« Judge Him By The Company He Keeps: 1 | Main | Um, Jeralyn ... »

May 13, 2008

Comments

Nicely put, publius, but I'd offer one comment. You say:

"But let’s face it — race is playing a big role not just there, but throughout the Midwestern white working classes."

I know that to the many on the east coast, "the Midwest" may seem like it's all the same, but actually there are real cultural differences within the Midwest, and the way race is treated is one of those differences. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember, Obama's race was much less important in the central and western Midwest (MN, WI, IA, ND, NE, KS) than it was in the older, eastern Midwest of OH, KY, and so on.

I noticed this after moving out to Indiana (on the border between the two parts of the Midwest) for grad school. From this vantage point, at least, Ohio really is part of the East in a way that Illinois is not (and once you get into the plains states, things are even more different).

Anyway, just saying'.

"Bush 43 has, to his credit, avoided it"

Has he? I recall some curious timing of things that occurred on MLK day, or something along those lines.

If you are discussing race in Kentuckey, at least you should mention that the Louisville Public Schools had their forced busing program ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Maybe the blue collar whites realize that it was their children that have been and were going to be bussed for race based social engineering purposes. Of course Senator Obama supported such race based social engineering programs while his own children attend and elite private school.

I mostly agree with you on this, publius. Making the racist vote irrelevant would be a huge step forward for the country, and Obama has a chance to do it. It's one of my main reasons for favoring him over McCain, actually.

I'd like to see him engage the problem more directly than he has, though. I think he should go down to West Virginia and Kentucky and do some town hall-type events, answer questions, etc. - I'm sure there will always be some people who will insist against all reason that he's a black radical crypto-Muslim that wants to sell America to the terrorists, but I think he could win over some people as well, and at the very least it'd be great PR. He's a dynamic speaker and he knows how to hit the social, patriotic, and religious notes that appeal to the sensibility of people in culturally conservative areas - he's not a hapless boutique liberal like Tsongas or Kerry. If I'm not mistaken, he did relatively well in southern Illinois, which is quite similar to Kentucky and West Virginia demographically, in both his Senate race and the Illinois primary. Giving people a chance to get to know him would cut his losses somewhat among this group and, I suspect, help to deflect the elitist charge that the Republicans will try to use to exploit this vulnerability in November.

Maybe the blue collar whites realize that it was their children that have been and were going to be bussed for race based social engineering purposes

Kids being forced to ride a bus to school, what unspeakable barbarous cruelty!

We both know that what bothers people who complain about kids being "bussed for race based social engineer purposes" is the race part.

rea,

You may want to look up the facts concerning the Louisville, Kentucky http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/us/28cnd-scotus.html
The Supreme Court ruled that the Louisville Schools district was violating the civil rights of white students when it decided to assign them to non-neighborhood schools because of their race.

Now if Senator Obama can decide where to send his children to school then why can't the middle class and blue collar whites of Louisville decide where to send their children to school? If race had no affect on the quality of schools, the Senator Obama's daughters would be attending the 90% minority Chicago Public Schools instead of the majority white UC Lab School.

I lived in Kentucky long enough to know that racism is barely beneath the surface there. Having grown up in the South, I am well aware that there has always been a race-based social engineering project underway in that part of the country. For 200 years it was to insure that blacks and whites lived apart from each other and that black children got an inferior education in underfunded schools. It hardly seems unreasonable to have burdened white children with a much less onerous type of "social engineering" in the last few decades.

The entire Rev. Wright controversy was intentionally raised by Obama's political enemies, and repeated by the press because it might destroy his post-racist campaign. One can certainly question whether it is possible to run a post-racist campaign in a racist country, but to do so, Obama will have to fight the racists every step of the way.

Re Wright: “Gallup: Bush More Damaging To McCain Than Wright Is To Obama” (TPM) and “Obama's Super-Del Whip: Wright Makes Super-Dels More Eager To Back Obama” also TPM.

Giving people a chance to get to know him would cut his losses somewhat among this group
Xeynon’s point here is well-taken, though it seems too late for WV; we’ll just have to wait until tonight to gauge the damage.
Overall; indeed, Publius, point taken with whole-hearted agreement.

What Obama can do to compete for the white working class vote is a puzzle that he must solve to win in November. A lot of Obama supporters want to pretend it's not a problem, but hey its a BIG problem for him in November.These are the same supporters who thought that Kerry had it won, only to be shucked on Election Da2 y004. There are a LOT of those white working class voters out there and they don't CARE what NYT or the net roots think.
Obama has to re brand himself somehow. He has already started wearing flag lapel pins, but he will have to do more than that-much more.

