican primary to saddle the Republicans with Romney.

    Remember that this was in mid-January, Edwards was still in the race and the very high level of acrimony was still a bit down the road.

    [ Parent ]

    better timing for the right wing to let it out (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nycvoter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    would have been after obama had sealed the nomination

    [ Parent ]
    It was brilliant timing (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by suskin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    and it shows that the Republicans are still playing us.  They waited until Obama used the racism victim weapon to win enough states to become the presumptive lead, then the Republicans dropped the bomb and turned Obama's weapon against him.  Obama had one chance to salvage himself - to salvage the Party - instead of giving a dissertation on race he could have united the party.  He could have said the Clintons are not racists, what Bill and Ferraro said wasn't racist, let's heal the party.  But instead he repeated the racism charge and played the race victim card again, and had the audacity to cast himself as the person who could heal the divide by virtue of his race.  Obama had the chance to be the uniter he says he is, but he failed.

    [ Parent ]
    You think so? (none / 0) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    In all honesty this seems to be the perfect time for Obama to let this story come out.  

    There is still another month before there is another primary.  After the Miss primary, race was at the forefront.  I honestly can't think of another time during the race that would have been better for Obama.

    The cynic in me accepts the possibility that Obama was the one who "broke" the story.  The cynic in me thinks the timing is almost too good for him.  The cynic in me is amazed that Obama could have such a fantastic speech ready for action at a moment's notice.

    [ Parent ]

    the speech didn't move the needle (none / 0) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    did you see the InsiderAdvantage poll?  I mean it sounded like a great speech, but maybe it didn't quite have an effect.

    Also, about timing...  You think this was great timing?  Really?  Just when he was about to start being calld the presumptive nominee?  How about this: a much better time would have been before the campaign got underway.  What would have been a better time?  Maybe during his winning streak in February.

    This is actually a very awful time for it because the media has not much else to talk about and there's still a month to Pennsylvania.  He can't win a caucus in Idahio to distract and get the glow back.

    [ Parent ]

    We'll have to disagree on that (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    IMO, had this come out before the campaign started it could have killed his campaign before it even started.  Actually the Right Wing people DID throw this out last year but no one really knew Obama so the story didn't go very far.

    Feb would have been very risky.  He couldn't afford to lose any of those states and a big story like this could have changed any number of those states, particularly Virginia or Maryland.

    The only other time that would have been better, perhaps was in June or July after Hillary conceded assuming she did.  But even then, this story plays differently in the GE than it does in the Dem primary.   And I think that Obama really wants to avoid making the GE a referendum on race relations.

    [ Parent ]

    well one last thing (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    This came out during the longest gap between primaries/caucuses.... it was the worse possible time for a story like this because it will have plenty of time to sink in and for buyer's remorse to fully materialize (if it does)

    But I acknowledge we disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    Too soon to tell (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    And, actually, both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed Obama doing better against Hillary in the polls that came out today....

    Obama has bottomed out and the slide in the polls is most likely over....

    [ Parent ]

    Obama figured that (none / 0) (#100)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:39:43 PM EST
    race would probably be raised at some point in his candidacy.  He'd have to be an idiot not to. He's been working on the outline of the speech for good while and just fleshed it out recently.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    But he had a lot of details regarding Rev Wright in that speech.  He was ready with a speech specifically designed to counter the Wright Stuff.  

    [ Parent ]
    I suggest a career as a novelist, specifically (none / 0) (#109)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:46:32 PM EST
    Fiction.

    [ Parent ]
    You are calling him a liar (none / 0) (#121)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:05 PM EST
    in those interviews where he said he never heard anything.  Wait, he did that to himself in his speech.


    [ Parent ]
    Atta boy (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    I was wondering who would be the first to chime in with a gross distortion of my comment.  The smart money was always on you.  

