Watching CNN and listening to all the pundits talk, they say that Hilary's base is older white, blue-collar workers in the Midwest-and seeing how she did so strong in West Virginia as well as Ohio & Penn. you can see that they are right. However, they neglect to say why. So, I will. Many older, white blue-collar workers in the Midwest are indeed racist. (NOT ALL) When ask of Hilary supporters if Barack wins the nom, if they would support him-many say they will vote for McCain. No one ask them why. I'm sure that many (even though they don't want to admit it) won't vote for him because he is black. Yeah, they may say because he is inexperience or give some other bogus excuse. The fact is that racism is alive and well in this country which is a shame. Seeing how far Barack has come in the political race gave me hope that this country has moved beyond Jim Crow but seeing what is going on, I don't think we have come as far as I had hoped.  And what is also brothering me is that pundits are NOT addressing the issue. I think the issue NEEDS to be address because it is pretty plain to see.


Any thoughts? Comments?



Cat

it's pretty much the elephant in the living room as hillary touts her big win in west virginia and her upcoming sweep in kentucky, especially on top of her slip about being more in tune with "white america,"  ::) people didn't make nearly as big a deal out of that slip as they should have, in my opinion, and i bet ole' hill is relieved for it.

i was arguing with someone who supported mccain, thought hillary was okay but found barack "creepy." i kinda pressed her what about him made her so ooky and couldn't pin her down, so i pointed out that i couldn't believe she thought republicans still represented her after the last 8 years of horrible failure and she said, "well, they represent me better than some black guy." i was pretty aghast, thought about asking if she would think the same thing if alan keyes or clarence thomas was running, but then just decided... ugh. i need to get away from this person.

it's hard to say how many people don't support barack cuz he's black but i suspect it's rather a lot.

Thom Hartmann thinks there would have been the same result if John Kerry was running against HRC in W.VA.  This is one of the few times I disagree with Mr. Hartmann.  I think she still would have beaten Kerry, but not by such a wide margin.  In Kerry's case it would have class perception.  Never mind that Hillary is worth $100 million.  Kerry came off as a Boston Brahmin stuffshirt.  Anyway...

I think there is still a bitter racial divide in this country and it shows among older whites (NOT ALL) supporting HRC.  There is a small contingent of women, mostly paleo-feminists over 60, who are supporting HRC above BHO because she's a woman, but this is much less of a factor than race.
::)

Now, what they are attacking BHO with in lieu of race is totally lame-o (this means YOU, Sean Hannity):  Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, neither of whom are running for anything.

It's not just racism, it's sexism as well. There are millions of people who are going to vote for McPain just because he's not a woman or a black man. Of course, there are those who will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, and those who will vote for Obama just because he is black. How the final numbers play out will be interesting...

Myself, I think that McPain could be worse than Bush, and seeing as how Hillary isn't going to get the nomination, well, that realistically leaves Obama. Not that I think he's a bad choice - I don't think he's the lesser of three evils. I do worry about his relative inexperience, but I don't trust Hillary, and McCain... he ought to just retire and take up golf (except that it's unpatriotic to play golf now, at least according to Bush  ::)).

Ant

I don't think the midwest has felt that there is anybody worth supporting that represents realistically their socioeconomic concerns for at least the past 3 or 4 elections period.  Alot vote just to say they voted because somebody always says "Well you can't complain if you don't vote."

Whether or not it's racial or gender based I dunno, I think it's got more to do with economic promises from various candidates.  I do think the small town bigots remark from Obama hit home and really got in the craw of alot of small midwest town voters.  Whether he meant it the way he said it or not.

But then, what do I know?  I'm not really versed well on politics anyway.  I have a very mild interest at best.  Too many fake promises from everybody running, it seems like politicians say whatever it takes to get elected then conveniently forget what they promises after elected.

The fact is that racism is alive and well in this country which is a shame. 


Any thoughts? Comments?



Cat


Ok, I already know you will disagree with me here...  I do agree with alot of what you said.  I don't, however, consider that racism.   If all the candidates weren't given an equal opportunity to campaign and compete for our votes, that would be racism or sexism.   The fact is, everyone had an equal opportunity and many who have dropped out due to lack of interest from voters were white males.