What Obama can do to compete for the white working class vote is a puzzle that he must solve to win in November

are you assuming that the WWC is voting against Obama, and not simply for Clinton ? why ?

the real question is who they prefer in an Obama v McCain contest - and we haven't had that contest yet.

Democracy Lover,

The problem with your position is that the courts have ruled from 1953 on that separate and unequal is unconstitutional. Also, group guilt and group punish is also unconstitutional. Yet, too many on the left keep supporting separate and unequal like the University of Michigan, the city of Seattle, and the City of Louisville.

If you want to talk about racist stereotypes, the program in Louisville was to ensure that no public school was more than 50% blacks because the school officials believes that in schools with more than 50% blacks, that black students could not learn.

Yeah, Bush avoided race-based politics totally, like those push-polls in South Carolina implying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter.

Those were totally not race-based at all. :)

(Bush 43 has, to his credit, avoided it).

So, push-polling McCain having an illegitimate black baby in South Carolina in 2000, what was that? And the difference in Katrina response for white business owners in Mississippi versus poor blacks in Louisiana? The pointed snubbings of the NAACP? Maybe he hasn't been as open about it as Reagan with his states' rights speech in Mississippi, but he's hardly clean-handed.

are you assuming that the WWC is voting against Obama, and not simply for Clinton ? why ?

Cleek, I agree with stonetools - I think it's whistling past the graveyard to assume that it's just a massive amount of Clinton love that's powering her support among the WWC. Remember, she's lost the nomination at this point and is essentially running a vanity campaign. The failure of these voters to coalesce around the frontrunner and the high numbers of Clinton voters who claim they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee are cause for concern. Obama has a serious vulnerability here, and he has to work hard to overcome it, not so much because he'll lose WV or Kentucky in the general (I think those are both lost causes) as because he might lose Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Fortunately, I don't think it's impossible. The ability to bridge gaps and overcome differences in background and worldview is one of Obama's greatest gifts as a politician and with a proper outreach I think he can convince enough of the WWC that he shares their values and understands their concerns to shore up this weakness sufficiently. He needs to start doing it, though.

So, push-polling McCain having an illegitimate black baby in South Carolina in 2000, what was that? And the difference in Katrina response for white business owners in Mississippi versus poor blacks in Louisiana? The pointed snubbings of the NAACP?

How do you know it was Bush rather than unscrupulous people acting on his behalf who was responsible for the SC push-polling? Do you think the sluggishness of Katrina recovery efforts might have just a teensy bit to do with the fact that Louisiana has been one of the most corrupt and sclerotic states in the union since forever, and was unable to disburse federal aid effectively even before its institutions were devastated by the hurricane? I'm not sure what you're referring to about snubbing the NAACP, but with the other two I don't see why you immediately assume that racial animus on Bush's part is responsible, especially given that he has appointed more minorities to high positions in government than any President in history.

This pernicious racism has caused me to reengage in this bitter primary. I stopped caring a few weeks ago, feeling powerless and sickened by the rhetoric. I realize, though, that racism CANNOT BE the basis on which the democratic party chooses its nominee. That it is necessary to stare down those electability arguments -- regardless of whether they are correct. If it's true that Obama can't win cause he's black, well, then I have to lose with the black man. I certainly don't think we can stand another four years of rethug rule, but there are some principles that are more important.

Remember, she's lost the nomination at this point and is essentially running a vanity campaign.

i know that. you know that. but her supporters most definitely do not know that, and will happily argue the point for hours. and i'm sure it's easy to convince low-info voters that she still has a chance.

Fortunately, I don't think it's impossible.

me either.

    In another measure, 26 percent say the more they hear about Obama the more they like him – more than say that about Clinton (15 percent) or McCain (14 percent). Obama's the only one among them to have gained as much as he's lost in the recent public glare.

I'd call the region where it's been the biggest problem "Appalachia" & maybe also "the Rust Belt" (since Appalachia only covers a bit of Ohio), not the midwest. He did great in the upper midwest & the plains.

There has been a knee jerk press assumption that any time Obama loses it's an anti-Obama vote, possibly a racial one. I don't especially think this is true of say, Latino voters, or Northeastern women, or older liberal Dems. in the Northeast, or that it explains Clinton's huge margin in Arkansas. And I'm sure there are people in W.Va. & Kentucky who really like her, like her husband's economic policies, etc.--Bill Clinton did carry the state twice. But, I didn't think that working class voters in Appalachia especially liked Hillary Clinton until this campaign. And there's no gender gap or high female turnout, either; when Clinton wins a demographic by carrying women overwhelmingly I tend to assume that's down to excitement over her & not opposition to Obama. Combine that with the incredible ease with which reporters find people to tell them they oppose Obama because he's not "full blooded American" & I gotta think that race is having some role.

