Is Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America?
In politics, as in life, wishing something doesn’t make it so.
For instance, I wish I could believe that Barack Obama’s thumpin’ in West Virginia — coupled with his losses in similarly working-class and mostly white Indiana and Pennyslvania — had nothing to do with race (as Ari Kaufman claimed here yesterday) and that voters decided those races on the merits, weighing only the issues and perhaps concerns about Obama’s truthfulness in light of lingering questions about his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Maybe if Hillary Clinton hadn’t boasted about the support she’s getting from white voters when she blurted out to USA Today that “Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again” and that whites who had not completed college were backing her.
Maybe if there hadn’t been that illuminating article in the Washington Post about racist incidents experienced by Obama volunteers in Indiana and Pennsylvania, and if bomb threats hadn’t been called into Obama campaign offices in some parts of Indiana and other offices in the states vandalized.
Maybe if Mike Norman — a white bar owner in Marietta, Georgia — wasn’t doing a swift business hawking “Obama ’08” t-shirts with a picture of Curious George holding a banana because, Norman insists, he saw a resemblance between the cartoon and the African-American presidential candidate.
Maybe if, in West Virginia, Clinton hadn’t beaten Obama by 2-to-1; if Clinton hadn’t won about 70 percent of the white vote; if she hadn’t won – for the first time – the under-30 white vote; if 22 percent of white voters hadn’t said that race was a factor in how they voted; and if 80 percent of those who felt that way hadn’t supported Clinton.
And maybe if there weren’t still parts of the country where white people are conditioned to think of black people as inferior and have a hard time getting their head around the concept of a half Kenyan/half Kansan Harvard Law School graduate/U.S. Senator/bestselling author who could well become the nation’s first black president.
But that’s a lot of “maybes” to get beyond.
And while Obama won the votes of “hardworking white Americans” in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming, that doesn’t change the fact that — elsewhere — white support has been elusive for the Democratic frontrunner.
Now there are those who would point out that, in this primary election, black support has been just as elusive for Hillary Clinton and that Obama has routinely walked off with 80 percent or more of the black vote.
That’s true. But it’s hard to draw an apples-to-apples comparison between that and what happened in West Virginia.
First, voting for someone because of his or her race, religion or ethnicity isn’t the same as voting against someone for those reasons. Jewish voters might have been drawn to Joe Lieberman. But it’s a whole different kettle of fish when you have other voters rejecting Lieberman because he is Jewish. There are words to describe that sort of thing, and they all end in “-ism.”
Besides, you can’t say that black Democrats haven’t shown their willingness over the years to support white presidential candidates. In the last 50 years, black voters have voted for John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukasis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and John Kennedy. But this is the first time in our nation’s history that white voters have a chance to vote for a black candidate for president who might actually have a shot at the presidency. And how are they responding?
In some cases, in some places, the answer is: not well.
I wish it were otherwise.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist, a frequent lecturer and a regular contributor to CNN.com.
Maybe if Mr Obama had not deliberately mocked and insulted those “hard-working Americans, white Americans”? Oh but that would not allow you to write off the opinions of a large section of the population that has not bought the vacuous ‘hope and change’ tonic he’s been peddling.
How silly of me. White voters don’t dislike Mr Obama because he is a radical leftist, elitist AND a bigot, but because he is half-black.
It’s the entire attitude surrounding people that share Mr. Navarette’s myopic worldview that people instinctively find offensive. Identity group politics is nauseating. The people who practice it are nauseating. The double standards are nauseating. Honest people are quite right to reject Obama. They are not victims who need rescue by government. They are offended by that suggestion.
It’s Mr Navarette who is race obsessed. Under the thin veneer of political correctness, there is a common undercurrent of Marxist hostility in his articles. It’s the new 21st century version of bigotry.
What is Mr Navarrette’s job? Last week, he tried to make the case that illegal aliens carrying the Mexican flag during marches making demands of the American People was the same as Italians-Americans celebrating Columbus Day by carrying the Italian flag or Jews celebrating Israel’s Independence Day carrying Israels flag.
Today, Mr Navarrette tries to make the absurd case that when Blacks vote for Obama (and against the white candidate), because of his race, that’s not racism. When Whites vote for Hillary, (and against Obama) that is racism.
What’s next for Mr Navarrette? The moon is made of Swiss cheese? Gravity doesn’t exist, and if we believe hard enough, we can levitate? Big government helps the little guy? I can’t wait to read what absurdity Mr Navarrette will make the case for next. He’s amazing.
Yes racism is hurting Obama. He’s a racist. You do not sit under a pastor for 20 years and not know about the things that Wright is about.
If you don’t support Hillary, you’re sexist. If you don’t support Obama you’re racist.
First, voting for someone because of his or her race, religion or ethnicity isn’t the same as voting against someone for those reasons.
In other words white people can’t vote for white people because they are white. Non-white people, by all means they can. Nice double standard.
Of course there is a racist element to Obama’s losses.
But it is a backlash. At the beginning of the primaries, white people were falling all over themselves to vote for Obama; very few cared what the Senator’s race was then and very few care now.
After the vile Jeremiah Wright videos were shown, Obama tried to shrug it off and equivocate in his speech in Philadelphia. He became an apologist for black racism and for Wright. This put Obama squarely into the camp of black racism.
When it became known that Obama stayed at Wright’s church for 20 years, claiming that he was unaware of Wright’s views, claiming that he was unaware of Trinity United Church disseminating the views of the terrorist group HAMAS in it’s hand-outs, ignoring the implications of Wright’s relationship with and honoring of Louis Farakkahn, white voters began to distrust Obama (with good reason). This is NOT racism, friends, it’s logic.
All the while the black vote for Obama has become almost monolithic at around 90%. Is there no racist element there?
OK, if you want to argue that the Clintons are racist, that’s one thing. But the vast majority of their voters? I don’t see it. The anecdotes you present (in a nation of 300 million) are not that persuasive. I’m sure some of it really happened. I’m also sure some of it was made-up (that happens, too). But why are you branding almost half of the Democratic party racist on the behavior of a few? Even if among those few are the candidates themselves and their highly paid, media connected and beltway dwelling operatives?
In fact before the Left Reverend Wright episode, Sen. Obama got the votes of many “white working class men.” The episode provided them with persuasive new information and many changed their minds. What do you do in those circumstances? Banish all doubt?
We should remember that most Americans do not trust “objective” media. So when the objective media portrays someone in Saintly terms and then a locked safe full of dirty laundry and a biography full of poetic license comes to light, what do they do? They decide the rest of the reporting is crap, which is a reasonable conclusion. But based on the “objective” medias prior behavior, do you suggest the media be taken at face value? Are you saying if we are not idiots and naive fools, we are racist? You pitch the guy as transcending race. He has a racist preacher and terrorist friends and corrupt money men supporters. And somehow his “typical white” grandmother or someone he met at school is their equivalent. You guys not only buy it, you sell it. Where you got your heads?
The media sells Barak Obama in a way that would make history’s most despicable used car salesman blush. No “truth in advertising” laws for you guys. You just shove your past distortions down the memory hole.
Exactly why should moderate-conservative white Americans vote for Obama?
Obama can preach unity all he wishes, but the facts plain to all by now are that he comes from a hard left, black power background and that he has expressed a particular patronizing contempt for people like the voters of West Virginia. He didn’t even show them the respect of campaigning in that state. He and his campaign advisor wrote those people off and they returned the favor.
And now they are being called racist for doing so. Swell. Far from being a unifier, Obama is heightening the divisions in America.
There’s a very simple way to blow this author’s argument out of water. What if instead of Obama it was Judge Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell or any other black conservative? Do you really believe the results would be the same?
As Michael Stipe once said, “We’re all racist, some of us just deal with it better than others.”
I don’t think most of America is racist no matter how much Ruben wishes it.
Of course racism is hurting the Obama campaign now: the ugly, unreasoning, vile racism of his chosen pastor for 20 years, coupled with the lies that the pastor’s remarks shown in the film clips were not a fair representation of that pastor’s views, that Barack Obama didn’t know about those views. The pastor himself said that the clips were entirely fair (by reprising them on national TV) and called Obama a liar for saying he did not know about them.
Yes, racism is definitely hurting Obama, because the voters are rejecting racism.
Is this not Exhibit A of the type of condescenscion that is dooming Barack Obama right now?
I am blown away that people actually expect white voters to embrace as Commander-in-Chief a man who believes in black liberation theology. A man who has clearly lied to the American people concerning what he knew of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and when he knew it.
What, exactly, is Ruben going to say when Barack loses the Puerto Rico primary??? That certainly looks like a distinct possibility. Start preparing right now, Ruben. For if that does come to pass, your dance ought to be very interesting in trying to explain that one.
“In politics, as in life, wishing something doesn’t make it so.” Back at ‘cha, Ruben, back at ‘cha.
Navarette is choosing to look at life through racist tinted glasses, and his argument seems to be that if you voted against Obama that proves that you are a racist.
Mr. Navarette, could you please tell me on what basis a white voter might reject Sen. Obama at the polls and not be called a racist? I am betting here that in Navarette’s world view no such basis is possible. Personally, I’d like to see some one in the media talk about the how the MSM is covering for Obama and how this is just Affirmative Action writ large: no matter what Obama says or does he gets an ‘A’ from the MSM.
The problem here is that there are a lot of places where we don’t do affirmative action, like air line pilots or heart surgeons and I doubt that people are all that receptive to the idea of Affirmative Action for the Presidency of the United States either.