    [ Parent ]
    Big chunks of the speech (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    so I've read, were lifted pretty much word for word from campaign speeches and the book/s.  Obama was so clearly taken aback by the whole Wright flap, I don't think there's the slightest possibility his people were responsible for it.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so either (none / 0) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    It was more a speculative comment based on what, IMO, was very good timing for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    define "fade away" (none / 0) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    It's going on 2 weeks now.  I guess if you wait long enough, everything fades away in some fashion but this story has been the longest ball and chain for any candidate this primary season.

    [ Parent ]
    1 week so far, and looking like it's going into 2 (none / 0) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    that's more of what I meant.  It "broke" on March 13th.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. (none / 0) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    So far it's a one week news cycle story.  Might roll into 2.  IMO, worst case is 3 but I doubt it.  

    Part of the problem for both Hillary and McCain is that you can't just pound away at this story.  There is a serious risk of blowback if they keep beating up on the black minister.  Go to hard at him and he turns from scourge of the nation to sympathetic old man being relentlessly attacked

    This is why both of them have shied away from it and are letting the media and blogosphere run with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Please note and give credit (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    Hillary has been silent on this. Not a word. She did not break this story, although she certainly knew about it long ago. You cannot lay this at her feet. Far from "pounding" it, she hasn't even mentioned it. And she won't.

    This is between your guy and the media. Leave Hillary out of it.

    You have to believe it will go away if you like Obama. IMO, that is not a realistic belief.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary is lobbying (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:36:38 AM EST
    super delegates based on Wright's comments...

    Lanny Davis, a prominent Hillary surrogate, had a big article on Wright on Huffington Post....

    My prediction:  If Obama's drop in the polls stalls or reverses, Hillary will raise Wright overtly herself.....

    [ Parent ]

    Among centrists you could run this story (none / 0) (#112)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    for a year and there would be no blowback.  By the way, due to the timing, personally I think this is just the tip of the Wright iceberg.


    [ Parent ]
    Ralph (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    I think this is just the tip of the Wright iceberg.

    What do you mean--more videos?

    [ Parent ]

    3 sermons (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:38:42 AM EST
    There are 3 videos and it has been at least a week since the first one came out.....

    It would seem reasonable they have already published the worst ones....

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure you do think that (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    But you've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on Obama for about a year now most likely.

    Remember the good ol days when plagiarism was the reason why we couldn't trust Obama?  Good times indeed back then.  

    [ Parent ]

    an abundance of shoes (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    shoes raining from heaven.

    No one notices at first, but then, eventually, someone looks at the ground and says, "hey, lookit all these shoes."

    And of course for everyone that's left, there's always a Wright.

    [ Parent ]

    eeGAD (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    How many more shoes have to drop on Obama? He's swimming in Hush-Puppies!

    Granted, Hillary is awash in them too, since the 90's, but she's built an island nation on top of them. Let's see how Obama fares.

    [ Parent ]

    And Penn isn't until April 22nd. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:30:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and Ferraro is a FOX News contributor (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    They don't like when one of their own is attacked.  Fox News security might even come and get you!

    [ Parent ]
    I (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    saw a clip of the Olbermann tirade for the first time today.  Unbelievable.  I've never seen anyone outside of conservative cable news embarrass themselves so badly.  

    [ Parent ]
    i can't help but think the ko fell for the (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    idea that he was the second coming of murrow and thinks we should all fall down when he opens his mouth. keith, you lost me and many others with that attitue.

    [ Parent ]
    It is (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by sas on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    also what happens when the candidate is an amateur.

    [ Parent ]
    Sen. Obama talked about his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    and her racial views today and called her a "typical white person."

    [ Parent ]
    oooooh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    That's not going to sit well.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out Politico (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    for the quote.  It was Obama's radio interview.

    [ Parent ]
    Good to know there are no racists (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    in South Carolina or in my home state of Louisiana.

    Obama Rule: You cannot be racist if you align yourself with Barack Obama.  

    Crazy Obama supporters (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    Yeah how bout this Obama supporters comments....

    And one other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

    Clearly he must know that is just going to make things worse.  Oh wait, that was Mike Huckabee who said that.

    This is totally different (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    Gov. Huckabee is saying resentment is understandable. I agree with him. Sen. Obama's words implied the typical white person has racial fear. I don't agree with that. He should have been a little more careful in how he stated his point.