"Has he? I recall some curious timing of things that occurred on MLK day, or something along those lines."

Like what?

Perhaps if something is worth bringing up, it's worth bringing up specifics, with cites?

I'm unclear what you expect us to discuss here: that you think something happened, but you don't think it's worth mentioning, you know, what?

This is perhaps as useful as comments that start "I heard somewhere that...." Either something is verifiable, or it isn't.

The power. We have this because of what was done to us. there are all kinds of groups in lucifer's worlds. Feminism, races, dems, etc. It's all lucifer and those groups know this. If thye have chosen lucifer as a group for whatever reason, why would anyone treat a group different? Cult excuses are pretty old.

If you could seize a human body using lucifer; eyes, ears, parts, etc would you? Would this mean money? If groups go after human bodies then they have to be dealt with and that is easy. You have them made and all that stops. So, why would a group fear losing 'the power?' Bodies, pain earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. are the power. I guess you wouldn't vote against them or not vote to stay alive.

Race. Well, racists aren't born they're created, by luciferians. So, are the real luciferian racists pleased with their creations? Good for some money and votes.

We need to evolve into better humans and having to deal with luciferians is the rise.

The bottom line is that Obama is black. That's what got him the privilege and "success" he has to date. So I encourage Whites to be resentful of Obama. Not only for the preferential treatment Obama received but also for Obama's unrepentant anti-White racism.

I'm glad Whites in KY have been critical of Obama. Whites in other states should follow that lead.

Believe it or not most Whites are not racist. I wish they were but they're not. Instead, they're angry with Obama because they're learning he's a crooked, corrupt liar and his wife is an anti-American pig.

Hmm, something tells me this post has been linked to by a less-than-enlightened venue.

Oh, and please don't make the same error I did by clicking on Lyn's name:

"So far I have not gotten as many good comments as I want. Oh don't get me wrong I get comments everyday. But they're not the kind I'm going to publish. If you want to get your comment published on my blog here are some tips: 1) I don't publish comments from anybody that I suspect is black; 2) I don't publish any curse words - if you're not smart enough to be angry and tactful then f*[email protected] you too; 3) I don't publish any comment with a link that promotes something I don't agree with. That's it. If you disagree with me but are White and can be tactful or at least not too offensive then I'll publish what you've got to say."

Classy.

Um: wow.

Must...stop...reading:

I hate to see mixed couples. Well not all of them. But I do hate all black and White couples. It seems there are more of them now than in the past, and people are more open about it. That doesn't make it right, though.

First, let's talk about black men with White women. As we all know there are more women than there are men in the US. Furthermore, there are more White women than there are White men. So some of these White women can't find a White man for themself. It's sad, disgusting, pathetic, and many more negative words, but some of these White women choose to be with black men. Most of these White women could do better if they just bought a cat or turned lesbo, but no race is perfect. These White women who hook up with black men just bring a life of baby's mama drama and domestic violence upon themselves. I'll never understand it.

But I certainly understand why black men choose to be with White women. Every black man who is with a White woman is saying aloud to the whole world that all black women - including his own mama - ain't worth a sh*t. And I agree.

"Believe it or not most Whites are not racist. I wish they were but they're not."

Yes, that perverse desire is quite obvious.

mattt: it's just a sort of massive feast of horribleness, each bit worse than the last. I stopped reading: life is short.

Lyn,
I agree that most whites are not racist but you are.


Stonetools,

I agree completely what you are saying about Obama needing to confront this issue head on. He needs to build on his race speech. Another thing that needs to be discussed is the definition of racism. There seems to be a lot confusion. There are some like Lyn who seem to not know the definition of racism. Pointing out the racism that exist in society is not racism. After decades of denigration, saying that you are proud to be black is not racist. After blacks voting for Clinton, Gore, Kerry in the same percentages as we see now with Obama is not an example black racism. When have whites ever voted for a viable black presidential candidate. We also need to address the likes of Jeremiah Wright who have a vested interest in proving how racist this country is and they will try to sabotage his campaign.

Those who are complaining Obama's children attending private school please note that the girls attend the school because their mother is an employee at Univ. of Chicago.

Yeah, I was waiting in vain for the punchline; alas, is all in earnest.

Ah well. Pizza's here.

;-)

I think whites break for Hillary 60-40. I think that blacks break for Barack 90-10. From the Wall Street Journal:

Following a recent discussion in one of his classes about the campaign, in which most students expressed support for Sen. Obama, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a Duke sociologist, asked his white students how many had a black friend on campus. All the white students raised their hands.

He then asked the black students how many of them had a white friend on campus. None of them raised their hands.