Ruben must hate white people as much as he would like to think white people hate him. First we should accept the Mexican racists / nationalist who want to take over parts of the us, now we MUST vote for the whitey-hating black lest we be racist on that front too.
It is important to note that voting for a black candidate simply because one is offered the choice to is extremely illogical. The fact is that the author is writing with some seriously thick racist glasses himself. Racism wrapped in intelligent syntax and good intention is still racism. The fact that many commentators choose to use this angle to call the rust belt states “white trash” that can’t think beyond race is in fact a huge reason that many of us are insulted. It goes hand in hand with Obama’s comments to the Getty Jr. crowd in frisco. The fact is that I live in PA close to WV and I and my friends have a very different vision of the future of America than Sen. Obama. The constitution is NOT alive. To shout “racism” is merely a venue to sidestep this argument.
The other thing that Navarette fails to understand is that Obama had yet to be exposed as the empty suit that he in fact is. White voters loved him before the Wright scandal; I confess that I did too and without that knowledge might have voted for him. But I have also learned about his policies, which I reject, and also having seen him get the number of states wrong, which city he is in wrong, (if that isn’t all looking alike, I don’t know what is, not to mention total lack of respect), he thinks they speak Arabic in Afganistan and believes that we need agronomists in Bagdad.. he continues to argue that McCain want’s to spend the next 100 years in Iraq, he allys himself with domestic terrorists, he considers Hezbollah’s stated goals of destroying Israel to have some basis in solid reasoning, and he wants to sit down personally with the President of Iran, without preconditions, as though he has some ingenius argument that will make Amadinijad change his mind about wiping Israel off the map……
Obama just doesn’t know enough to be President….too much organizing the community for his political benefit, not enough learning about the communities he wants to organize, not enough learning about the world in which we live.
Mr. Navarette, you don’t get something very simple.
For TWENTY YEARS BArack Obama sat in the church of an unspeakable racist and avowed racial separatist. Everyone knows that now. He also lied about it by claiming he didn’t know what Wright was saying. For that to be true, OBama would have to have been a moron. You have it backwards. Obama is the racist, not the people of Indiana.
You are projecting, sir.
Welcome to the Big Leagues, Ruben. Unlike at CNN.com or the SD Union-Trib, folks who comment at PJM have some depth and won’t gobble up your whirlwind nonsense.
I don’t even know where to start with your article that was supposedly a rebuttal to mine from yesterday, but never actually addressed my piece.
I shouldn’t have to reiterate my arguments (I was more castigating the media and not Sen. Obama actually), nor those from the sentient readers/commenters here, but some issues may need clarification it seems:
Ruben, have you visited Indiana, Pennsylvania or West Virginia lately? There’s not much racial tension. I live in Indiana, was in WV last weekend and am in the Keystone State often. Outside of Philly, which is basically a coastal liberal city, there’s far less racial divide in Indy, Charleston, Evansville, Morgantown, even Gary than LA, SD, NY, DC, Miami, etc. I’ve lived in all those aforemtioned cities, by the way. The media, as usual, misleads us—-just like you and Kevin Merida. The agenda is clear.
Ruben, every single person I know, and as evidenced in the 80 comments under my article and the 20 so far here, who is not voting for Obama, is doing so for reasons OTHER than race. The fact that his father hailed from Kenya (note I don’t call him black since he’s half white and was raised by white folks) is unimportant when:
-he lacks any leadership experience
-has a very naive and dangerous foreign policy
-his elitism shows he is out of touch with real Americans
-he has connections with rogue people (Wright, Ayres, even his wife—who defines a racist)
-has this empty message of “hope”
and “change” with no substance or plans behind it
And most importantly, his politics lay out of the FAR left with Marxist leanings. No way a Republican with far right politics could get elected in 2008, thus we have the moderate McCain. But the Democrats apparently don’t follow the same rules, or understand America (Kerry, Dukakis as examples), which is why they lose elections and will lose in November with BHO.
And when you keep attacking IN, PA and WV for supporting Hillary, why do you conveniently leave out the fact that Obama (not Hillary) has won all the “whitest” states: Vermont, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, etc. He won those states, all with white populations of over 97%, EASILY, as he will win
Oregon next week. Is that racist? Judging anyone differently based upons kin color is, by definition, racist. 90% of blacks voting for Obama over Hillary (whose husband was once deemed “the fist black president”) could be considered racist.
Do you guys live in a cocoon, or just purposely avoid facts? Seems only when Obama loses a state that is predominantly white (though Indiana at 90% white and PA at 87% white are more diverse than the others noted above), does the media surreptitiously publish agenda-driven, pro-Obama “news” stories. No wonder no one trusts you guys anymore, aside from the sheltered elites who read the WaPo and NY Crimes.
Ruben, your piece is as irresponsible as Merida’s. There are basically no links to back up your stances. (My article had 25 hyperlinks)I had truly hoped for better, but as people note, you still miss the overarching reasons why people will not support Obama in the fall. A few random anecdotes do not lend credence to your theories. Like Mr. Merida and the mainstream media, you leave more holes in your stances than swiss cheese. But this is precisely why Fox News, talk radio, and blogs like this one succeed, while newspapers, liberal talk radio, CNN and MSNBC fail.
I look forward to your response, but I also don’t expect one.
Where are the pollsters when you really need them? I strongly suspect that for every white person unwilling to vote for a “man of color”—another twenty voted for Obama for precisely that reason! A black center-right black politician would easily be elected president in the United States. Unfortunately, Obama is a man of the far left pretending to be something of a centrist. He will be soundly rejected in November.
Ruben, you have received support from Cobb previously on these pages, and that carries some weight with me, so, for that reason alone, you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Let me go through your article with a fine toothed comb and see if we can’t come to at least the points of disagreement, if not, isolate out the areas that need clarification.
“In politics, as in life, wishing something doesn’t make it so.
For instance, I wish I could believe that Barack Obama’s thumpin’ in West Virginia — coupled with his losses in similarly working-class and mostly white Indiana and Pennyslvania — had nothing to do with race (as Ari Kaufman claimed here yesterday) and that voters decided those races on the merits, weighing only the issues and perhaps concerns about Obama’s truthfulness in light of lingering questions about his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”
“Weighing only the issues and perhaps concerns….about his relationship with Rev. Wright”
Ruben, you couldn’t have watered down the legitimate reasons why people might have voted FOR his opponent, or AGAINST him…any more if you had a tap directly into the Pacific Ocean.
First, some people may, might or could consider the close embrace of Rev. Wright as an actual, you know…”issue”. Or perhaps as a piece of a larger issue. And that issue being that Sen. Obama has a LIFELONG attachment to extremist and highly partisan voices with long standing histories of hatred toward the USA or Israel. Frank Marshall Davis, his radical college professors, Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Meeks, Ayers & Dorhn, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, Tony Rezco, Robert Malley, Brzezinski, McPeak, Power, Lake.
His closest advisors and a substantial portion of his mentors, and “inner circle”, (spiritual, educational, emotional, political) come from a very far, hard left…screeching, angry, hostile credo of America bashing and Israel hating.
To try to water that down, to ignore its existence and to paint everyone who arches an eyebrow at it as a racist, is disingenuous at best and race-baiting cowardice at its worst.
I will assume for a moment that you simply took shortcuts in your article and you didn’t mean to imply that voting FOR Hillary Clinton or voting AGAINST Sen. Obama…MUST be tied to some form of racism. The argument is a dangerous fallacy, but it may say more about your perspective than that of the majority of voters who are still not convinced that Sen. Obama is deserving of their votes.
“Maybe if Hillary Clinton hadn’t boasted about the support she’s getting from white voters when she blurted out to USA Today that “Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again” and that whites who had not completed college were backing her.”
What about the blacks folks who have and have not completed college voting for Sen. Obama? It seems to me that he is pulling SUBTANTIALLY more votes across color lines than any other candidate.
What do we call the near perfect record of blacks voting for Sen. Obama? Racial pride? Only voting on the “issues”? Let’s not be coy. A greater percentage of blacks are voting FOR Sen. Obama due in part or in whole because he is identified as a black candidate, than whites who are voting against him because he is identified as a black candidate.
Is that “racist”? I would prefer to call it “racialist”. There is a stronger “connection” in identity to that candidate and a weaker identity to another candidate. Is that “wrong”? Well, it’s certainly not voting on the “issues”…that you seem so desperately interested in white voters engaging themselves in, but seem to have little, if any, concern about black voters doing the same thing.
Perhaps what is gravy for the goose is indeed not gravy for the gander, but you haven’t addressed why that may be the case. At all. The non-elite, intellegensia, academia crowd…you know, the guys that leftists call “flyover country”, “trailer trash”, “inbred Jeds”, ….perhaps they are looking at the very hard leftism surrounding Sen. Obama and they have a discomfort with that. Maybe they think that his not wearing a flag lapel pin…because he is more comfortable with a Che Guevara poster is a signal flare about his belief system. Maybe being insulted about “clinging to religion” carries more weight than his thin “apology” and alibi about making the statement. Just maybe…it’s being called a mean, angry, slothful country by his wife that resonates with them, more than hopey-changey rhetoric does. Just maybe.
“Maybe if there hadn’t been that illuminating article in the Washington Post about racist incidents experienced by Obama volunteers in Indiana and Pennsylvania, and if bomb threats hadn’t been called into Obama campaign offices in some parts of Indiana and other offices in the states vandalized.”