    [ Parent ]
    This discussion is OT (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    but the typical middle class person has racial fear specifically racial fear of poor blacks and latinos.  

    Some middle class people allow that fear to flow over into their views on racial groups in general.

    This isn't a shocking revelation, although I'm sure many people would prefer to not talk about it at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    Well that settles the political import of the Wright situation.

    I like you flyerhawk but your comment is off topic. I'll leave it though cuz it made me chuckle.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah I know (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    it was a little OT.  But I thought it surprising that Huckabee would say it.  

    [ Parent ]
    A fair number of Obama supporters (in other (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    places, not this site) have started acting strangely and making odd arguments. For example, at my old stomping ground people seem pretty jubilant. They seem to think that the most recent poll numbers are great for Obama (he's down by over 100 electoral votes) and that Clinton needs to drop out. They think that the fact that 57% of the people believe Obama doesn't share Wright's views is great. That's actually a horrible number. It means that 43% think Obama agrees with a man who screams "God D**n America".

    It's the greatest cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. Compared to DK, the above post is mild. By the end of this campaign though, ever voter in this country is going to be considered a racist.

    I (none / 0) (#84)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    just read a poll that said 57% of voters are less likely to vote for Obama since his Great Speech.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't mind a link (none / 0) (#90)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    eom

    [ Parent ]
    Here ya go (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    Link

    Barack Obama's speech about race on Tuesday impressed many who witnessed it or read it. But most of America did neither, and many of them  -- white and black -- were less persuaded of the speech's capacity to heal racial wounds, or to put the issue of race behind Obama as he continues his quest for the White House.

    That's according to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion.

    First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama's pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama's speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, "Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?"

    Less likely (52%)
    More likely (19%)
    About the same (27%)
    No opinion (2%)

    The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama's speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation.

    (more at link)

    [ Parent ]

    John Kerry's comment (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    Because he's African American. Because he's a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. We only broke the back of civil rights, Jim Crow, in the 1960s here.

    What oppression did Obama face in Hawaii?

    40% Asian
    28% white
    20% mixed race
    2%  black

    There was no Jim Crow in Hawaii and Jakarta, Senator.

    This morning (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    I had a woman tell me that Hillary is indeed the "conventional" candidate. Other than the fact that she's a woman, which is nothing, and I should not complain that nobody notices my candidate is a woman.

    This is a white woman in her late 60s from the south. She "knows that she's considered more "conventional" than a black man." She "knows that she has it better" than a black man.

    I reminded her that Obama is not a southern black man. He is from Hawaii and Indonesia. His ancestors were not slaves. He graduated from Harvard law, is a U.S. Senator, and lives in a mansion. She isn't better off than he is. She can stop scourging herself now.

    Her reaction? "That's your opinion."

    [ Parent ]

    But... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kayla on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    racism is about what you look like, not what your background is.  I think Obama received the same treatment from the typical prejudiced white person as a 100% black man who dropped out of school and became a janitor.  That's the problem.  Racism has nothing to do with who you are.  Sexism doesn't either and I think it's awful that it seems people don't realize that it's a struggle for women too.  Sometimes I think that the imagery of the civil rights movement is so embedded in our consciousness that it can't be shaken, so we're more sensitive to it.  Most of what was done to women happened behind closed doors, in our homes, so it's easier to push it under the rug.  I kind of want Hillary to make a big speech about women's rights in America, but it would just look like she's copying.  I think what Obama said about his grandmother was just as much a gender issue as it was a racial one, really.  I think all women, whatever their color, feel a bit nervous if they're alone and a strange man is walking towards them.  I hate that he failed to go a little deeper there.  Everyone always says Barack is such an intellect.  But he seems like a pretty lousy one.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#130)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:02:26 PM EST
    that most of those "mixed race" people don't look like Obama.  Also, Hawaii, like many parts of America, has had a complicated relationship with race.  Successive waves of Japanese, Chinese and Fillipinos were brought over to Hawaii as cheap labor to work the plantations (taken from the native peoples).  They were often discriminated against or set against each other.  Hawaii, today, is much more racially harmonius, but it hasn't always been that way.

    [ Parent ]
    Almost every country which (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    imports racial labor has a "complicated relationship with race".  

    Jim Crow is disntinctly a Southern USA group of oppression laws against AA's.  Obama did not experience Jim Crow oppression laws.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't desire a dream ticket (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM EST
    I am voting for her because of what she represents, who she'll stand up for and her experience. I am not asking for a two fer. If I wanted to vote for him I would.  I am not voting for him for reasons.

    Why would those reasons change in a General Election? If I don't like what he represents now why would I expect him to change.

    I'll save my dream ticket for the Nominee and who they select as their running mate.

    BTW- John Edwards on Leno and some think he may have a few things to say about both candidates.

    Ohwell (none / 0) (#1)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    It really makes you wonder...it seems the racists aren't the only obtuse folks...

    I guess I should also add the disclaimer...I don't think John Cole is obtuse, but many that make similar statements/arguments are...John made the statement, realized it was obtuse, walked back the "meaning" but not the statement...

    So now (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    we are holding Obama responsible for everything people post on websites?  Have a look at some of the "diaries" at mydd before you decide if this is a good idea.

    Again (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, no (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    I admire the positions Obama has taken on race - they're more conciliatory and realistic than my position would be if I were him. I admire his campaign's use of race a lot less, and admire his supporters' use of race little, if at all.

    Perhaps you can point out where BTD held Obama, and not John Cole, responsible in this post?

    Well, no, you probably can't.

    And as always, what's posted at mydd or anywhere else doesn't make John Cole any less wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    He says that most of the racists he has (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    known are Democrats. I doubt that Democrats in West Virginia are that different from the ones in Tennessee. My experience is just the opposite.

    Everyone's experience is different (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    That is an absurd statement from John.

    [ Parent ]
    No one is saying that all or even most (none / 0) (#17)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    of Clinton supporters are racist.  That said, you have to admit that some of the white Clinton voters in the MS primary were voting against the black candidate (while many black Obama voters were voting for the black candidate).  In MS, Obama's results were helped by identity politics but probably hurt by some racism.

    It's pretty hard to argue that Obama's blackness helps him (or doesn't affect his chances) in the WV primary.  Is it the only reason or even the major reason why Obama's not doing well there?  Probably no, but it would be hard to argue that it has no impact in the race.

    I'm sure it will somewhat but I think (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    the major difference will be Obama's message. People in some states are more likely to vote for the kind of policies that she proposes rather than for the hope/unity/change candidate, no matter what his race is. I'm not saying that's all Obama stands for, but it is the impression that many voters have.

    [ Parent ]
    But you and Cole both conveniently ignore (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    that Clinton's gender affects her chances in WV or anywhere else too.

    But of course not all Obama supporters are sexists either.


    [ Parent ]

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by abfabdem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    Have you read the posts on DK?  A huge percentage have sexist overtones.  It is very disheartening.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#40)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    I'm sure that, electorally, Clinton is both help and hurt by her gender.  I, personally, believe that the sexism Clinton faces is probably spread across the country while the racism Obama faces is more prevalent in the South (and, in my ignorance as a Yankee, include Appalachia as well).  If you have any data to disabuse me of these notions, I'd be happy to see them.

    [ Parent ]
    Appalacia is the South (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    but there is some umbrage I must take with the sentiment...Oregon and Washington are said to have more obtuse racial views outside of the cities...upstate New York same thing...PA (ain't considered South), OH, the Dakotas, Mass is also known for being surprisingly obtuse...I think people are confusing "red state" with "racist state"

    [ Parent ]
    black people in (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    MS, GA and SC are southerners, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Tennessee also (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    and it went to Hillary. Tennessee is called racist an sexist yet we have more black elected officials than most states and in higher ranking positions.  

    We also have the radical right though.

    We also have many female African American elected officials.  You may have seen their campaign signs in my front yard or seen me at their victory celebrations. I am a middle aged white gay guy.

    People of ill intent inhabit all corners of the country. It can't be forgotten how many AA voters are going with Barack. When they do so it is pride.  When other groups do it is racism.

    We each get a vote so we select who it goes to. Nobody can take it away from us.

    [ Parent ]

    The "Red States" in the South (none / 0) (#108)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    are "Red" largely because of the Southern strategy that took advantage of racism.

    WA and OR, outside of the cities, are largely rural.  I've never heard it said that these places are any more racist than comparable rural areas around the country.

    [ Parent ]

    They are not Red (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Dancing Bear on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    because of racism.  They are Red because of Fundamental Christians, many of whom are black Evangelicals.  They are Gay haters more than racists because they can hide behind God and get away with it. They are anti- abortionists and not for woman's rights.

    I love how racist the south always get portrayed. There are more people of mixed race or of minority status than in most other states. It's the radical Christians, many black that make the south Red.

    [ Parent ]

    The South was a Democratic stronghold (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by clapclappointpoint on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    until LBJ began supporting civil rights and Nixon used the Southern strategy.  Today, gay-baiting may help keep it Red, but it isn't the reason it became Red.

    [ Parent ]
    This opinion is based out of (none / 0) (#144)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    the opposite extreme of ignorance...

    [ Parent ]
    Me too (none / 0) (#53)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:12:00 PM EST
    No, I don't have any data at hand, and though I think I've seen some, I don't recall what it concludes.

    But I do think both are factors in the Democratic and Independment segments of the electorate. They're probably a bigger factor in the GOP segment, but no Dem is getting those votes anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    A factor entirely ignored in this (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    is one that is significant for Clinton next door to WV, in Pennsylvania as well:  She comes from miners there.  I have WV relatives in mining country, and I'm told they do anything for their own.  And they look at her as one of their own -- not because she is white, but because her ancestors were immigrant coal miners in Scranton.  Why does Cole want to ignore that?  Coming from WV, he must know that.

    I'm several generations away from the mining Molly McGuires of the West as well -- but still, when someone comes from a mining clan, I was raised to perk up and pay attention.  I hear that it's the same in cops' families, firefighters' families, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    It read like that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    Of course afterwards Cole denied the obvious import of his original words.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#87)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    but that is just exactly what Barack Obama said in his speech, or maybe you didn't hear all of it.

    [ Parent ]
    The race polarization is killing Dems chances (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:40 PM EST
    see this POLL that Hillary would only get 55% black support in a general (which would probably go lower if she succeeds in her superdelegate strategy).

    Obama supporters calling Hillary supporters racist don't help.

    I pray (as an Obama supporter and Dem) for an Obama surge in PA and an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    Obama's white support is probably 35% in that poll.

    I saw that poll cited at the Big Orange Satan and I noticed the flip side was not noted.

    This is ALSO stupid for Obama supporters to raise.

    [ Parent ]

    Stupid and Divisive (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    I'm trying to remember when having a bunch of supporters who won't vote for the Dem you're running about became something to brag about.

    But there you have it.

    And it's true there is some reciprocity here.

    In the end I've always felt being a Clinton supporter who is smart enough to vote for Obama in the general election was a liability to my candidate.

    So I stopped being that smart.


    [ Parent ]

    I didn't catch the flip side (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    All the more reason for a Obama/Clinton ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    The flawed logic (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    is that WOMEN will be happy with an Obama/Clinton ticket.

    Many won't.

    [ Parent ]

    i just 'love' the reasoning that we are supposed (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    to be satisfied with that ticket by many comments i see online. and oh how they try and explain away to you as to how happy you should be as a woman, lol!~ especially when the glass ceiling is supposed to be broken for women this way. of course this goes along with the assumption we are voting for her because we are women, ahem.

    my next fav line of reasoning is the 'any woman as a VP will satisfy the women'.

    [ Parent ]

    Can't Please Everyone (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:01:12 PM EST
    But the two together will win more votes than they lose, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Cool! (