Now that is a sociology lesson. All I can figure is that it is based in irrigation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977670689464343.html

publius:

I think you've almost got it right, but it's not enough for Obama to simply be elected. He has to be elected and then run what's widely viewed as a successful presidency. It's the Jackie Robinson problem. It's not enough to simply make the major leagues, nor is it enough to be average once you get there. You have to excel to break down that racial barrier.

> To me, Wright isn’t so much an independent
> cause of concern, but more of a pretext
> for airing underlying prejudices in a more
> politically acceptable way.

Just so.

Micheline,

The Chicago Lab schools had a long and involved admission process that includes testing. Sort of hypocritical for a presidential candidate that opposes high stakes testing. It also only accepts the brightest (once again, hypocritical for a presidential candidate who opposes tracking), and it is 73% white and only 12% black(very hypocritical for a presidential candidate for a candidate to talks about the benefits of diversity.

“You have to excel to break down that racial barrier.”
Indeed, ’struth.
Exactly why he’s the one we’re pinning our hopes on.

Brick Oven Bill,

You forgot to mention that in the article the white and black students have different views of what constitute a friend. The black students see someone as a friend when that person is invited to their home for dinner, whereas the white students see an acquitance (i.e., someone who they play basketball with) as a friend.

Hmmm...sending your black children to a mostly white school is in opposition to diversity. Interesting.

Chicago Public Schools are described in one of their own press releases is described as 17.2 percent white, 60.7 percent African American, 19.6 percent Latino, and 2.5 percent other.

However, according to greatschools. com, the Lab school is 73% white, 12% black, 11% Asian, and 3% Hispanic.

Of course, once again, how hypocritical is it for a candidate who supports open borders and unlimited immigration to send his children to a private school that is 3% Hispanics when the public schools in the same city are 20% Hispanic? I guess the city schools are a little to diverse for his own state.

In reading over the comments, I notice a lot of, "Obama needs the white working class vote." Leaving aside the obvious point that any politician running for President needs every vote they can get, I think deeper analysis requires that the Electoral College be considered (pause for collective groan).

So let's look at the WWC vote. Hillary's argument seems to be that you can't get FL or NC or AR without the WWC and therefore she should get the nomination because she's more electable (I'm eliding the argument to its basics because a) most people reading here are nauseatingly familiar with both sides points and b) life is too short).

I would contest that contention. I don't think a Democrat wins a southern state, whether they're black or white and regardless of whether they get some greater or lesser amount of the WWC vote. I'm sorry folks, the "solid south" is in my opinion, solid again, only the other way. Attempting to win a measurable number of electoral votes in the south as a Democrat is as pointless as my attempting to fly on my own by squeezing my eyes shut and trying really, really hard.

So let's game out what happens if Hillary gets the nod somehow (obviously as likely as my flying on my own, but go with the flow here). Up until about SC, blacks seemed to have a conflicted relationship with the Obama campaign that could be described as, "It would be awesome if a black man won, but that isn't happening, so who do I vote for where my vote WOULD count?"

Except that it started looking like a black guy could win, and suddenly what seemed impossible started looking possible and even likely as Hillary's campaign only very slowly woke up to the fact that Super Duper Tuesday didn't settle everything.

So now we have a real problem. The only mechanism to get the nomination for Hillary, is to use an argument pitting one constituancy group against another. Only, and here's the point, the constituancy group she's pointing to to make her point is most important in states that democrats won't win in November anyway.

Everything I read is about what happens if/when Obama gets the nod...WWC flips to McCain or sits down and PA and OH go R. Let's turn that around. Blacks go democratic 90-10 or better. What happens if they (correctly) perceive that their aspirations are being thrown under the bus to give the (in their opinion) crackers what the crackers want? If blacks sit down for this election in any kind of numbers you won't have to worry about OH, because you'll be far too busy worrying about how to win MI, IL, PA (again) and MD, not to mention FL (where the closeness of the election for Democrats doesn't, I assure you, come from WWC...it comes from retirees and blacks).

Plus Obama, in my opinion, forces McCain to campaign in Deep South states like MS and AL...where though the conservative, evangelical vote overcomes the black vote the sheer number of black voters in Deep South states requires that McCain go down there and shore up support (and this is the beautiful part) by saying the kinds of things Deep South Conservatives want to hear...and what happens to St. John's independant voters then?

That electability argument cuts both ways. And to second a poster above, if I have to use racists to win, I'd rather lose. As awful a prospect as another Republican presidency is, there truly are worse things; rewarding racism is one of them.

quoth superdestroyer:

blue collar whites realize that it was their children that have been and were going to be bussed for race based social engineering purposes.