We really can't go and cry racism, sexism, etc. because people have preferences.  That is just human nature, and we are allowed to have PERSONAL preferences.  And that's what voting is.  Look at who your friends are.  (Not you specifically, just in general)  They are probably roughly your age, probably most are the same race and gender as you - because they are the people you can best relate to.  Or maybe you lean toward people who are a bit older or a bit younger. If you were looking for a roommate, you'd probably have some preferences with regard to gender, age, etc.  If you're 21, would you want a 65 year old roommate or vice versa??  I don't think we can go so far as to call that discrimination, and I don't think voting is any different.  Each of us gets to vote based on our own personal preferences.   

For the record, McCain is my first choice of the three - yes, a white male.  If Condaleeza were running, she would be likely be my first choice.

Watching CNN and listening to all the pundits talk, they say that Hilary's base is older white, blue-collar workers in the Midwest-and seeing how she did so strong in West Virginia as well as Ohio & Penn. you can see that they are right. However, they neglect to say why. So, I will. Many older, white blue-collar workers in the Midwest are indeed racist. (NOT ALL) When ask of Hilary supporters if Barack wins the nom, if they would support him-many say they will vote for McCain. No one ask them why. I'm sure that many (even though they don't want to admit it) won't vote for him because he is black. Yeah, they may say because he is inexperience or give some other bogus excuse. The fact is that racism is alive and well in this country which is a shame. Seeing how far Barack has come in the political race gave me hope that this country has moved beyond Jim Crow but seeing what is going on, I don't think we have come as far as I had hoped.  And what is also brothering me is that pundits are NOT addressing the issue. I think the issue NEEDS to be address because it is pretty plain to see.


Any thoughts? Comments?



Cat


Yeah, those same dumbasses will vote for someone that will worsen their economic plight simply because he/she is white. I say, let them do it. These idiots obviously didn't learn from Bush's eight years, so screw them! I'll watch them beg for food/money/shelter in my comfy, suburban home. Oh yes, this "colored" gal will laugh her ass off.  :(

To those that are saying that it's not racism when they can simply READ what the polled voters are saying, haha join the same group (apologists are sometimes more worse than the offenders). You deserve what you'll get.

As for Obama's inexperience, JFK had the same amount when he ran for the Presidency. Oh, but wait, that's okay because he's a white male.

it's pretty much the elephant in the living room as hillary touts her big win in west virginia and her upcoming sweep in kentucky, especially on top of her slip about being more in tune with "white america,"  ::) people didn't make nearly as big a deal out of that slip as they should have, in my opinion, and i bet ole' hill is relieved for it.

i was arguing with someone who supported mccain, thought hillary was okay but found barack "creepy." i kinda pressed her what about him made her so ooky and couldn't pin her down, so i pointed out that i couldn't believe she thought republicans still represented her after the last 8 years of horrible failure and she said, "well, they represent me better than some black guy." i was pretty aghast, thought about asking if she would think the same thing if alan keyes or clarence thomas was running, but then just decided... ugh. i need to get away from this person.

it's hard to say how many people don't support barack cuz he's black but i suspect it's rather a lot.



I find him creepy too..but it has nothing to do with his race..nothing at all. I just think that when something looks "too good" and it gets to the point where people are calling him their "savior"....that just doesn't settle right with me. He rubs me the wrong way, that's all. He could be pink, white, blue, or black..and I would still feel the same about him. Sorry..just my opinion.

I don't think the midwest has felt that there is anybody worth supporting that represents realistically their socioeconomic concerns for at least the past 3 or 4 elections period.  Alot vote just to say they voted because somebody always says "Well you can't complain if you don't vote."

Whether or not it's racial or gender based I dunno, I think it's got more to do with economic promises from various candidates.  I do think the small town bigots remark from Obama hit home and really got in the craw of alot of small midwest town voters.   Whether he meant it the way he said it or not.

But then, what do I know?  I'm not really versed well on politics anyway.  I have a very mild interest at best.  Too many fake promises from everybody running, it seems like politicians say whatever it takes to get elected then conveniently forget what they promises after elected.


  As long as politicians feel the need to con us, maybe there's hope..?

I find him creepy too..but it has nothing to do with his race..nothing at all. I just think that when something looks "too good" and it gets to the point where people are calling him their "savior"....that just doesn't settle right with me. He rubs me the wrong way, that's all. He could be pink, white, blue, or black..and I would still feel the same about him. Sorry..just my opinion.