How illuminating is any Washington Post, NYTimes, Newsweek, MSNBC article or blurb these days? Are we seeing any threats to any of the other candidates? Exposing things said on Kos Kidz? This anecdotal stuff was dragged out to make the “illuminating” point…that doesn’t really illuminate anything…since it can be pointed out in OPPOSING directions all day long as well.
But the disgrace here…is to try to tie that to everyone who doesn’t vote for Sen. Obama…and then accuse them sub rosa…of racism. What a quantum leap of logic that is. Why are the Koz Kidz not voting for Sen. McCain? Age discrimination?
That’s pretty thin gruel for such a leap. The Koz Kidz aren’t voting for Sen. McCain, because they hold a worldview that is skewed from reality, not because he could be their father or grandfather. If Sen. Obama was 71 and Sen. McCain was 46…that voting pattern would be nearly identical.
If you wish to be suckered into the leftist screed by the NYTimes, Washington Post and the other leftist rags around this country, that is your business. They have disgraced themselves so often at this point, they have no credibility with most readers of these posts.
“Maybe if Mike Norman — a white bar owner in Marietta, Georgia — wasn’t doing a swift business hawking “Obama ’08” t-shirts with a picture of Curious George holding a banana because, Norman insists, he saw a resemblance between the cartoon and the African-American presidential candidate.”
Were you equally offended by the ChimpyBush, BushHitler, AlfredENeumanBush tee-shirts? Or was that funny to you? It’s sophmoric humor, not my thing…but, you seem not to have mentioned it, so I assume you are quite ok with that sort of parody. Were you ok with the things that were said, done and written by the Koz Kidz about Joe Lieberman? Or do your sensibilities only get aroused in one direction or two?
“Maybe if, in West Virginia, Clinton hadn’t beaten Obama by 2-to-1; if Clinton hadn’t won about 70 percent of the white vote; if she hadn’t won – for the first time – the under-30 white vote; if 22 percent of white voters hadn’t said that race was a factor in how they voted; and if 80 percent of those who felt that way hadn’t supported Clinton.”
Would you mind rewriting that sentence, only using North Carolina instead? Or other heavily black populated states? Substitute black for white, Obama for Clinton…and discuss.
22% of white voters said “race was a factor”….how many of the black voters do you believe would answer that “race was a factor” honestly…in voting FOR Sen. Obama? 98% 99%?
Why are you not “bothered” by that? Honestly? If you are bothered by the fact that 22% of white voters considered it a “factor”…would you be bothered 4 times as much if the black electorate had over 80% who said that race was a “factor” in how they voted?
“And maybe if there weren’t still parts of the country where white people are conditioned to think of black people as inferior and have a hard time getting their head around the concept of a half Kenyan/half Kansan Harvard Law School graduate/U.S. Senator/bestselling author who could well become the nation’s first black president.”
And maybe if there weren’t still parts of this country where leftists are conditioned to think of blue collar white people as inferior and have a hard time getting their heads around the concept that they aren’t all mouth-breathing, racist, homophobic, imbeciles who deserver scorn and derision by these arrogant bastards….well, that’s a lot of maybe’s to get beyond.
“And while Obama won the votes of “hardworking white Americans” in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming, that doesn’t change the fact that — elsewhere — white support has been elusive for the Democratic frontrunner.”
Nor does it change the fact that Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain couldn’t find black votes with a divining rod and a handful of $100 bills. But it does illuminate the fallacy and put the lie to the test that whites are voting on a racist basis.
Ruben, this is your second article here and both of them have been based on fallacious arguments and thin logic. Take the time to do better before you call everyone around you a bigot, which seems to be your building theme.
I don’t think it has anything to do with race.
Look at Sen. Obama’s work experience:
1. Private schools = entitled mentality (I see my daughter’s friends who attend an elite private school — their expectations are high and they aren’t big on getting their hands dirty)
2. Organizer = communist/socialist (I’ve never heard of regular people who were “organizers”) What does an organizer do? Sign people up for welfare and get them to vote for the candidate that hands out more free goodies
3. Harvard Lawyer = show up for a job with a pedigree and business network. many of the Harvard graduates I’ve hired at a variety of businesses had the worst sense of entitlement I’ve ever seen
Granted these are generalizations and there are always exceptions. There are good and bad people in all walks of life. However…
Here are some of the jobs and experience I DIDN’T see on Sen. Obama’s resume:
Dishwasher
Newspaper Route
Boy Scout
Menial labor construction job
Janitor
Business owner who knows what it is like to “feed the bulldog” and make payroll when you are broke
Paid his own way through school – had a full time job during school without going into debt
The bottom line — Sen. Obama has led a privileged life and is out of touch with the 90% of the rest of us. That’s why I’m not voting for him — it has nothing to do with race.
I am a hoosier and, contrary to what Navarette and many other media shills believe, am capable of considering more than one aspect of a candidate’s essence of being.
Barack has a number of problems that make him an undesirable candidate for me. I will list a few.
No clearly defined policies, just vague generalities.
Emasculating America.
More socialism (i.e. taking money from me and giving it to others).
Too cozy with crooks, domestic and foreign terrorists.
Sponsoring legislation to give my tax money to the UN who will give the money to dictators.
Too ready to make generalizations about the people he would lead.
Inability to make good judgements about the people he hangs around with (i.e. black power racists).
Skin color? Not so much. The candidate’s genetic racial background is mixed, hence indeterminable. Therefore his race can only be determined by what he says he is.
I’ll decide his suitability based upon his words and ideas. And I’m not quite ready to vote for a communist yet.
As usual with Democratic Party activists, Mr. Navarette is obsessed with race. Of course he sees himself and Senator Obama as being against racism while arguing for racist policies. Because they are members of one of the Democrats’ favored groups they simply cannot be racist. When a greater percentage of whites vote for a white candidate than members of some favored “minority” vote for a member of their group then I’ll consider white racism as pervasive as Black or Hispanic racism.
Racial progress in America is held hostage by the Democratic Party which needs racial tension to survive. Without overwhelming votes from certain racial groups, the Democrats would be a minor party if not a footnote. Any progress toward a color blind society threatens Democrats. Senator Obama needs that tension as does Senator Clinton. Their faithful underlings, like Mr Navarette, can be counted on to provoke, irritate and generally stir up animosity. Then blame the irritation and animosity of their opponents.
Personally the ONLY reason I can see at the moment for voting Obama is that he says he’s black. Because for the rest, for the reasons mentioned above, he is a crap candidate.
This guy’s intellectual base is radical Marxism. Are you surprised people don’t like him? Sheesh, he wouldn’t even get elected in Europe …
“Sheesh, he wouldn’t even get elected in Europe.”
You know what, despite what the lying media says about how much Eurabians love him, you are CORRECT!
Euros are, overall, devout racists and anti-semities—basically clueless leftists, save for a few sagacious folks, mostly in Eastern Europe. But overall, they’d NEVER elect a (half) black man. Typical hypocrisy, and typical gullibility from the American left.
Yes, it is about race because when you get over 80% of any race’s votes, it’s about race not who or what you are. It may also be true that there are a small minority of whites who will not vote for Obama because of race. But, Reuben, it has to do with who and what Obama is and what the media has tried mightily to do for him against the best interests of America.
Hillary is hated by many for “who” she is, not because she is a woman and we get to see more of her real self because the media will not duck and cover for her as they are doing for Obama.
For the record, I don’t believe that the tinfoil hatted leftist loons idea of pushing fear in our faces again about the right is going to be as successful. It will be for the dumb, dumber and dumbest…but not the average American voter. We can hear, see and think for ourselves and do not depend on the media for much of anything, anymore.
In the end, it has come down to what the Left has been trying to do for over 70 years and now they must face the reality of their philosophy and politics. The chickens “have come home to roost” as the Left Reverend Wrong says.
“Racial progress in America is held hostage by the Democratic Party which needs racial tension to survive. Without overwhelming votes from certain racial groups, the Democrats would be a minor party if not a footnote. Any progress toward a color blind society threatens Democrats. Senator Obama needs that tension as does Senator Clinton. Their faithful underlings, like Mr Navarette, can be counted on to provoke, irritate and generally stir up animosity. Then blame the irritation and animosity of their opponents.”
Word.
That is why I describe the new liberalism as reactionary.
I believe it was a Demoncrat by the name of Harry Truman who said “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Poor Obama can’t take the heat, he is as reactionary as an over emotional woman, just look at how he strikes out at Bush because Bush is not into appeasing terrorists. Obama is soon going to reveal just what an elitist wimp he really is, McCain will chew him up.
I won’t vote for Obama because he’s a Marxist. If he was a small government Democrat or Republican I wouldn’t have an issue even if he was purple. “Racist” is a convenient tool to stop debate and intimidate the voter. Four years of Obama will be the end of the Republic and a victory for George Soros and his minions.
Like Janice Martorano, why on earth would I vote for someone whose politics I completely disagree with?
Sorry, Ruben, but the liberal ploy of crying “racist!” became stale years ago. Being called a “racist” by a leftist has been drained of all meaning or sting – it’s like being called a toaster or a headlight or something similiarly nonsensical.
If anything, stories like this are making me go from being a reluctant supporter of McCain to wanting to donate money to his campaign. If the accusations of “racism” are loud now, just imagine what they’ll be like if Obama is elected. Critics of his policies will automatically get smeared with the r word.
Yes, we’re all racists because we have white skin and chose not to vote for Obama!
Or is it another way to silence people or have them make that guilt vote?