Maybe. But since that program existed only in Jefferson County, KY (i.e., Louisville Metro area), where Obama is polling strongest in Kentucky, probably not.

Also, only about 3% of school assignments under the Louisville program were affected by race, many of those would not have required more busing than any other school assignment, and of those that did, many would have been black kids. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-908.pdf.

Of course Senator Obama supported such race based social engineering programs

Yes, he did say nice things about them. But unlike most politicians, he has also gone on record as supporting class-based affirmative action -- specifically saying that we should do more to help poor white kids. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003706691_robinson15.html

while his own children attend an elite private school.

Okay, there you have me. You caught him redhanded. Horror of horrors, a University of Chicago professor pays to send his kids to the University's top-notch elementary school with his friends' kids, rather than send them to a school in a slum further away.

By doing so, he proves his hypocrisy, because he's not giving his own kids the best education he can or helping them integrate. Oh, wait, yes he is. What was your point, exactly? Rich people shouldn't pay for private school if they're black? Black kids shouldn't go to good schools? Help me out here.

Of course, once again, how hypocritical is it for a candidate who supports open borders and unlimited immigration to send his children to a private school that is 3% Hispanics when the public schools in the same city are 20% Hispanic?

Well, since you asked: Not very.

Of course, once again, how hypocritical is it for a candidate who supports open borders and unlimited immigration to send his children to a private school that is 3% Hispanics when the public schools in the same city are 20% Hispanic?

When his kids are black? WTF?

And, um, you do realize that when the system is 20% Hispanic, that doesn't mean every school in the system is. Right?

The Chicago Lab school has a long and involved admission process that includes testing. Sort of hypocritical for a presidential candidate that opposes high stakes testing.

It might be, if he did. Since all he said (like most teachers and education professionals) is that testing should not be as big a component of assessments and kids should not have to waste so much time on test prep, it isn't. He seems to envisage a more complex assessment method, that includes testing. Like, you know, the one the U Lab School uses.

It also only accepts the brightest (once again, hypocritical for a presidential candidate who opposes tracking)

Aaand, once again, it might be if he did, but he doesn't so it isn't.


trilobite,

You repoeated the old excuse that when rich elites send their children to exclusive prep schools they are just looking out for their children's education but when middle class whites do not want their children bussed across town to a crummy public school they are somehow racist.

You cannot have it both ways. Either all parents are looking out for the children or the rich are just as bigoted and racist as the blue collar whites. Remember that the judge who ordered the bussing in Boston sent his own children to private school.

So since you believe that the rich are looking out for their own children then you must believe that blue collar whites are looking out for their own children when they do not want bussing or the children of illegal aliens in their schools.

superdestroyer:

I believe soliciting the hypocrite vote is good politics. Given human nature, Obama's strategy should insure that November's vote tally will be ..... oh ..... 300 million to zip in favor of Obama, if we include underaged hypocrites.

However, McCain is doing his part to turn that around. Maybe the vote tally will end up being 150 million to 150 million, hypocrisy being evenly distributed throughout the population.

Well, there is an outlier: Lyn

He (I presume: he claims to be "215 pounds of asskicking fury"; but "Lyn"? I'm gonna get my ass kicked by a guy named "Lyn" who for all I know is in the midst of a transgender transformation? Not that there is anything wrong with that. The transformation, that is, not the ass-kicking) ........

...... is not a hypocrite, to which I say, "Up with hypocrisy!"

I want to live in a world someday in which Obama's children and Lyn's children sit alongside each other in a top-flight school and become great readers and math whizzes and learn history and art and music and biology together, especially the birds and the bees (this would be for extra credit ... after school, initially in a car but maybe later in Lyn's basement).

Then dating and first, second, and third base and like Jackie Robinson stealing home, marriage and lots and lots of kids and cats in the yard.

Then Thanksgiving at the Obama's with the in-laws and lots of Michelle and Barack exchanging "Guess who's coming for dinner?" over the food prep, and later, before pie and the football game, Obama taking his sport coat off and asking Michelle and the assembled kids:

"I guy named 'Lyn' wants me to go out in the yard so he can kick my ass!?! 'Lyn', you say!??


trilobite,

You repoeated the old excuse that when rich elites send their children to exclusive prep schools they are just looking out for their children's education but when middle class whites do not want their children bussed across town to a crummy public school they are somehow racist.

Yeah, trilobite, you did that ... um, when you ... um ... when did you do that?

John Thullen is the greatest!!

Thanks, hairshirthedonist.

I think it helps understand superdestroyer if you ignore the existence of black parents who want to improve their children's future. If you only think about those rotten "elites" (how DARE they be smart and make a lot of money!) and the white parents who quite understandably object to their kids being treated as badly as black kids, it all makes a lot more sense.