Maybe the "too good" feeling is hope. I honestly can't understand how some people continue to swallow the same, inane political rhetoric. It's sad.

Maybe the "too good" feeling is hope. I honestly can't understand how some people continue to swallow the same, inane political rhetoric. It's sad.


The thing is...there isn't one person that I am really excited about. There isn't anyone that really stands out that I want to vote for. I really would prefer not to vote at all..I WILL vote, but it will be for someone who doesn't have a chance anyway. :-\\

The thing is...there isn't one person that I am really excited about. There isn't anyone that really stands out that I want to vote for. I really would prefer not to vote at all..I WILL vote, but it will be for someone who doesn't have a chance anyway. :-\\


I can understand your non-excitement. However, to vote for someone without a solid chance in hell would be the same as not voting.

I can understand your non-excitement. However, to vote for someone without a solid chance in hell would be the same as not voting.


I just feel like out of the choices...I feel like I don't have a choice. I don't agree with any of them, really. None of them stand out as exceptional in any kind of way, IMO. I can't bring myself to vote for someone just because they are one of the popular choices. I have to at least feel good about my choice.

The thing is...there isn't one person that I am really excited about. There isn't anyone that really stands out that I want to vote for. I really would prefer not to vote at all..I WILL vote, but it will be for someone who doesn't have a chance anyway. :-\\


  Ron Paul was someone to get a teensy-weensy bit excited about, would you agree?  Wrong messenger, perhaps, but definately right message... :)

  These days I'm getting lambasted for declaring support for a third party candidate, being reminded there's no surer way to hand the presidency to McCain short of actually voting for him...

   Ron Paul was someone to get a teensy-weensy bit excited about, would you agree?  Wrong messenger, perhaps, but definately right message... :)

   These days I'm getting lambasted for declaring support for a third party candidate, being reminded there's no surer way to hand the presidency to McCain short of actually voting for him...


See...that's who I was supporting. I really really like Ron Paul. But...he obviously doesn't have a bat's chance in hell. I think he would have been a really good candidate. But..ah well.

See...that's who I was supporting. I really really like Ron Paul. But...he obviously doesn't have a bat's chance in hell. I think he would have been a really good candidate. But..ah well.


  I think so too...

  The Repub nomination is definately history, but you might consider a write-in vote...

   I think so too...

   The Repub nomination is definately history, but you might consider a write-in vote...


that's probably what I will do. I know that it will never amount to anything...but I will at least feel good about my choice. :)

that's probably what I will do. I know that it will never amount to anything...but I will at least feel good about my choice. :)


  That's the spirit..! :)

I hope people didn't think that I was talking about people here voting for someone because of his/her race or gender. I am talking about people in general. It really bothers me that people will vote for someone just because of their race and/or gender rather than WHO they are and where they stand on the issues. I really wish that some of polls would ask WHY people are choosing the way they are. But, no one wants to touch the issue.



Cat

I hope people didn't think that I was talking about people here voting for someone because of his/her race or gender. I am talking about people in general. It really bothers me that people will vote for someone just because of their race and/or gender rather than WHO they are and where they stand on the issues. I really wish that some of polls would ask WHY people are choosing the way they are. But, no one wants to touch the issue.



Cat


I totally understood what you were saying. Ohio voters were asked why they voted the way they did in the primary and some mentioned race.

I totally understood what you were saying. Ohio voters were asked why they voted the way they did in the primary and some mentioned race.



I didn't see that poll. At least they were honest-even though it a shame that racism is still alive and well in this country.



Cat

I can understand your non-excitement. However, to vote for someone without a solid chance in hell would be the same as not voting.


Just have to disagree quickly here.

Voting for a 'no-hope' candidate is a perfectly good use of one's vote. It sends a message that not everybody is happy with the same old - same old 2 party system.

Just have to disagree quickly here.

Voting for a 'no-hope' candidate is a perfectly good use of one's vote. It sends a message that not everybody is happy with the same old - same old 2 party system.
i agree. the dirty secret no one will own up to because it sounds civically irresponsible is: your vote really DOESN'T matter. it will never happen that any single person's vote will be the deciding vote in any election.

that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. it means you should vote for who you want. won't hurt nobody, and if everyone did that politics would be a lot more interesting.

i agree. the dirty secret no one will own up to because it sounds civically irresponsible is: your vote really DOESN'T matter. it will never happen that any single person's vote will be the deciding vote in any election.


