Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dems’ Split over Obama Not About Race and Sour Grapes

More relevant are the baroque delegate rules and strong-arm tactics that helped him to victory.

by
Kyle-Anne Shiver

Bio

October 4, 2008 - 12:05 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

A recent Associated Press story glibly proclaimed that “deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House.” The story relied on an AP-Yahoo poll that posed questions regarding race to white Democrats.

One is left to wonder why questions regarding race were not posed to black Democrats or why the “poll” was more of a word association test, left open to completely subjective reasoning in deciphering results. But anyone who has been following the Democratic Party rifts from this season’s primaries and caucuses would not, in my opinion, be inclined to buy the it’s-all-about-race argument.

It’s quite troubling, really, that mainstream media outlets are focusing upon “racial misgivings” factors, while all but ignoring the major divides among voting constituencies that occurred during the nominating contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These rifts revolved much more around exactly how Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination than any sort of racial divide or even sour grapes.

In fact, there are dozens of voter groups which claim outright that Barack Obama’s nomination was garnered illegitimately and with decidedly undemocratic methods. These are the PUMA people, the NoBama folks, the caucus-fraud investigators, and a whole lot of others who fervently believe that Barack Obama is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party electorate, but the nominee of the party elite and caucus strong-arm tactics.

If Barack Obama loses a large swath of traditionally Democratic voters in November, then the party should conduct serious introspection, not point fingers at white bigots and rednecks.

Howard Dean and his minions who control the Democratic Party apparatus should examine the methods used by Obama to grab the nomination and his manipulation of the caucus system, and take a long, serious look inward to see if their party still deserves the adjective “democratic.”

In the Democratic nominating contest, some votes count more than others

When the Democratic Party changed all of its nominating rules following the convention of 1968, the goal of nominating a candidate who could win the general election was changed to a goal of nominating a candidate representative of the various special constituencies of the party and rewarding party loyalty, not electability.

At the beginning of the contest, the African-American vote was split in Clinton’s favor, especially on the gender line.

Click here to view the 106 legacy comments

Comments are closed.