Either way, a Washington Post article is hardly a worthy source of information on what drives people to vote the way they do. THAT article was written to paint all whites in those states who didn’t vote for Obama as racists. What a cover!
No, it wasn’t how they disagreed with his views or policies he would enact as president. Nope! It was because of his skin color!
What a way to push off the blame for a loss…typical and despicable.
And now when we see him running against McCain no one’ll have a problem drawing McCain in political cartoons wearing a KKK uniform. Yet people cry about a “curious george with a banana” t-shirt.
Shirts and other similar items like that were made to “represent” George Bush for the last eight years. I mean…come on. Dems are going to get their behinds handed to them come November.
I lived in West Virginia for nine years, before I moved to the Southwest. In West Virginia, my children went to a predominantly African-American school, by our choice. After a regrettable racist incident in our town, my wife and I became involved on the ground floor in the creation of a community organization to educate about and combat lingering racism in our community. While racism exists in pockets in WV just as it exists everywhere else, in our community, race relations were nowhere near as polarized as in Dallas (where we had also lived) or as overtly tense as where I grew up in Southeastern Virginia in the late 60′s/early 70′s.
While it is true that *some* WV democratic primary voters may have voted against Obama for racist reasons, to blame his loss primarily on the racism of WV voters is overly simplistic and does a great disservice to the cause of truth and honest debate.
I am a registered democrat. I am voting for John McCain in November. I am not voting for Obama not because he is an African-American, but because his position on the Iraq War is wrong, wrong, wrong. As long as the Democratic Party opposes the rightness of the war against Islamofascism, I will not be voting for their candidates, even though I will stay registered in the party in the hopes that one day, they will come to their senses.
As long as the Party’s leading candidate and his followers look down upon common, everyday democrats and considers themselves morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to fellow democrats with whose cultural values they profoundly disagree, the Party’s candidate is not going to win the votes of the Democrats of places like West Virginia.
West Virginia democrats are probably voting against Obama more because of the Democratic Party’s cultural elitism than because of race, but as long as Obama’s supporters can paint Obama as the victim of stupidity and backwardness of ignorant, good-for-nothing, inbred hillbillies, they’re going to miss the real vulnerabilities of their candidate and campaign come November.
Using race as the tool to discredit any position from any who may oppose another, is pathetic. Using race to excuse the illegal actions of others is pathetic. Claiming it racist when voters do not vote for the candidate you have chosen, is pathetic.
In short, the positions espoused by the author of this article are pathetic. He is a professional apologist seeking to undermine America & create his ideal of a new socialist order that redistributes wealth according to formula “he” approves of. That means take from whites & give to all others because only whites are racists! It can “never” be the other way around!
Buy what this guy says & you are buying into the empty promises of change that Obama is spewing. No real plans other than socialist plans. The guy has understudied & been mentored by socialists, communists, and black liberation theologists who espouse only their way & no other is acceptable.
Its like saying opposing views on Global Warming must be silenced. My view or no view, “I” am always right and you are “always wrong.”
The mentality of folks like this are why America is becoming balkanized.
Obama is not competent to be president. Just look at how he was blindsided by Bush’s “appeasement” statement. Hissy fit, whining, denial — aand becoming defensive on the issue. Not very fast on his feet, is he our Obama? He got snookered, but good. How on earth will Obama ever be able to deal with our enemies who will be out to trip him up at every turn and who will use this very inexperience, hyper-sensitivity and lack of political sophistication against him? They’ll tie him into knots. What a disaster of a candidate!
The article makes a valid point, but it’s kind of a pointless point. Are there white racists
out there? Of course there are. We knew that.
Does that mean everyone who votes against Obama is a racist? Of course it doesn’t. Does it somehow make Obama’s evident flaws as a candidate OK? Of course it doesn’t.
You can ascribe his weakness with blue-collar whites to racism if you choose, but that doesn’t do Obama any favors. It just highlights how much tougher a time he’s going to have in the general election than in the politically correct Democratic primaries.
When it is your business to find racism, you will find it. It’s like looking for oil deposits. They are getting harder and harder to find, but if the price is right, they’ll keep digging.
I used to naively think that if Obama were elected President, the race mongers would go out of business. I no longer believe it.
If Obama were to win 51% to 49%, the race mongers will cry that we are still a racist country, since 49% voted against the “black man”.
When I cast my vote for McCain in November, it will indeed be partly about race.
I cannot vote for a man who sat in a pew listening to a racist hatemonger rail against white people and Jews. And who gave the hatemonger $50K to help spread his poison.
I don’t like being attacked because of the color of my skin. Do you think that might be what the West Virginia voters meant?
And maybe if there weren’t still parts of the country where white people are conditioned to think of black people as inferior and have a hard time getting their head around the concept of a half Kenyan/half Kansan Harvard Law School graduate/U.S. Senator/bestselling author who could well become the nation’s first black president.”
Perhaps they have gotten their head around the concept of a half white man with a silver tongue
and a very thin resume who is trying to BS his way into the Presidency. Credit their native good sense to see through the empty rhetoric of this phony.
I merely want to say I was reluctant to even read this article, having a visceral distaste for the premise of its title. I am so glad I overcame that reaction. I have enjoyed reading the comments section immensely.
“I used to naively think that if Obama were elected President, the race mongers would go out of business. I no longer believe it.”
The race card establishment will only get crazier if “Barry” Obama is elected president. This idiocy is mostly a way of obtaining good paying jobs and increasing political power. Such people, on a gut level, never want the problem of racism to be eradicated. It would force them to find a real job.
The liberals are playing the race card because that is all they have left. They can’t take other people being critical of their candidate. Obama is being rejected because: he’s an elitist, he’s a socialist, he’s a closet racist, he lacks experience, he lacks leadership skills, he has questionable associations AT BEST, and his foreign policy WILL cause to harm America. Obama will create a divide in this country that will take years to fix, if ever. Those all sound like legitimate criticisms to me, but of course, I’m one of them white oppressors in the eyes of the Left.
But it won’t be over in November when Obama loses. For a long time you are going to hear about the “racists” here in the US of KKK-A. And as long as we have these double standards and the politically correct police, there’s nothing we can do about it.
Ruben- I have no doubt you’ll be one of the first out with an article to explain that Obama lost the general election because of his race…and America is still, deep-down, a racist country.
Hey, I have an idea…just change Hillary’s name to McCain, change a few stats with new ones from other key states McCain wins…and you can use this same article! Just call it:
“DID Racism Hurt Obama in Middle America?”
The answer would still be the same though: NO!
Why isn’t Ruben Navarrette Jr. in the comments section here defending his article?
Probably because it would be very difficult. As a newspaper guy he’s probably accustomed to delivering pronouncements from up on the mountaintop and not being down here in the real world.
You’re damn right racism hurt Obama. However, that’s as far as you got before going off course. It wasn’t the racism of whites that made Obama lose West Virginia — though I’m sure that sort of voting did count for something, say less than 1%. A lot less.
The racism that hurt Obama was his own. He spent at least 20 years of his life in a church that taught him from a relatively young age to hate someone on the basis of their skin color because their ancestors had hated on the basis of skin color. He quite regularly associates with people of political persuasions that are at least as radical as the Trinity Church’s. His continual slurs against “typical white people” who are bitter and clinging to guns and religion for comfort make his own opinions of whites absolutely transparent.
It is entirely possible for black people to be racist. Whites are not the only ones, simply on the basis that some of our ancestors committed heinous crimes in the name of their race. I fail to see how the same acts committed in supposed retribution are justified; even if Obama doesn’t support those ideologies, the fact remains that they have tainted his worldview and remains entirely unapologetic.
Damn goog point QuickRob:
OK Mr. Navarette: Please tell us what the rules are for Obama.
Under what circumstances may a white male and/or white female voter (I will assume that you will have different criteria for each, considering the nature of your article)not vote for Sen Obama and not judged a racist?
Navarette? Oh, Navarette?
To make a point; the issues of racism AND sexism are both legitimate political issues. What makes them such is the fact that both Democratic candidates are running as “firsts”. One a ‘first’ black, the other a ‘first’ woman.
That means they are running for selfish motives, with their own interests being placed before that of the nation’s.
Those kind of people make the worst Presidents.
The best thing that could happen to America here in the early 21st century would be a President that is black, or female. The worst thing that could happen is a black President or a Female President.
Unfortunately, there are too many voters who cannot see the difference between a Black President and a President who is Black. Or between a Female President and a President who is Female.
“Why isn’t Ruben Navarrette Jr. in the comments section here defending his article?”
QuickRob, that is because PJM is an attempt by the MSM to suborn bloggers. The deal with Dan Rather scared the crap out of a lot of the gatekeepers at the MSM. If that sort of thing was allowed to continue, the fact that the MSM is obsolete would become even more obvious.
So a 5th column was set up to infiltrate and suborn the blogosphere.
Bloggers like blogging, only there is no real money in it. So by gathering a group of bloggers together and paying them, the MSM tries to establish control over the blogsphere.
We will see if it works or not. I have my doubts. So far it looks like this PJM thingie is being taken over by the MSM JV.
I say that because there are no nome` de webs posting here, just wanna be MSM writers.
True bloggers continue to both exist and multiply. The soul of blogging is the interaction. Interaction is what scares the MSM.
BLoggers don’t censor, they debate. The MSM doesn’t debate, it censors.
Oh, crap. Left out a word….sorry. Makes me look like a dick though, funny that.