Sort of. Except for the part where I called anybody racist, or where Barack Obama did, or where Barack Obama is bigoted and racist for not sending his kids to school in a slum. That part I still don't get. Also the thing about illegal aliens. Do you ever get the feeling, with sd, that you're missing half the conversation?

"I don't see why you immediately assume that racial animus on Bush's part is responsible, especially given that he has appointed more minorities to high positions in government than any President in history."

Reading the comment you're responding to, I see no such claim of personal racial animus on Bush's part. The words you quoted that you responded to clearly make no such claim whatever.

Can you quote the exact words you believe asserted that?

The original claim was by Publius: "As of now, coded racism (from Nixon to Bush 41) has been a politically rational strategy at the presidential level. (Bush 43 has, to his credit, avoided it)."

Who asserted that there was "racial animus on Bush's part"? Where? Who are you arguing with? Cite?

"If you could seize a human body using lucifer; eyes, ears, parts, etc would you?"

You betcha! I spend nights awake dreaming of it! And I'm going to build one of my own out of spare parts! And then a whole zombie army!

And with them, dare I say it, I will rule the world!

For, you know, Lucifer.

Or maybe it was Fred, down the block. I get them confused so easily, what with them both having satanic beards, 'n all.

Careful, Farber. Don’cha know to remove yer shoes when you tread on sacred soil?

I’m afraid you might have caught Thullenism when, maybe, he was helping transfer your books back down the stairs.

We’re hoping it’s incurable.

Bear in mind there’s a slight failure of vision entailed. For cites I refer you to his difficulty seeing the female sexual icons on bloggingheads as such, and his referring above to the yard filled with children and cats.
Those weren’t cats but cat-sized dogs, small dogs, you know? What us WWC’s call secular-humanist cats.

I think it's time to pain Obama and his wife. I'm going for the hips and backs. I'm going to force them to see and hear shit and then go for a stroke. It would be sad if they both had permanent damage, but I need the cash and someone will pay. I'll explain why this had to be done later as soon as I get elected. Then I want to be president like Bill. Maybe some cancer too.

Michael D. at Balloon Juice points out another proud moment in America's history with race.

Maybe the blue collar whites realize that it was their children that have been and were going to be bussed for race based social engineering purposes.

Because it was acceptable for blacks to go to second-class schools, often miles from their homes, but poor li'l white babies shouldn't have to suffer any indignities.

I don't know sd well enough to know if he's the type to proclaim "My ancestors weren't slaveholders", but I wonder what the correlation between "non-slaveholders" and no-forced-busing types is.

Believe it or not most Whites are not racist. I wish they were but they're not."

As someone else upthread said, it may be true that most whites are not racist, but you, Lyn, most definitely are. I'd very much appreciate it if you got lost and stopped cluttering up this forum with your bigotry. You're not worth talking to. That's as politely as I can possibly say it.

He has to be elected and then run what's widely viewed as a successful presidency. It's the Jackie Robinson problem.

Good point. I think, though, that he'll have a lot less trouble governing than he will getting elected. I suspect that elites, even those from the areas where Obama will have trouble because of his race, are not nearly as bigoted as their constituents.

Everything I read is about what happens if/when Obama gets the nod...WWC flips to McCain or sits down and PA and OH go R. Let's turn that around. Blacks go democratic 90-10 or better. What happens if they (correctly) perceive that their aspirations are being thrown under the bus to give the (in their opinion) crackers what the crackers want? If blacks sit down for this election in any kind of numbers you won't have to worry about OH, because you'll be far too busy worrying about how to win MI, IL, PA (again) and MD, not to mention FL (where the closeness of the election for Democrats doesn't, I assure you, come from WWC...it comes from retirees and blacks).

Everything you say here is true - I'd add that I think even leaving the WWC aside there are some swing states Hillary has less of a chance of carrying than Obama does (Colorado and the pacific northwest spring to mind). Both candidates have weaknesses, and the way the electoral map would play out is different for each. I don't think there's a great argument that one is clearly a stronger general election candidate than the other though - Hillary is basically saying she can win with the traditional liberal bloc of the west coast, the northeast, and the industrial midwest, which is funny because no Democrat has won with that map as of yet.

Reading the comment you're responding to, I see no such claim of personal racial animus on Bush's part.

Fair enough - once again, I ought to be more careful with my wording. What I should have said is I see no evidence that Bush attempted to exploit latent racism in the same way the Philadelphia speech or Willie Horton or Sister Souljah did - the examples Incertus provided are not convincing IMO.