Unless of course you live in Florida.


that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. it means you should vote for who you want. won't hurt nobody, and if everyone did that politics would be a lot more interesting.


Right!

I hope people didn't think that I was talking about people here voting for someone because of his/her race or gender. I am talking about people in general. It really bothers me that people will vote for someone just because of their race and/or gender rather than WHO they are and where they stand on the issues. I really wish that some of polls would ask WHY people are choosing the way they are. But, no one wants to touch the issue.



Cat


No, I didn't take it as a reference to people here...  I just think that personal choices don't equal racism/sexism.  There are many reasons why people may vote based on gender or race.  Surely some people think "We've had white males as presidents for the entire life of the US, it's time for a change."  I don't think that's racist.  There might be others who feel more comfortable with a white male because that's all they've ever known.  Some might be afraid of affirmative action spiralling out of control with a minority president, others may feel that a minority president would push more for things that are important to them. 

I think it's absolutely critical that all candidates are allowed to run, campaign, and that all play by the same rules.  But as humans we are going to like who we like for whatever reason (just like with people we know in real life).  That is never going to change unless evolution turns us robotic.

it's pretty much the elephant in the living room as hillary touts her big win in west virginia and her upcoming sweep in kentucky, especially on top of her slip about being more in tune with "white america," 



Hillary:  Uniting America by being both the Elephant in the living room and the Jackass in the trailer park.

Here's something that I know about all the Politicians...there all in it to be in it.

They don't give a damn about the common man, it seems to be more naked in the Republican Party because they are old money. (For awhile, the Republicans were for the common man.) The Democrats seem to be for the common man, the poor, minorities, etc. But in my honest opinion, if Gore was endorsed by Bill Clinton (I think he was, but if gave him some more oomph) then we'd be paying more into Green America and Heath Care. (And I wouldn't doubt that we will).

I hope people didn't think that I was talking about people here voting for someone because of his/her race or gender. I am talking about people in general. It really bothers me that people will vote for someone just because of their race and/or gender rather than WHO they are and where they stand on the issues. I really wish that some of polls would ask WHY people are choosing the way they are. But, no one wants to touch the issue.

Cat


It goes beyond race.  A large size of the population will vote for a candidate simply because he is either a democrat or a republican.  Here in Picksburgh, people would elect a steaming turd to the Mayor's office if it were running as a democrat, for example.  Other areas of the country you find people who do the same for republicans.

I want to see people vote based on THINKING about what the candidates stand for, instead of simply what party they belong to.  Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas (or bad ones)

It goes beyond race.  A large size of the population will vote for a candidate simply because he is either a democrat or a republican.  Here in Picksburgh, people would elect a steaming turd to the Mayor's office if it were running as a democrat, for example.  Other areas of the country you find people who do the same for republicans.

I want to see people vote based on THINKING about what the candidates stand for, instead of simply what party they belong to.  Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas (or bad ones)


You are sooooo on the dot! Some will go for the canidate because of the party that they're in. Trust me, I fell in the same trap and I got myself out in 2005 after I found out that Bob Taft was such a bumbass.

.  Some might be afraid of affirmative action spiralling out of control with a minority president, others may feel that a minority president would push more for things that are important to them. 



So, basically, what you are saying that some Whites fear the same thing they've done to others unto them? I can't imagine living with some paranoid fear for most of my life.

Didn't Hillary win states like New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island? And Barack won midwest states like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois. I definitely wouldn't just be calling out the midwest here. The reality is that yes race (and sex) are sadly still a factor in some people's choices, certainly not only in the midwest. Now I am most certainly not saying that every state Hillary wins is a racist state, and every state that Barack wins is a sexist state...I'm just saying that I don't think that this is at all specific to the midwest, there are a certain amount of people in this country (wherever you go) that make their choice based on idiotic factors like race or sex. Personally I think most people that voted for Hillary were probably voting for the "Clinton" name and not out of racism.

So, basically, what you are saying that some Whites fear the same thing they've done to others unto them? I can't imagine living with some paranoid fear for most of my life.


I think the rich whites have that fear.