“not vote for Sen Obama and not BE judged a racist.”
I take it as an assault on my integrity to be accused of something I am not. Most people would. In self-defense I simply shut out the noise and refuse to listen. Pardon my humanity, but I can only take so much. Mr. Navarette and his ilk scream racist, racist, racist! As if repeating the mantra often enough will make me admit it. I suspect the good people of WestbyGod Virginia are feeling the same thing. I wouldn’t vote for Obama at this point if he walked on water. Is there a shred of insight in the senator that understands human nature? It seems not. It’s a good enough reason to vote against him. And if I hear more accusations of racism, I’ll start contributing in C-notes to the McCain campaign. I’m tired of the litany and sick of the narrative. Enough already!
I agree with Mr. Navarette here, and find myself in the strange position of saying that I don’t think he made his case very well. Obama got beaten handily in West Virginia, but won other white states. How many of those states, however, regularly re-elects a former Klansman as Senator, without blushing? And as I pointed out when posting in response to the other article yesterday, NPR had a set of interviews after the WV primary, where people said such things as “They just don’t want a black man telling white men what to do.” NPR assured the listeners they’d not brought up the issue of race in any of the interviews, instead asking voters why they’d voted the way they had. I’m sure *someone* in WV is enlightened to vote for Obama in spite of his skin color, but Hilary herself has as much as said her support was in part because of racism, and has tried to paint this is as a reason she’s more electable. Remember, these are *Democrat* voters. They’re trying to pick which of the candidates will be a better liberal president: whose health care plan will cost more, who will run away faster in Iraq, who will appoint more liberal judges, etc. Endless empty platitudes aren’t necessarily a bad thing.
Comments like this coming from a guy who says nothing when racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson describe Condi Rice and Colin Powell as “black on the outside and white on the inside” strike me as being hypocritical beyond acceptance — gimme a break fella!!!
Navarette blithely ignores racist occurrences like the Duke LaCrosse 3 and the notorious Jena 6 which Hillary and that racist hypocrite Al Sharpton ruthlessly exploited. Navarette comes across as totally ignorant of American history, a history made up of immigrants, most of them penniless and despised in their former homelands — like my grandparents, but that doesn’t matter to his ignorant likes. Barak Obama’s “off-the record” speech to the San Francisco super rich, some of whom I met as a graduate student at UC Berkeley and came to despise, was the warning shot across the bow to those of us who worked our way up the hard way — as opposed to the Obamas’ easy “no brainer” affirmative action road to the top and backed by those who have inherited their wealth and never worked an honest day in their lives.
It’s a real tragedy that the Democratic Party is jettisoning it’s real support base. But then, what can we expect of a political party controlled by the likes of George Soros and his billionaire buddies, bootleg booze beneficiary Ted Kennedy, filthy rich traitor John Kerry, and the 3-dimensional corrupt Clinton clique?
Note to the Democratic Party and its media henchmen:
If you want to attract more people to vote for your candidates, you may want to rethink the current strategy of calling them racist, sexist and stupid.
Just a thought.
Barack and Michelle Obama’s long, close association with a black liberationist church (not exactly the only option they had!) that repeatedly glorified the racist Louis Farrakhan has not been explained away successfully. Voters are not so stupid as to ignore this and play Navarette’s little game.
The bottom line on racism in America is as follows: if you are Black, and are harassed in a White area, it’s racism; if you are White, and are harassed in a Black area, it’s “well, you shouldn’t have been there in the first place.”
The hypocrisy is glaring. Someone please tell me this is not so.
Of course it was about race. When people in America constantly see blacks voting and making and statements based on race, it provokes a reaction. When Obama wins almost all of the black votes, against a Democrat who otherwise would have won a large percentage of them, racist voting, by black Obama supporters, is obvious to most everhyone.
It is natural for non-blacks to be concerned about the possible election of someone who has used his race as a weapon, who is overwhelmingly supported by one racial group because of his race, and who is strongly tied to black racist ideology through Rev. Wright.
I cannot see any good coming of this election. If Obama wins, we get a naive, egotistical Marxist elite black liberationist. If he loses, we get race riots because “whitey” stole the race from him.
John Moore:
Succinct and to the point. That’s likely what we will see. Either we will be reduced to an ineffective, platitude speaking Executive, or we will suffer strife over perceived (but false) racial bias, because the candidate of color lost the election. Either way, we are in for a hard time.
Race played no small role in Barack Obama’s wins in most primaries. How homogeneous blacks are, over 90% voted for him?
Sexism played no small role in Hillary’s losses.
What the primaries proved is the Democrats are either racist or misogynist. Or simply bigots.
What John Moore and Allstonian said. — Hey, Ruben! Why don’t you explain to us how your commentaries are helping matters??
“Euros are, overall, devout racists and anti-semities—basically clueless leftists, save for a few sagacious folks, mostly in Eastern Europe. But overall, they’d NEVER elect a (half) black man.”
What a disgusting racist comment.
I suggest that you might like to learn to spell before you go around racially abusing people.
“What a disgusting racist comment.”
Unfair generalization, yes. Racism, no. There’s more than one race in Europe, you know.
Hope, I don’t think that word means what you think it does;
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
The word you were groping for is ‘bigot’;
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[Origin: 1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE bī God by God]
The two words are mirror images of each other. There is a technical term for that, which escapes me at the moment. A lot of people think they are synonyms. I suspect, but can’t prove, that those same people have a little trouble telling their left hand from their right.
Keep snatching at that pebble, grasshopper.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: “Is Racism Hurting Obama in Middle America?”
Well, from what I can make of it, Barack Obama’s racism, as that of those whom he holds near, is hurting Obama in just about every darned part of America.
Hope that answers your question.
heh heh.
RE:
It’s the entire attitude surrounding people that share Mr. Navarette’s myopic worldview that people instinctively find offensive. Identity group politics is nauseating. The people who practice it are nauseating. The double standards are nauseating. Honest people are quite right to reject Obama. They are not victims who need rescue by government. They are offended by that suggestion.
It’s Mr Navarette who is race obsessed. Under the thin veneer of political correctness, there is a common undercurrent of Marxist hostility in his articles. It’s the new 21st century version of bigotry.
===========================================================
They are NOT offended by that suggestion.
Why else do you think they are voting for Hillary? Because they DON’T believe in “rescue by the government”?
The idea looks ridiculous as long as they are going to continue to vote Democratic.
Sadly the article is correct (I don’t know much else about the author though). All of the “Jim Crowers” did not just suddenly “see the light” as soon as the ink dried on the Civil Rights Acts. These things exist and we just have to deal with it.
Jabba the Tutt:
What is Mr Navarrette’s job? Last week, he tried to make the case that illegal aliens carrying the Mexican flag during marches making demands of the American People was the same as Italians-Americans celebrating Columbus Day by carrying the Italian flag or Jews celebrating Israel’s Independence Day carrying Israels flag.
Today, Mr Navarrette tries to make the absurd case that when Blacks vote for Obama (and against the white candidate), because of his race, that’s not racism. When Whites vote for Hillary, (and against Obama) that is racism.
What’s next for Mr Navarrette? The moon is made of Swiss cheese? Gravity doesn’t exist, and if we believe hard enough, we can levitate? Big government helps the little guy? I can’t wait to read what absurdity Mr Navarrette will make the case for next. He’s amazing.
May 17, 2008 – 4:18 am
==============================================================
It’s very clear. I have never read anything else by the author, but he is right.
Blacks have voted FOR white candidates before, and surely would NOT have voted for a black Republican over a white Democrat. (By contrast at least 20% of Hillary’s supporters say they would *switch parties* rather than vote for Obama). Blacks did not even support Obama in droves until they were sure that whites would vote for him (you may have forgotten; he did not get 90% in Iowa or for a while after that).
It is Hillary and Bill who sent their staunch black supporters fleeing with Bill’s ill-advised comments in South Carolina.
Lastly, if you cannot envision why after 400+ years of blacks being on the bottom rungs of societal treatment (and I think we all know how bad they had it until recently), they might conceivably get excited over the possibility that President (President!) number 44 might be African-American, you must be terribly naive.
I certainly never saw that coming for another few decades.
This is a no-brainer! Why should they not be excited? Should they yawn? Like I said in the other thread, they weren’t even in the upper rungs of government until President Bush came into office! I would do the same thing if I were them.
“white support has been elusive for the Democratic frontrunner….”
Ruben is just a plain liar. Until WV, Obama dominated in white votes in every state
And as to:
““Why isn’t Ruben Navarrette Jr. in the comments section here defending his article?”
You don’t think that question needs answered, do you? The MSM has no need to back up any views—for they are the MSM, and all liberals bow to them…as their papers go out of business and Fox dominates the news ratings.
Deep down they know they’ve lost; like Obama to Bush when Bush mentioned “appeasers,” why else does the MSM get so defensive and hate blogs so much?
To anyone outside of a sheltered prof, it’s obvious what’s going on.
mishu:
First, voting for someone because of his or her race, religion or ethnicity isn’t the same as voting against someone for those reasons.
In other words white people can’t vote for white people because they are white. Non-white people, by all means they can. Nice double standard.
May 17, 2008 – 4:52 am
————————————————–
It would be a double-standard IF all things were equal, but they are not.
For blacks, this is historic (if it even happens).
What possible meaning would such a vote have for whites?
I am for McCain (he’s all we have), but I am not sure why people are acting baffled. (But that’s just me.)
Perry Birman:
Of course there is a racist element to Obama’s losses.