The Jackie Robinson analogy is very intriguing for what it reveals about how baseball works and how a president's power works and the similarities and differences. Robinson spent a year taking every manner of abuse that could be hurled out, but the most dangerous gesture (at least to the game itself, I'm not saying that the bean balls and the brushback pitches were not dangerous) was when the St. Louis Cardinals, led by Enos Slaughter, threatened to boycott the game with Brooklyn. From this page

In 1947 the Cardinals earned disrepute as they protested by trying to boycott games against the Brooklyn Dodgers as they had signed a black player, Jackie Robinson. Enos Slaughter was the leader of the boycott but the National League president Ford Frick warned to ban any players who boycotted any games. The boycott never took place and the Cardinals themselves signed a black player, Curt Flood in 1958.

This is not to pile snark on the comment, but who would be the Ford Frick for Obama? And what forces prevented other players from doing other things? The transparency of the game, based on the fact that everything was visible, so someone like Enos Slaughter could intentionally spike Robinson (though Wikipedia questions that the story of the boycott and the motivations behind the spiking though provides no references), or audible, so Phillies manager Ben Chapman could launch racist diatribes from the dugout created a playing field that, while not level, was one where Robinson could participate, unlike the one overseen by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis who, as Commissioner from 1921 to 1944, refused to allow blacks to play in Major League Baseball.

Again, this is a bit of a flow of consciousness comment, but in what ways would racism prevent Obama from acting as president and what ways would simply having him on the field change the game?

Late to the party again, but there's always room for one more, right?

Maybe the blue collar whites realize that it was their children that have been and were going to be bussed for race based social engineering purposes.

Black kids rode busses too.

Of course Senator Obama supported such race based social engineering programs while his own children attend and elite private school.

Obama and his wife are smart, driven, accomplished, successful people. They also have some money. Lots of folks like that send their kids to private school.

Yes, it sucks that folks with less money don't have the same options. Life's like that.

I encourage Whites to be resentful of Obama.

I don't know why, but there's just something about black skin that makes the crazies want to go howl at the moon.

Howl away, Lyn. Hope it's fun for you. But the rest of us have better things to do than wallow in our own ignorance or nurse our stupid, petty resentments.

Thanks -

I realize that folks on the left love to repeat, over and over, the claim that the Willie Horton ad was an example of disgraceful race-baiting, but repetition doesn't make a false claim true.

Willie Horton was a criminal. He happened to be black. George H.W. Bush didn't make him a criminal, and he didn't make him black. He really was sentenced to life without parole for murder, and he was given a weekend pass under an furlough program then in place in Massachusetts. During that weekend leave, he really did commit an armed robbery and rape.

It's true that Governor Dukakis didn't initiate the program, but he did support it, even after the Horton incident, and he had resisted attempts to tighten the standards.

I don't see how you can make the claim that airing a factually-accurate advertisement is racist or disgraceful.

Cheerful: "I don't see how you can make the claim that airing a factually-accurate advertisement is racist or disgraceful."

Easily. When you pick, of all the true claims in the whole wide world, only true claims designed to play on racial hatred, I think it's disgraceful.

Would you have a problem if Bush had aired factually accurate spots about, say, a hundred different people who had gotten out on parole and done bad stuff, and chosen only people who were black and had faces that some whites might find scary? Is there any value of X such that, if the actual population of people let out on parole who did bad things were X, and 100% of the people Bush aired ads about were black, you'd find it disgraceful? If so, then you've conceded that factually accurate ads can be racist.

I agree with Publius which is why I have been for Obama even when he was a longshot and Hillary was a sure thing. Obama is a talented, inspiring politician who has gotten even better over the campaign, but what's remarkable is that his symbolic victory would put a wooden stake in the heart of the Republican's Southern strategy.

Somtimes I have to pinch myself when it dawns on me that Obama really will be the nominee.

I think Bush has been better than most Republicans regarding blacks, gays, hispanics, i.e. the culture wars. Not saying much but it's something. It's also just that the culture is changing. The minister who presided at Bush's daughter's wedding was a black Obama supporter.

Population of how many, hilzoy? Was there more than one willie-horton style ad?

Slarti: no, but he was making the more general claim that an ad's being factual meant that it *couldn't* be racist. I was trying to say why I thought that wasn't true, and the point seemed easier to grasp in the hypothetical world in which there were 100 ads with different Willie Hortons.

Ah, ok. Probably it would have been more supportable to note that it wasn't necessarily racist.

"Ah, ok. Probably it would have been more supportable to note that it wasn't necessarily racist."

What, you're saying the entire "Southern strategy" wasn't racist, or are you insisting that there has to be proof that said intent was behind each and every action and dog whistle engaged in the "Southern strategy" before you'll agree that any such action was part of the "Southern strategy"?

Is it your claim that the Willie Horton ad, in any incarnation, "wasn't necessarily racist"?