Some might be afraid of affirmative action spiralling out of control with a minority president, others may feel that a minority president would push more for things that are important to them. 



So, basically, what you are saying that some Whites fear the same thing they've done to others unto them? I can't imagine living with some paranoid fear for most of my life.


So you are assuming that anybody who is white and is against affirmative action is somehow responsible for prior discrimination?  That sounds rather racist, like "Hey if you are a whte guy and don't like affirmativs action you must be one of those guys who are bigoted"

Some might be afraid of affirmative action spiraling out of control with a minority president, 



GASP!!!  If one is qualified to be President, then that must mean there are some qualified to be firefighters, cops...where will it end?  What more will they want?



So, basically, what you are saying that some Whites fear the same thing they've done to others unto them? I can't imagine living with some paranoid fear for most of my life.



So you are assuming that anybody who is white and is against affirmative action is somehow responsible for prior discrimination?  That sounds rather racist, like "Hey if you are a whte guy and don't like affirmativs action you must be one of those guys who are bigoted"



Noooooo.  Don't know where you read that.  There are some, not everyone or anyone, who may feel that way, and they are feeling rather paranoid about it. 

This was in today's paper:

Talking about race isn't racist

  Barrie Dunsmore

Race is an important factor in the presidential election campaign. I have written that sentence before, and it was the subject of my most recent column. But as my teenage daughter and her friends would likely put it, "Duh!" (translation for those without regular contact with teenagers - "What would you expect, stupid?") Given the fact that an African-American (albeit with a white mother) is poised to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee with a very good shot at becoming president of the United States, of course one should not be shocked that race would be a factor in the campaign. Going back to the intense debates over the Constitution between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding states, race has never ceased to be a factor in this country's politics. I don't mean to trivialize it or to overstate it - it is what it is (another expression I borrow from my younger friends).

Two weeks ago, I believed that if Sen. Barack Obama lost both North Carolina and Indiana, his candidacy could begin to unravel. As it turned out he won North Carolina by a landslide and nearly defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton in Indiana. That gave him a commanding lead in elected delegates. And by the middle of last week he had picked up an additional 27 super-delegates, giving him the lead in that category as well. As a result he has become the presumptive Democratic nominee. Even Clinton stalwarts such as James Carville now concede that fact.

So what to make of the thrashing the presumptive nominee took last week in West Virginia, where Clinton defeated him by a margin of more than two to one? The conventional wisdom is that it doesn't essentially change the dynamic or the numbers in the race for the nomination. "Hillary wins - does anybody care?" was Wednesday morning's headline in the Politico, one of the mainstream media's hot new Web sites.

But within many of the stories about the West Virginia primary, there was certainly something for the Obama campaign to care about. According to the exit polls, half of the voters said they believed Obama shared the highly inflammatory views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Half said Obama did not share their values, and more than half said he was not honest and trustworthy. And that wasn't the only bad news. Only a third of Clinton's supporters said they would vote for Obama if he became the nominee. Nearly a third said they'd vote for McCain, and a quarter said they'd stay home.

How much of this had to do with the color of Obama's skin? We don't know for certain. However, one in five voters told the pollsters that race was important to them (a percentage second only to Mississippi's), and 85 percent of those said they voted for Clinton.

I don't think it disparages Clinton to say she is using polls such as these to make the point to the superdelegates that she would be the strongest candidate against McCain. That's not racism. That's simply trying to make your own best case.

The fact is that Clinton runs stronger than Obama with whites who did not graduate from college and who have incomes less than $50,000. And it's also a fact that there are millions of such people in many of the major states that must be won in November to win the presidency.

But there is little evidence to suggest that Clinton's argument is prevailing among the fewer than 200 superdelegates who have yet to declare and most of whom she would need to get her the nomination.

"This race, I believe, is over," said Roy Romer, a superdelegate, former chairman of the Democratic Party (thanks to President Bill Clinton) and former governor of Colorado. Last week he opted for Obama, and in making his endorsement said, "I watched all of these primaries and caucus states and decided Barack Obama was the most electable."

In the final analysis, this is what the so-called superdelegates, or party elders, are supposed to do - choose the candidate they believe is most likely to win in November. And every indication at this late stage of the campaign is that they will choose Obama - notwithstanding his potential electoral problems with working-class whites.

This choice is not being made on a wing and a prayer. As the issue of race has finally and inevitably emerged, there are some hard facts that are being used by the Obama campaign and its supporters to make their case with the superdelegates.

No Democrat has won a majority of the white vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Obama is winning more than 90 percent of the black vote and has greatly increased the number of black registered voters. (And no modern-day Democrat has won the White House without the strong support of African-Americans.)

In national polls, Obama beats McCain by several percentage points more than Clinton does. Significantly, he leads McCain 51-42 among independents.

Obama has energized millions of young supporters. But somewhat famously in 1968, 1972, 1984 and 2004, many young people who were deeply engaged in the primaries lost interest before election time, especially when their candidate did not get the nomination. This could happen again, it's argued, if Obama is not heading the ticket.

Finally, Obama is a unifying figure, he represents change and has been getting a majority of those who want change. This is important because in primary after primary this year, the vast majority of the voters have identified themselves to pollsters as people not satisfied with the current direction of the country and who strongly want to see changes in policies - from the economy and the war in Iraq to the environment and health care.

No one expects the issue of race to go away, and if, as expected, Obama is the nominee, he will have to do many things, large and small, to address it. For instance, he is by no means out of the woods when it comes to the Rev. Wright. Questions about Obama's faith and his patriotism are going to continue to dog him. He also has to campaign in such a way as to put to rest the notion that this biracial man whose mother once lived on food stamps is an elitist, who lacks the common touch.

As I understand it, he and his campaign are sensitive to these issues and have already started to address them.

Perhaps one of the most important decisions Obama can make that could help or hinder his chances for the presidency will be his choice of a running mate. That calculation became more complicated last week when John Edwards endorsed Obama. Edwards' populist image might help Obama with blue-collar workers, and presumably this puts Edwards on the V.P. short list.

Some other interesting names have surfaced recently: Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (a strong Clinton supporter). Both states will be key ones in November.

The Washington Post's political team's first choice is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, the popular two-term governor of Kansas, which is traditionally a Republican state. Of course the fact that she is a woman might be her main asset, and choosing her might be a way to attract some of those many millions of older women who have stuck with Clinton.

One of the more intriguing names I've heard is James Webb, the new Democratic senator from Virginia, a former Republican, once Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, a respected Vietnam veteran and someone who strongly opposes the war in Iraq.

Webb would dovetail very nicely with Obama's ideas about Iraq and would appear to burnish his slender foreign policy credentials, which could be most useful in the campaign against McCain.

The most attention on this subject has of course been focused on Hillary Clinton. I was a supporter of the "dream ticket" if Clinton were going to be the presidential nominee. I thought she would need Obama to keep his young supporters and most African-Americans on board, and that was absolutely essential to victory in November.

I am less enthusiastic about Hillary as the No. 2. Actually, until recently, I did not think she would even consider the vice presidency but there have been some credible hints from people who know her that she would take it.

I think she could help Obama, especially with older women and working-class males. She might be a bit of a hard sell for Obama, who has staked his campaign on the fact that he represented the new politics while she was mired in Washington politics, old-style.

But I think there is a problem that would become a major one should they win: what to do with Bill? Bill Clinton is a towering political presence, and short of making him the chief justice of the Supreme Court (a seat not vacant for the moment), I don't think Obama could find a big enough job for the former president that would satisfy his incredible energy and his insatiable appetite for politics.

I doubt it would take a month before Bill would be on the cover of Time or Newsweek, described as either "running" or "undermining" the new Obama administration.

Whatever Hillary Clinton might bring to the table, and it could be substantial, I don't think it would compensate for that inevitable down side.

Correction: An earlier column gave an incorrect date for the Democratic National Convention, which is to be held Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News now living in Charlotte.


Copyright, 2008, Rutland Herald


http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=120B6A30B7C55FD0&p_docnum=1



Cat

So, basically, what you are saying that some Whites fear the same thing they've done to others unto them? I can't imagine living with some paranoid fear for most of my life.


Yes, that is what I'm saying.  I'm sure there are some who feel that way, just like there are some who feel they want a minority to represent them.  It goes both ways.  I don't see that people really have a system for choosing their candidate.  People have all sorts of different thoughts, criteria, etc that are important to them.  I admit I'm guilty too.  I mentioned earlier that if Condaleeza were running, she would likely be my first choice.  How can I say that?  She didn't run, so I haven't seen her campaign, debate, or speak on the issues.  The truth is, I don't know.  I just like her and I've always gotten good vibes from her.  If she had run, I would have tried to focus on the issues but unless I saw a good reason NOT to vote for her, the fact that she is appealing to me would have earned her my vote over McCain.  People could tell me I'm wrong until they're blue in the face but I only get one vote (that doesn't count anyways), and I'm going to use it the way I want to.  That's what I think everyone should do.

I think the rich whites have that fear.


It's not just them b/c after watching interviews of West Virginians discussing why their voted the way they did, I would surmise that they aren't rich folks.

But, if that's what you wish to believe, fine.

So you are assuming that anybody who is white and is against affirmative action is somehow responsible for prior discrimination?  That sounds rather racist, like "Hey if you are a whte guy and don't like affirmativs action you must be one of those guys who are bigoted"


The ones that are against it tend to reap the benefits of prior discrimination. Also, they don't really understand it to begin with. You can deny it all you want (which is obvious), but it's the truth. The funny thing is that those that have benefited the greatest are white females, so the hilarity of being against it is there. The same people that tend to be against it didn't have a problem when it wasn't in place and when non-diverse working forces were apparent.

Learn the word racism before you sprout it. It's thrown around terribly these days.

The ones that are against it tend to reap the benefits of prior discrimination. Also, they don't really understand it to begin with. You can deny it all you want (which is obvious), but it's the truth. The funny thing is that those that have benefited the greatest are white females, so the hilarity of being against it is there. The same people that tend to be against it didn't have a problem when it wasn't in place and when non-diverse working forces were apparent.

Learn the word racism before you sprout it. It's thrown around terribly these days.

Just be patient with the WASPs.  It took them 800 years just to trust the Jews.  We're making comparitively rapid progress with everyone else!
:-\\

Just be patient with the WASPs.  It took them 800 years just to trust the Jews.  We're making comparitively rapid progress with everyone else!
:-\\


Haha. I'm more worried with the working-class that love to scapegoat everyone else for their ills.

It's not just them b/c after watching interviews of West Virginians discussing why their voted the way they did, I would surmise that they aren't rich folks.

But, if that's what you wish to believe, fine.


I know that it's not just those types, but for some reason that rich white men(older ones mainly) came to mind at that moment.

I don't have a belief that it's just them.

Edit: I do know one thing for sure, I don't want McCain to be president.

I know that it's not just those types, but for some reason that rich white men(older ones mainly) came to mind at that moment.

I don't have a belief that it's just them.

Edit: I do know one thing for sure, I don't want McCain to be president.




You are not alone, babe. Unfortunately, my American brothers and sisters will not get the message and vote for yet another Republican president that doesn't give a damn about them. They'll whine about it when he hurts them again. It's a socially-retarded cycle.

I think the key to Obama winning will involve selecting Richardson as his running mate.

Obama shouldn't aim to get the whites that judge him for his race.  It doesn't matter who his running mate is or what he says, if someone doesn't like him because he's black, they've already made their mind up.  What matters is that Obama has been winning the votes of whites that are open-minded.

Now, Obama should aim for getting the Hispanic vote.  Richardson will help him get this.  In addition, Obama and the DNC should do everything possible to make sure blacks get out and actually vote.  It may not be politically correct to say this, but blacks really do have one of the lower voter turnouts in most elections.  Thankfully, Obama is a candidate they can relate to, so he should inspire more blacks to be politically active.  So far, we've seen a turnout among blacks not seen since Jesse Jackson ran for president back in '84.

If blacks remain active for the general election, we may actually see Obama break through the "Solid South" of the Republican party.  Even a state like mine has enough of a black population to counter a lot of the white redneck and Religious Right vote.

I think it's pretty much a given that Obama will lose many states that are highly rural with a small black population because of racism.  However, I don't think that's too big of a deal when you consider he has strong support in urban areas.  In addition to this, there are some standout states that are mostly white and rural that still support Obama.  For example, Iowa breaks the mold when it comes to trends seen in other small states.  I'm pretty sure Obama will win that state in November.

If Obama can win the Cuban vote, he'll likely win Florida.  If there is a high voter turnout among blacks in Ohio, he can win that state as well.

So, there is still a lot of hope for Obama's electability.

Now, the harsh truth of the matter is that it's doubtful Obama will win any of the states marked red below specifically because of racism....

http://i30.tinypic.com/20a40uf.gif

republican...democrat....meh, nothing changes regardless of who is in there. They are all liars. ::)

M grandfather said that as well. ^


You are not alone, babe. Unfortunately, my American brothers and sisters will not get the message and vote for yet another Republican president that doesn't give a damn about them. They'll whine about it when he hurts them again. It's a socially-retarded cycle.


The thought of McCain becoming the next prez makes me want to leave the country.

I think the key to Obama winning will involve selecting Richardson as his running mate.

Thankfully, Obama is a candidate they can relate to, so he should inspire more blacks to be politically active.  So far, we've seen a turnout among blacks not seen since Jesse Jackson ran for president back in '84.

If blacks remain active for the general election, we may actually see Obama break through the "Solid South" of the Republican party.  Even a state like mine has enough of a black population to counter a lot of the white redneck and Religious Right vote.

I think it's pretty much a given that Obama will lose many states that are highly rural with a small black population because of racism. 

Wait, which side of the fence are you on??  You say that if blacks remain active for the general election, we may actually see Obama break through....  so you're saying these blacks will vote for Obama because he's black, right??   Is that racism??

Cause I noticed one paragraph later when you mention rural areas voting for a white candidate, you call it racism...??

I do agree with your overall prediction of how it will play out, btw. 

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/political-picture-minister-information-iraqi-hillary-winning.jpg

Just thought I'd convey the message :D

Wait, which side of the fence are you on??  You say that if blacks remain active for the general election, we may actually see Obama break through....  so you're saying these blacks will vote for Obama because he's black, right??   Is that racism??

Cause I noticed one paragraph later when you mention rural areas voting for a white candidate, you call it racism...??

I do agree with your overall prediction of how it will play out, btw. 


Eh..  fair point, but I like the way that a commentator on CNN put it.  He basically said that blacks voting for Obama because he's black is more understandable than whites not voting for him because of the same reason, since Obama (if he wins the nomination) will be the first ever black presidential candidate for a major party in America.

Essentially, this means that blacks will finally have a black candidate to pick, whereas whites have had plenty of white candidates to pick in the past.  It's a matter of choices, really.  It seems only fair for blacks to be enthusiastic about finally having a black candidate to pick, and whites ought to be open to voting for Obama based on the merits of his platform.

It may seem one-sided in a technical sense, but then again, the system itself has been one-sided for a long time in the opposite direction.

Eh..  fair point, but I like the way that a commentator on CNN put it.  He basically said that blacks voting for Obama because he's black is more understandable than whites not voting for him because of the same reason, since Obama (if he wins the nomination) will be the first ever black presidential candidate for a major party in America.

Essentially, this means that blacks will finally have a black candidate to pick, whereas whites have had plenty of white candidates to pick in the past.  It's a matter of choices, really.  It seems only fair for blacks to be enthusiastic about finally having a black candidate to pick, and whites ought to be open to voting for Obama based on the merits of his platform.

It may seem one-sided in a technical sense, but then again, the system itself has been one-sided for a long time in the opposite direction.


I agree here.  What about older women supporting Hillary because Hillary's, erm, one of the girls?  I heard a lot of grumpy grandmothers calling C-SPAN this morning saying Hillary or bust!

All of this leads me back to the fact that people vote for candidates because of WHAT they are rather than WHO they are. Whether it be black/white, male/female, Republican/Democrat, etc. etc. I will say it again-it is a shame.




Cat 

Many voted for Kennedy because he was Catholic. Many voted for Dukakis because he was Greek. Many will vote for McCain because he is white. many will vote for Obama because he is black.  Many will find other reasons for choosing for whom to vote.  That is just the way it is.

Many voted for Kennedy because he was Catholic. Many voted for Dukakis because he was Greek. Many will vote for McCain because he is white. many will vote for Obama because he is black.  Many will find other reasons for choosing for whom to vote.  That is just the way it is.

Karma +1

All of this leads me back to the fact that people vote for candidates because of WHAT they are rather than WHO they are. Whether it be black/white, male/female, Republican/Democrat, etc. etc. I will say it again-it is a shame.




Cat 



That it is. :-\\