But it is a backlash. At the beginning of the primaries, white people were falling all over themselves to vote for Obama; very few cared what the Senator’s race was then and very few care now.
After the vile Jeremiah Wright videos were shown, Obama tried to shrug it off and equivocate in his speech in Philadelphia. He became an apologist for black racism and for Wright. This put Obama squarely into the camp of black racism.
When it became known that Obama stayed at Wright’s church for 20 years, claiming that he was unaware of Wright’s views, claiming that he was unaware of Trinity United Church disseminating the views of the terrorist group HAMAS in it’s hand-outs, ignoring the implications of Wright’s relationship with and honoring of Louis Farakkahn, white voters began to distrust Obama (with good reason). This is NOT racism, friends, it’s logic.
All the while the black vote for Obama has become almost monolithic at around 90%. Is there no racist element there?
May 17, 2008 – 4:54 am
——————————————————
I respectfully disagree:
1. It does have something to do with “The South” and its legacy.
We know this, because even AFTER the Wright debacle, Obama is ahead by a wide margin in Oregon which is only about 3% black (and 85% white) if I am not mistaken. So obviously not all whites care too much about “backlash”.
2. I don’t know any whites who are too afraid of black racism on a daily basis.
3. I addressed the third point before. The 90% was not always so, and it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
slavus:
There’s a very simple way to blow this author’s argument out of water. What if instead of Obama it was Judge Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell or any other black conservative? Do you really believe the results would be the same?
May 17, 2008 – 5:19 am
——————————————————————
The black result would be different. They would NOT support a black conservative (as polls have demonstrated over the years).
I don’t know what whites in those states would have done. They already choose Hillary over McCain based on party. I am not convinced that a black Republican would make them *more* likely to switch parties. Not in West Virginia.
Jim from Pittsburgh:
It is important to note that voting for a black candidate simply because one is offered the choice to is extremely illogical. The fact is that the author is writing with some seriously thick racist glasses himself. Racism wrapped in intelligent syntax and good intention is still racism. The fact that many commentators choose to use this angle to call the rust belt states “white trash” that can’t think beyond race is in fact a huge reason that many of us are insulted. It goes hand in hand with Obama’s comments to the Getty Jr. crowd in frisco. The fact is that I live in PA close to WV and I and my friends have a very different vision of the future of America than Sen. Obama. The constitution is NOT alive. To shout “racism” is merely a venue to sidestep this argument.
May 17, 2008 – 6:54 am
===================================================
1. If I accept your premise, it may be illogical, but considering the history of blacks in America, is it unexpected? (I am assuming people actually know the history).
2. What is illogical is believing that the Constitution is not a living document (I agree) and then voting for HILLARY! (Her husband gave us Ginsberg for goodness’ sake!)
This is why the author is smelling a fish.
Skin color? Not so much. The candidate’s genetic racial background is mixed, hence indeterminable. Therefore his race can only be determined by what he says he is.
————————————————–
Hossier, that is not how America has worked in the past and you know it.
The question is, why does the Wright flap affect the votes of whites in Indiana and West Virginia but NOT whites in Oregon?
Allstonian:
The bottom line on racism in America is as follows: if you are Black, and are harassed in a White area, it’s racism; if you are White, and are harassed in a Black area, it’s “well, you shouldn’t have been there in the first place.”
The hypocrisy is glaring. Someone please tell me this is not so.
May 17, 2008 – 9:37 pm
———————————————————————–
How many people are “harassed in a black area”? (Whatever a “black area” is). Vice versa?
What’s a “white area”?
How did this even come up at all in this discussion?
I think you watch too much television.
You need to get out more. The vast majority of people (white and black) do not behave like this. It’s not a good hypothetical.
What strikes me about this thread is fact that it exists at all. Consider the Democratic Party’s(DP) tactic of separating Americans into ‘voting blocks’ and the MSM’s continual reporting of the Party’s tactics used to influence each special interest group. Had the MSM not taken the lead from the DP, but instead insisted on discussing the candidates approach to specific issues, i.e. Realist vs. Idealists, Free-market vs. Socialism, Moralist vs. Secular, etc., and how the candidates proposed solution affect various aspect of the economy and everyday lives of Americans the conversation wouldn’t degenerate to discussing insults.
“The question is, why does the Wright flap affect the votes of whites in Indiana and West Virginia but NOT whites in Oregon?” – John – May 18, 2008 – 8:50 am
Gee, “John”, maybe it’s – just possibly, now, mind you – because “Obama voters” in Oregon are ideologically blind…socialist wannabes being attracted to socialist sirens.
Ed Wallis:
“The question is, why does the Wright flap affect the votes of whites in Indiana and West Virginia but NOT whites in Oregon?” – John – May 18, 2008 – 8:50 am
Gee, “John”, maybe it’s – just possibly, now, mind you – because “Obama voters” in Oregon are ideologically blind…socialist wannabes being attracted to socialist sirens.
May 18, 2008 – 9:52 am
———————————————————-
But what does “Socialism” have to do with race?
(Also how are Hillary voters in West Virginia any less “Socialist” than Obama voters in Oregon?
Is Hillary now more “free market” than John McCain? How is Hillary any less Socialist than Obama?)
So I think my question still stands.
Why is there a Wright “backlash” among whites in West Virginia and Indiana, but none among whites in Oregon?
One more thing. Why do people insist that Obama and his voters are “Socialist” but that the same is not true for Hillary?
Was she not the one who said she would take things “away from you for the common good”?
This is why I say the guy had a point.
It couldn’t be the Socialism that did him in among *Democrats* in those states (That would be a *plus* for them. Since when are Democrat voters afraid of Socialism?).
Anyways, let us hope it will do him in in the general election.
John:
While I agree wholeheartedly that Allstonian’s comment was a bit of a non-sequitur to this thread, and perhaps even a bit of the old Shakepearean “protesting too much”, your overquick rebuttal seems a bit disingenuous. As a white who grew up in inner city Detroit, and as an adult who makes consirable efforts to work in my birth city to try and heal some of its ills, I can assure you there are indeed areas of this country where light skin color is highly detrimental to your health. This is particularly true where there is a concentration of sub 17yr old teenage males. I have not personally encountered any area of the U.S. where the converse is true.
TubbyHubby:
John:
While I agree wholeheartedly that Allstonian’s comment was a bit of a non-sequitur to this thread, and perhaps even a bit of the old Shakepearean “protesting too much”, your overquick rebuttal seems a bit disingenuous. As a white who grew up in inner city Detroit, and as an adult who makes consirable efforts to work in my birth city to try and heal some of its ills, I can assure you there are indeed areas of this country where light skin color is highly detrimental to your health. This is particularly true where there is a concentration of sub 17yr old teenage males. I have not personally encountered any area of the U.S. where the converse is true.
May 18, 2008 – 1:43 pm
—————————————————
I will concede that you are correct.
…”Jewish voters might have been drawn to Joe Lieberman..”
If Lieberman were running for President against a Gentile candidate and 90% of Jewish voters were backing him, this Hebrew would be embarrassed and own up to plain prejudice on the part of his co-religionists. And Lieberman is a lovable guy, you want to pinch both cheeks.
I still haven’t got over New York Jewish voters turning out a staunch and vigorous supporter of Jewish causes like Senator Al D’amato in favor of a braying jackass like Chuck Schumer. But the Jewish tilt for Schumer–as undeniably prejudiced as it was foolish and self-defeating–wasn’t anything like 90%.
If Jews did back a hypothetical Lieberman against a hypothetical Goy by 90%, we’d hear grumbling about tribalism. Jews always sticking together. Looking out for their own. Exerting undue influence. Swinging their weight. Putting in the fix.
Figuring out why people do what they do in the privacy of a voting booth is reading tea leaves. My impression is that sexism, both casual and vicious, has been far more openly expressed than racism so far this campaign season.
Oh JohnnyJohnnyJohnny,
Maybe the “white” voters chose/choose NOT to vote for a candidate leaning far-left.
Maybe they feel the same about Hillary’s socialist leanings and just pick her over him for some other reason.
And, how about all those “open” states (in which Republicans could vote in Democratic primaries…and vice versa) with people just trying to “mix it up” (some applied Operation Chaos).
Please John.
Maybe the world DOESN’T revolve around you/your profound-yearning retorts.
Please give it a rest.
John,
“Hossier, that is not how America has worked in the past and you know it.
The question is, why does the Wright flap affect the votes of whites in Indiana and West Virginia but NOT whites in Oregon?”
It is hoosier sir. And who cares how America worked in the past? It is now not then. Obama is what he says he is. And it changes from place to place and crowd to crowd.
You call overt Wright’s racism a “flap”. I consider it far more than a “flap”. It is a complete moral breakdown to sit in a pew for 20 years, listening to that racist hack and then come to the American people and ask to lead the nation. Same goes for a white man or brown man or yellow man.
Simple answer with regards to Oregon. The People’s Republic of Oregon is full of Marxists who would embrace the far left candidate Barak Hussien Obama. Neither Indiana nor West Virginia is ready to vote communist yet. Oregon has been there for decades.
John:
It’s not a hypothetical, it is the reality in the inner cities of America. And I do get out plenty, thanks, and haven’t turned my TV on in 6 months.
Unless one of the candidates had said,
“Yesterday I bit into a bitter lemon, and when it spritzed into my eye, I had to cling to a wet towel on that poor eye for a good ten minutes. But, ya know, while I rummaging around for that darned towel, I tripped over the guns I was cleaning on the living room floor and hit my head on my wife’s copy of ‘Today’s Religion.’”
…I think there is – just maybe now, mind you – possibly another reason other than “racism” for W.Va.’s vote.
And, have you guys seen the price of arugula recently at Whole Foods?!
Hey Rubin , you Gringo hater . What gives you the right on deciding people who don’t vote for Obama are racists? Had a conservative candidate made racist statements and hung with racist Pastors and terrorist bombers , he would have been run out of Dodge. Get a clue Pancho !
American Christian Infidel
Ed Wallis:
Oh JohnnyJohnnyJohnny,
Maybe the “white” voters chose/choose NOT to vote for a candidate leaning far-left.
Maybe they feel the same about Hillary’s socialist leanings and just pick her over him for some other reason.
And, how about all those “open” states (in which Republicans could vote in Democratic primaries…and vice versa) with people just trying to “mix it up” (some applied Operation Chaos).
Please John.
Maybe the world DOESN’T revolve around you/your profound-yearning retorts.
Please give it a rest.
May 18, 2008 – 4:46 pm
————————————————————————
But this is the point.
There was “some other reason” they voted for Hillary.
The question is “What reason?”
The author says that it is racism to some degree and gives the best evidence he can.
It’s one thing to label the South reflexively (which is unfair), but some people seem willfully blind here. Everywhere in the country has its own unique problems–some to more degrees than others. And in the absence of evidence otherwise, he really made a stronger case.
You just have to deal with it.
Stick to the article. It is not about “Operation Chaos”, which if you listen to Rush Limbaugh, was not operative in every state.
“Please, John” is not good evidence I am afraid.
Hoosier Racist:
John,
“Hossier, that is not how America has worked in the past and you know it.
The question is, why does the Wright flap affect the votes of whites in Indiana and West Virginia but NOT whites in Oregon?”
It is hoosier sir. And who cares how America worked in the past? It is now not then. Obama is what he says he is. And it changes from place to place and crowd to crowd.
You call overt Wright’s racism a “flap”. I consider it far more than a “flap”. It is a complete moral breakdown to sit in a pew for 20 years, listening to that racist hack and then come to the American people and ask to lead the nation. Same goes for a white man or brown man or yellow man.
Simple answer with regards to Oregon. The People’s Republic of Oregon is full of Marxists who would embrace the far left candidate Barak Hussien Obama. Neither Indiana nor West Virginia is ready to vote communist yet. Oregon has been there for decades.
May 18, 2008 – 7:49 pm
————————————————————————-
1. If it took Wright for you to see past Obama, then conservativism in this country is in deep trouble.
2. Obama is not “who he says he is” racially except in the realm of philosophy. In the biological world, he is who he is by genetics; and in the social world (which includes elections) he is who the majority of people says he is. History *does* shape what other people think about who he is racially; which is why Obama has been called a “racist” several times in the comments, but not once has he been called “self-hating”.
Think about it.
3. How are Hillary voters any *less* Marxist/Socialist than Obama voters? (She was the first major politician in recent memory to try to introduce socialize medicine to the USA; among other things.)
I did ask this before.
I did not know Hillary was a free-market champion.
How do you guys reason with the fact that educated voters overwhelmingly favor Obama over McCain and Clinton? Maybe they know something more than you guys. In fact I know they know more than you guys. But lets not fight, it doesn’t really matter because Obama will win in November, so get ready conservatives.
” A place is not a race “. Long live reverse discrimination!
soros does not own everyone you know. Some of us can think for ourselves.
Your plans to destroy this nation are not going to work, We know who you are and what you’re trying to do. communisum will never defeat America no matter what card you play in your pc deck. Watch what majority means, the scum and the rats you have raised are no match for real God loving,gun owning, non welfare handout taking, man & woman union makes a moral family unit AMERICANS.
John,
Get this correct, it will help you out of the hole you’re trapped in. Let’s go back to Forest Gump 101.
A place is not a race. There is no such race as African American. You can’t wish it so. If a group of people wanted to call themselves Biwanese Phuktangle Americans, it would not be a race.
You can be black, white, asian or you can be a mix of any of the 3, but even if you say you’re a white American, you’re still putting what you happen to be in front of what who you are, which is an American. Liberals live and derive power from dividing not uniting.
Americans who happen to be black have only been in the upper rungs since GWB?
Ever hear of a guy named Clarence Thomas? Have you followed how much the race haters for dollars crew have supported him?……. Ummmm. ZERO.
That’s because he supports the constitution and they don’t. Only the parts of it that are money makers for them.
And about this Curious George picture of obama, obama does look like Curious George, it’s the hair cut and the ears, not the 1/2 of him that is actually is straight from Africa. It’s an insult to Curious George.
If you twits who think that’s just racist, ( now we are back to you and you blathering fountain of burrito spewing BS bobby) take just oh…. 1 freaking minute and google all the political cartoons going back to… 1774. There are worse things than a cute little monkey that everyone loves to be compared to. Like I said, it was an insult to all monkey Americans. The whole damn thing is an insult to Americans of all backgrounds.
“I.o.h.h.o.m.”, I agree; I suspect that, contrary to proclamations of being a Republican, this “JohnJohnReadMyPostsJohnJohn is an Obama troll. No other explanation for the RACISM UNDER EVERY ROCK blathering.
Like I said earlier, it’s not like Obama said, “Yesterday I bit into a bitter lemon, and when it spritzed into my eye, I had to cling to a wet towel on that poor eye for a good ten minutes. But, ya know, while I rummaging around for that darned towel, I tripped over the guns I was cleaning on the living room floor and hit my head on my wife’s copy of ‘Today’s Religion.’” He’s given ALL AMERICANS more than sufficient grounds to reject him at the ballot box.
How do you guys reason with the fact that educated voters overwhelmingly favor Obama over McCain and Clinton? Maybe they know something more than you guys.
Speaking as someone who has spent eight years in academia surrounded by supposedly “highly educated” people (and who has a couple of degrees myself and is working on a third), I will say straight up that “educated” people are not automatically better judges of political reality than anyone else. In fact, many times they are worse, particularly if they have been educated in a “soft” field like English, because a.) they aren’t accustomed to dealing with reality, only with symbols which they can manipulate as they please, and b.) because “soft field” intellectual enclaves in particular tend to fall prey to groupthink and other coercive social pressures to conform to the group line. The textbook example, of course, is the Duke lacrosse case, in which a great many of the Duke faculty (particularly in “soft” fields like cultural anthropology) unthinkingly supported the accuser and continued to do so even as her accusations began to unravel. The same effect could absolutely have happened at my university or at many other college campuses across the country.
In the coming election, I will be voting for whoever is willing to be responsible on Iraq. If that’s Howard the Duck, then I will be voting for Howard the Duck. Obama’s position on Iraq is incoherent, therefore I will not be voting for him. *shrug*
Beautiful, going forward into the new age of technology and globalism the republicans have successfully sold Americans on the idea that education is elitism and that it is something to be reviled! Congratulations on that step backwards. Good luck with that while us elites work on solutions to real problems and a hope for a better future.
How this sort of yellow journalism made it onto the pages of Pajamas Media is a surprise to me.
Is the racism real? Yes. Is it a real problem (outside of West Virginia)? No one has come up with concrete, statistical evidence that demonstrates this.
How is voting for someone because of their race any different than voting against them for the same reason? It is still prejudice. Anyone voting for Barack Obama solely because of his race are just as racist as anyone voting against him for the same reason, and anyone voting for/against based solely on race is a fool.
Ruben’s entire article is based on anecdotes and weak statistics from ONE STATE of FIFTY. Racism is not the 800-pound gorilla in the room. It is the annoying gnat, nothing more.
I hope that Pajamas Media can work on keeping this type of morally and ethically bankrupt article off the site in the future.
All right. I’ve had it. Whoever this author is, he isn’t stupid. He’s putting words together and making sentences. But he’s lying.
He knows Obama is a phony. He knows Obama is a liar too. And I even suspect he knows he’s unqualified to be President. But for some really disturbing reason, this doesn’t matter to him.
I thought we’d put the “you’re all racists around here” behind us. Every time anyone tried to point out Obama’s alarming associations or deficiencies, the lefties would come out throwing that tired canard around. I was rather enjoying the quiet for the last week or so.
But this author knows the truth. He wants to distract us and try to intimidate us. That guilt he’s trying to serve up won’t work on voters in the General; I’ll leave it to him to figure out how effective it’s been on liberals.
What’s been revealed so far – and there’s more to come – of Obama’s radical past puts him so out of touch with most Americans that even many Democrats – the level-headed ones anyway – can’t vote for him. Wright isn’t Obama’s only problem. And the author knows that too.
No amount of dancing around crying “race” is going to stop us from continuing to awaken the public to the dangers we see for our nation should he be elected President.
The author writes “…this is the first time in our nation’s history that white voters have a chance to vote for a black candidate for president…” As if this should be the only consideration.
There could hardly be a more foolish reason to vote to put a man in the highest office in the land. And this author knows it. He’s not that stupid.
But he hopes you are.
Did I call Obama a liar?
Over at American Thinker, Robison’s article “Obama and the Black Media” informs of others who’re calling him a liar too. And he won’t be getting their vote either.
And guess what? They’re not white!
We’re being played, daily, but especially before elections.
The worldly, anti-American powers that be in America’s anti-American occupied institutions of communications, command, and control have to keep ”we the sheeple” divided, angry, stupid, and blind so they can stay in power – for the common good of the few who use up and throw away children like toilet paper – lest the peeps learn the truth about America and *world* history, PRE-TV/60′s/10 Commandments mocked and made unwelcome in the public square (the world loses that competition), and the peeps realize they’ve been sold out, completely – led astray and made to betray their hardwon, priceless heritage of life and liberty – and their parents, G_d, ancestors – all worth living and dying for … given away that proud legacy for poisonous hot air, toxic magic beans – shame, death.
…
Once upon a time in the *other* America:
…
”Consider, for example, African American achievements during the American Revolution. Few today know that almost 5,000 of the patriots in the fledgling Continental Army were African Americans – that, for example, a hero of the Battle of Bunker Hill was African American Peter Salem. His heroic actions saved the lives of scores of Americans, and he was honored before General Washington for his courage.
And Pastor Lemuel Haynes was involved in several major Revolutionary battles and became an ardent admirer of George Washington, regularly preaching sermons on Washington’s birthday. This patriot preacher was the first African American to be ordained by a mainstream Christian denomination (the Congregationalists, in 1785), to pastor a white congregation (a congregation in Connecticut), and to be awarded an honorary Master’s Degree (by Middlebury College, in 1804). Yet who today has heard of Lemuel Haynes?
Or who has heard of James Armistead, the courageous spy at Yorktown whose remarkable service considerably shortened the War? Or Oliver Cromwell and Prince Whipple (depicted in several famous Revolutionary War paintings) who served directly under General Washington and the general staff? Or Jordan Freeman, the gallant soldier to whom a monument was erected for his heroic service at the Battle of Groton Heights?
Then there is also African American church history – including the amazing story of the Rev. John Marrant, the first African American to evangelize successfully among American Indians; the Rev. Richard Allen, who gained his freedom from slavery, served in the American Revolution, became a preacher in a church of 2000 whites, and founded America’s first black denomination; and the Rev. Harry Hoosier, who delivered the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American and drew crowds larger than the great Methodist Bishop Francis Asbury.
And consider African American political history. Who today knows the story of the Rev. Hiram Rhodes Revels, the African American missionary who became the first black U. S. Senator? Or the Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, the first African American to deliver a sermon in Congress? Or Joseph Hayne Rainey, who overcame slavery to become the first African American elected to the U. S. Congress, even presiding over the U. S. House? (In the picture of the first seven African Americans elected to the federal Congress – all as Republicans – the Rev. Revels is the first from the left, and Rainey is second from the right.) Or who today has learned that nearly every southern Republican Party was started by African Americans – or that the first 190 African Americans elected to office in South Carolina (and the first 112 in Mississippi, the first 42 in Texas, the first 127 in Louisiana, etc.) were all Republicans, and many were ministers?
I have spent years collecting thousands of original and priceless documents from American history in general and black history in particular; God’s fingerprints are evident throughout. I have been asked why I, as an Anglo, would spend so much time in the study of African American political history. The answer is simple: I am an American; and since the story of African American history is part of American history, it therefore is part of my own history. Furthermore, I am inspired by all stories of sacrifice, courage, and Godly character – regardless of skin color. The stories of African American heroes such as Phillis Wheatley, Francis Grimke, and John Roy Lynch are as thrilling to me as are the stories of Lewis & Clark, Helen Keller, and Alvin York.” – David Barton – More: http ://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=121
I don’t think racism has much to do with the situation. I think most well grouded adults recognize that Obama is a naive chump. Our enemies also recognise this.
If I win, I’m good.
If I loose, they’re racist.
Change? Seems like the last 30 years to me.
Socialism is not a race, it is a cancer. No wonder people reject it.
It’s simply weird how this country’s gone 1300′s Europe, superstions-wise.
The ascension of a man so utterly unqualified for the office is due to more than the eight-years itch, gas prices, Iraq war, white guilt, etc. – it’s due to a strange religion devotion to a man who says nothing (but very well so), and whose promises in case of materialization will hurt his very adorers!
Didn’t you hear (yet) that he heals scrofules just by looking at them? That he levitates? That he awakens the dead? That animals talk wisdom upon his walking by? That he can stop eclipses? Bring jobs back? Fix the world’s problems? Stabilize currency with one touch? Tame volcanos? Regain the prestige of this country? (Prestige never lost, as a matter of fact: a remarkably innane piece about this lost presitige is “Obama – our next great export” by Peter Shaller/Baltimore Sun)
There is’t there there – yet had to watch an entranced crowd of 70.000 people in Oregon swooning by him!
“Misanthropicus,” the 70,000 living-”useful-idiot”-dead to whom you refer in Oregon were there for the band DECEMBERISTS. The Obamboozler came on after the crowd was “warmed up.”
Secondly, Obi’s funding (whether certain individuals such as Soros are the main sources) – plus morally vacuous MSM – have created the momentum, most decidedly NOT Obi’s charming ability to give prepared speeches. Hence the lingering “messiah” reputation, which is looking pretty darned raggedy to me, as far as I can tell….
Most people seem to miss the point. The blacks have always called the whites racist because they thought any and all actions by whites was to promote whites only. Now reverse the issue, why are all the blacks voting for Obama? is this not racism at it’s finest or worse…
TO ALL BLACKS…PLEASE DON’T EVER CALL ME RACIST AGAIN!!!
Print it or stick it!!!
Call me racist, but I’m not supporting anyone who’s religion “craves the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the white race”.
The article is correct. Everyone who is saying that voting FOR a black candidate because they are black is the same as voting AGAINST a black candidate because they are black are, quite simply, dumb. Race is huge in this election, point-blank, end-of-story. Sorry all you starry-eyed secretly racist romantics out there.
These people need to wake up and smell the coffee; how many people aren’t going to vote for Obama for some reason that seems a little extraneous? Any excuse not to because he’s black.
Worse still, Obama doesn’t play the same games his fellow politicians do. He tells it like it is. Small-town voters ARE bitter because of neglect, and they DO focus on fringe issues just to feel important. Gas taxes are retarded idea and hurt the consumer more than help, even the most cursory bit of economic knowledge will indicate such. People whine and moan about how no politician tells them the truth, and the second one puts it in their face, they condemn him for it.
Why?
No one tells them the truth because for the most part they’re too dumb to process it.
Don’t take my word on it…
Count the number of Democrats who are voting for McCain now, just because Hillary didn’t win. We can file them all under the ‘legally retarded’ bin.
Let’s count the number of sheep who parrot whatever the media says about whatever candidate. Without checking out Obama’s past record in state government, or politics in general—as opposed to just national politics—they’ll just off and say ‘yeah, he’s inexperienced, he knows nothing,’ despite the fact that Hillary’s voting record really isn’t much better than ‘no experience.’
I want to believe in people and all of that jazz, but face facts: Americans vote from the gut. There are many who have very racist feelings in that gut, and they’ll use whatever excuse they want to justify them…
…that said…
I hope Obama wins in ’08, because I do believe he can lead this country in the right direction.
The Racist sctick is nothing more than dis information as practiced widely by the Left.
They are trying to back fill all the real reasons that make Obama a very unelectable candidate, Weak on Defense, Tax & spend Lefty, Economic Moron, Racist with bad morals, crooked Chicago political b/g, undefensible public liar about 2nd A stand, Pro-Abortion zealot, association with Islam and plainly not a very bright person, probably the 1st truly Affirmative Action Harvard Law Review Prez….he is not going to be elected because of his AA creds!
Do you honestly think that the only reason Conservatives who are pro-life, pro the 2nd Amendment, against socialized medicine, against big government, and against crooked “community organizations” would vote for McCain is because they are prejudiced against Obama? Are you kidding me? How dare you! It must be that you think all us corn-fed, dumb white people are too busy clinging to guns and religion to have one brain cell engage to do some research about voting records and actions vs. words. That is a racist attitude. It does work both ways you know.
To cry racism just to get votes is pathetic. Grow up and face the fact that a lot of people (of all races) think partial birth abortion is wrong, think they should be allowed to protect their homes and families with a gun if they want to, don’t want Big Brother controlling their lives, and believe “community organizations” that intimidate people and illegally sign up ineligible voters to cheat the polls should be a crime.
The government can’t run the programs that they are in charge of now; do you honestly think they will be able to add US wide medical coverage to it?
Do you know that now, every time someone says that issues don’t matter; only racism matters, it drives more and more people away from Obama? I know at least 20 non-white voters who are sick to death of the race card being played every 10 minutes and are now voting for McCain.
It almost seems like Obama supporters think that white people are too stupid to examine the issues and make up their minds for themselves – you know us dumm folk don’t want to do any uv thet reeding stuff. It’s just to hard for our limited intellect).
How come the one candidate and party who were supposed to be so uniting, are actually totally trying to divide this country along racial?
I did forget a few things…I guess the issue of Obama wanting to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the same Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who described the Holocaust as “a myth) and other dictators without any preconditions, shouldn’t matter.
Oh and I guess the issue of Obama saying that Georgia and Russia were equally responsible for the attacks that happened, I guess that doesn’t matter either.
And the last issue that shouldn’t matter is that Obama’s two economic advisors are former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac CEO’s (how much money did they each get for running these organizations into the ditch?).
I guess none of those issues really matter. America’s security…who cares about that, it’s really about Obama’s 4% African American ancestry that the only thing that matters.
And if white people are racists for not voting for Obama, then what about all the black people who won’t vote for McCain…Oh yeah, that’s right…only white people can be racist…even when they’re not.