If not, my apologies for any misunderstanding on my part. If so, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

It wasn't "necessarily racist" for those not attuned to it...

But as a dog whistle? For those who are painfully aware of racism each and every day? Hm, yes....

What, you're saying the entire "Southern strategy" wasn't racist

No, I'm saying nothing of the sort. Try scrolling up here, and then following the conversation. Hopefully that will satisfy, because all I have now is: WTF?

...as well, apparently, as an inability to close tags.

I don't see how you can make the claim that airing a factually-accurate advertisement is racist or disgraceful.

Great, a softball.

Because the ad was created at the direction of Lee Atwater. I'm sure you remember Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, ’Nigger, nigger, nigger.’

By 1968 you can’t say ’nigger’ - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff.

You’re getting so abstract now that you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.

You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, ’We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ’Nigger, nigger.

Nuff said, I hope.

You are right about one thing: strictly speaking the ad was not racist. Rather, it was designed to appeal to racists. There is probably a distinction there, but I suspect it's one without a difference.

In any case, thanks for asking.

"No, I'm saying nothing of the sort."

Any chance you might violate your regular policy, and perhance inform me of what it is that you are saying, then?

I realize this would be more or less unprecedented, but maybe as a favor?

I've read the thread, as it happens. So what are you saying, Slart, that causes you to feel that "Probably it would have been more supportable to note that it wasn't necessarily racist" as regards one of the Willie Horton ads, is a reasonable statement? Why do you believe this, given what we know?

To second Russell: "You are right about one thing: strictly speaking the ad was not racist. Rather, it was designed to appeal to racists. There is probably a distinction there, but I suspect it's one without a difference."

Agree, disagree? Please show your work, for once?

Incidentally, I've today discovered a wonderful new quality to ObWi: it's now frequently causing the Mac version of Firefox to crash (into a full and unrecoverable lockup of the entire browser; Session Saver just causes the crash to happen again) about half the times I click on someone's name in the "Recent Comments" list.

I don't know how much to blame Typepad, and how much to blame Apple, so I'll regard them both as equally perfidious until proven innocent.

As a trivial note, typing proves to be less pleasurable when one sliced open one's right index finger yesterday, and then burned one's three main right middle fingers this morning (1st degree, but still noticeable), so apologies for any testiness on my part; that's today's excuse, along with trying to shift to regularly waking up at what until 9 days ago was 3:15 a.m. I recognize that I'm being a little cranky this afternoon.

But I'm typically a bit cranky when you do your yes/no routine when asked what your point is. Is it really too much to ask you to just explain your point the first time you're asked?

Why do you believe this, given what we know?

It'd be useful, even vital to this conversation if you'd share a bit more about the given what we know portion of your question. It's possible that we do jointly know something that's relevant to your question, but I'm having trouble with which thing(s) that might be.

But, to fill in a bit while you're considering that, I think it was more supportable to claim that it wasn't necessarily racist than to claim that it definitely wasn't racist.

Which I thought was obvious, but we've been around that maypole a few dozen times, so I should know better.

But I'm typically a bit cranky when you do your yes/no routine when asked what your point is.

I'm confused by that. You asked what my point was, by asking me if I was saying something that was completely unlike anything I did say, which is one of the more highly annoying things I run into on da innerwebs. I WAS CRANKY FIRST!

Please take that last in the spirit of fun-making (not to be confused with making-fun) with which it was offered. You're going to have to trust me on that, I guess.

And sorry about your fingers. That doesn't sound pleasant at all. The time-change part will take care of itself, given time.

And coffee, if that works for you.

This is just one of the many reasons why sometimes I just don't bother responding at all. Did Gary lose interest? Or decide that I am too irredeemably ignorant to bother continuing this exchange? Who can tell, without a program?

"This is just one of the many reasons why sometimes I just don't bother responding at all. Did Gary lose interest? Or decide that I am too irredeemably ignorant to bother continuing this exchange? Who can tell, without a program?"

Gary was busy most of yesterday, and unaware that commenters were expected to respond in a time limit. I'll be sure to notify you that I take it personally next time you fail to respond to a comment of mine within 24 hours.

Or maybe I won't be a [noun] about it, myself; I prefer not to do that consciously, at least.

I would have written you a friendly and thankful response to your May 14, 2008 at 05:40 PM, and prior comment, since I just read them this moment for the first time, but now my comment is different. Thanks, nonetheless, and I'll just leave it there.

No sweat, Gary. I just saw you commenting on other posts and thought you were perhaps ignoring me on purpose, as opposed to more or less being too busy to check back here.

Neither of which would upset me too much, but the latter of the two is a bit more pleasant.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad