Estrich has missed the mark. The problem is not necessarily racism on the part of Democrat voters (although I am sure that it does exist), but a strange prejudice on the part of the MSM and Democrat bigwigs that regards any vote against a black Democrat candidate as cross-burning slave-lynching KKK-style racism. The hard truth that most Democrats don't want to face is that Bradley, Wilder, Jackson, the late Chicago mayor Harold Washington, Al Sharpton, former NY mayor David Dinkins, and (of course) New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin are mostly an incompetent, shabby lot of racists, crooks, losers and liars that scare most people. In fact, merely criticizing black Democrat politicians is to risk damaging charges of racism.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Thank you for saying this. I've been observing for a decade or so the stark contrast between the blacks who are prominent in the Democratic party and those who are prominent in the Republican party. The Democrats tend to be charlatans, hustlers, and crooks; the Republicans tend to be brilliant and powerful men and women. Compare Julian Bond, Alcee Hastings, Jesse Jackson, and Cynthia McKinney with Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas, and Condi Rice, and it becomes apparent.
Ironically, this lets Joe Biden off the hook somewhat. His comment about Obama being "clean" was probably a reference to this phenomenon.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
burt
· 1 year ago
I strongly recommend that you remove Wilder from your otherwise fine list of racists.
Neo
· 1 year ago
This election has done wonders for exposing the hucksterism of Democratic politicians. They don't love blacks, just the votes of blacks.
Frankly, I'm shocked that Bill Clinton (our 1st black [humour] President) would be so up front with his form of Bubba-ism, that pats good old boys on the backs while joking how they managed to sucker those poor black boys into voting their way again and again.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Yeah.... hard to imagine how in the world the leading Democratic candidate is a black man. Really, those Dems are such haters.
How dare black people see a black man as the guy with the most votes and the most delegates in the Democratic party and really believe that Democrats are interested in anything but their votes?
gasman
· 1 year ago
The fact is that Obama is where he is only because he is perceived as black (one of the good ones). If he were entirely white he would be ignored. That's racism. Obama love reminds me of the way some people brag about having black friends to make themselves appear to be evolved. Looking at people by skin color is so 18th century. Please evolve dems. Join the future.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
this is a very simplistic way of looking at it.
There is something to be said about pride (from standpoint of blacks who finally have a very national, very legitimate candidate, who is an example of their best qualities and their progress? highly intelligent, articulate and intelligent, and not a race baiter)
Obama's life story is very compelling and inspirational to just about anyone who's not an outright racist. I'm not saying that's enough to vote for him, but to ignore that fact and reduce it to the above is embarrassing.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Technically speaking, Obama is only half black, isn't he?
Here's what Scrappleface had to say:
"Former President Bill Clinton today downplayed the significance of his wife’s losses in Maine, Nebraska and Washington over the weekend, noting that just as being half-black helped Sen. Barack Obama win in the south, “his white half gives him the edge in primarily Anglo-American states.”
“Obama gets to play both sides of the race card,” said Mr. Clinton, “I told you he won South Carolina because he’s black, like Jesse Jackson. So, to be consistent, I’d have to say he won Maine because he’s white like Michael Dukakis.”
The former president acknowledged that his reasoning “doesn’t make sense at first, but if you think about how hard it is for me to avoid saying Hillary lost because Democrats don’t like her, then I think you’ll agree it’s the only prudent thing I can say.”
always_right
· 1 year ago
Scott Ott rarely disappoints. Another classic hit.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
So well stated Captain.
The Democrat Party has been building divisions to gain political influence for years.
Of course we all know it is the old Party of Segregation.
I wanted to say sadly, I see it with so many who vote Republican and call themselves Conservative, doing the same thing.
The bias against a North Eastern Republican is vivid, from those in other arenas, the Mormon bigotry was simply awful, as the Evangelical Identity pull seems very strong.
But I remember being in MD, after Steele lost, and actually believe some 'Conservatives' I encountered may have had a similar bias against this fine Man's skin color.
I have asked myself repeatedly if I am biased for a Male in Leadership positions.
Don't believe so, I have voted for Women, and thought PM Thatcher was OUTSTANDING.
But I imagine everyone has a bias in some manner.
There is a fine line however, where the 'identity' creates the dehumanization of 'others'.
Mr. Huckabee seems willing to build divisions, for personal gain...
Trochilus
· 1 year ago
How many members of the press noted that the "shake-up" at the top of Hillary's campaign involved replacing a Latina, with an African-American woman -- particularly given the fact that Williams carries serious baggage because of her questionable role in several controversies that arose during the Clinton White House years?
In other words, was there a subtle but unmistakable racial subtext in Hillary Clinton's move . . . was it at least partially an effort to try and reconnect with African Americans, one of the ending elements of the Democrat Party coalition -- just before the Potomac primaries?
Now, the actual staff change was done as essentially a "love fest" change, with Hillary issuing effusive praise for both of them:
Patti Solis Doyle has done an extraordinary job in getting us to this point - within reach of the nomination - and I am enormously grateful for her friendship and her outstanding work. . . . I look forward to her continued advice in the months ahead. Patti and I have worked with Maggie Williams for more than a decade. I am lucky to have Maggie on board and I know she will lead our campaign with great skill towards the nomination.
But the fact is that with her husband Bill, having singularly failed to turn around problems with her campaign by confronting Barack Obama in what anyone could see was a disturbingly racial manner, has Hillary taken a more subtle but still racial approach to try and turn around her campaign by putting Maggie Williams in charge?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
That is a ridiculous meme being pushed by Drudge. Frankly, until Drudge started screaming about her being a Latina, how many people even knew someone named Patty Solis Doyle was? I didn't and I am a political junkie and a Dem. Drudge is just trying to race bait.
Trochilus
· 1 year ago
Oh really?
Then perhaps you can explain whyABC News asked her if Patty Solis Doyle, as the only Latina campaign manager, was being scapegoated? Was ABC just pimping for Matt Drudge?
And, did you listen to Hillary's ridiculous answer? Watch her face. Watch her eyes drop as she is grasping for a logical explanation. Heh.
"There's just too much to be done .." . . . and . . . " .. we've got to get more help"?
And then the odd statement that Patty Solis Doyle will be "deeply involved in the campaign going forward, and she always has been for 16 years."
Incidentally, you may claim people don't know, but there are apparently some very important folks (i.e., Super-Delegate important) in the Hispanic community who did notice the "scapegoating" of Patty Solis Doyle. Oh, but you probably believe that Salon is pimping for Drudge, too!
Whatever Hillary's real reason for the replacement, it was not just because they needed more help! And replacing her with Maggie Williams, whose role in Whitewater, etc., does raise questions about what the public signal from the campaign was supposed to be. Democrats always play "identity" politics. It's a little like reading old Kremlin photos!
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
I honestly doubt that racism or sexism is playing much of a role in this primary. As susan says, it's more "identity" politics.
People tend to vote for who they identify the most with. For years, people had to choose the upper class white guy they most identify with. This Dem primary is truly groundbreaking. For first time, not only is there a legitimate black presidential candidate, but there's a legitimate female candidate... and they're running against each other.
Is it really that surprising that blacks are voting for Obama and women are voting for Clinton? Are they racist or sexist for NOT voting for them? No. I think it's a ridiculous claim without any real substance behind it.
terrye
· 1 year ago
I am not a Hillary fan or anything, but it seems to me that the media has been extremely kind to Obama. And I have wondered if they might be afraid of being accused of being racist if they go after him.
After all, going after a guy like McCain is easy. White, Republican, male, military background, Viet Nam vet. That is an easy target. Obama..well, that is something else. And when Bill Clinton jumped in there he just made it easier to go after Hillary.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Wait. The media is being nice to Obama now because they hate the Clintons. They have a long standing love affair with St. John of the Wonderful Story. As soon as Obama secures the nomination, they will turn on him like rabid dogs.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
the media loves McCain because of how he ran his campaign in 2000.
his personal story notwithstanding.. McCain made sure the media were always well fed, well boozed (2 of the most important things) and the "coup de grace" provided almost constant access.
it was media heaven. (and almost anyone covering McCain in 2000 will agree and admit these points)
this good will will not disappear in general election, though as always the media will be chasing "the story".
McCain, fortunately, also has a good story. (given up for dead, both in Viet prison, and politically in 2008, he resiliently rises from ashes)
burt
· 1 year ago
Turn on Obama! Want to bet?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
going after McCain?
the media generally loves McCain.
for many reasons. (and good ones)
it's precisely his popularity in the media that make him so suspicious the lunatic right fringes of the party.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
the media does favor Obama over HRC, without a doubt.
but there are legitimate reasons for this.
HRC's campaign has always treated the media as illegitimate stepchildren. (some of this based and probably justly on Monicagate, etc)
but what's far more important and relevant is the Obama is the far bigger and better STORY.
the media is all about the story.
The coronation of the Queen was announced to the peasantry last year, yet for whatever reason the peasants aren't enthusiastically participating in the coronation ceremonies.
What's the most compelling and interesting story?
the preordained coronation or the peasant rebellion?
jr565
· 1 year ago
Mccain should play the age card then.
txslr
· 1 year ago
So your argument is that it isn't racist or sexist because it's not surprising?! Can't you do any better than that?
RB
· 1 year ago
Well, said, Ed. Note too that her line--"If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama's strength in a general election?"--takes a not-so-subtle swipe at those of us on the right by accusing us of being the racist party.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
My comments about this on my blog include three observations, the last of which is: "Don’t expect the problem to be worse in the general election. You fooled yourselves about your own side. Guess what? You’re fooling yourselves about the other side, too."
But this is nothing new. I wrote about a month ago about about how many of the left's stink bombs they're lobbing at each other are packaged in comments about what the Right is going to say. It's how they do it -- sling the poo, blame the Republicans.
rbj
· 1 year ago
Doug Wilder, who wasn't elected to the Senate from Virginia, faced the same problem. We who are Democrats would like to believe that race is not a factor in the polling of our party members, but maybe we're wrong. Is that the self same Douglas Wilder those racists Virginians did elect to the governorship of the Old Dominion? Maybe the Virginians just didn't like his agenda for the Senate.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
what's really interesting is how the people we though might be more racist.. are actually less racist than the other ones,.
what i mean by that is that in the South and in large urban areas, the white working class is precisely as racist as we know they are and everyone tries to deny they are.
what's a little surprising is that it's the white hayseeds in the West and NorthEast who have almost no black people around them are turning out to be less racist in their voting patterns.
any theories as to why this? (I have at least one, but it's a bit incendiary)
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I think that it is because at heart most people are "racist". Or maybe "tribalist" is the way to put it.
This came home to me as a freshman in college. I had a roommate from Whyoming. She and I were watching the news one night and saw coverage of a KKK rally in Charleston, SC. She went on and on about how racist people in the south were.
A few months later there was a story about American Indians on the news. "Dirty, thieving, good for nothings," she said to me. "They just lay around not doing anything." It went on and on. All the worst stereotypes that some in the south have about black people, she had about American Indians. Probably because there were a large number of Indians in Whyoming and hardly any black folks.
If you study anthropology, you learn that every group across the world creates their own sense of identity by defining itself AGAINST another group. The other group may be a different race, a different religion, or just the next town over, but there is something basic to human psychology that causes that sort of thing.
Perhaps by recognizing those impulses, we can try to rise above them.
terrye
· 1 year ago
Yes, but have you noticed that when African Americans are Republicans, they generally get nothing but grief from the left. It is as if they had run off from the plantation. Condi Rice portrayed as an oreo is typical of the kind of thing you hear. So much for showing respect to the first African American female Secretary of State. Maybe she is just in the wrong tribe.
I know several Democrats who have already told me they will not vote for Obama. They say it is his middle name that troubles them or something like that, but I think it is something else.
The old guys are quite blunt about it however, they mince no words. I will not vote for that ...insert the "n" word they say. No bones about it. It happens.
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
Terrye -- there are no black Republicans. Condaleeza is not black. Colin Powell was not black until he screwed over the President, then he was baptized in the blood of Scooter Libby and allowed back in...
Teresa
· 1 year ago
And you think that it only happens among Democrats? That no Republicans feel that way? Because the right wing blogs are where I see Obama referred to as "B. Hussein Obama
There are bigots in every party, but if you look at which party has elected more African Americans and women to congress, I think the Dems win hands down.
BTW, I have no problem with African Americans being conservatives. I have a big problem with Condoleeza Rice not being good at her job.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
The Democrat's scorched earth response to black conservatives is far, far more vicious than anything you'll see over here in Republican-land. They use outright, Jim Crow-style slurs, like picturing Clarence Thomas as a lawn jockey. This is morally offensive to the bone. It's an attempt to intimidate and shame them into conformity with their racial narrative, which conservative blacks show to be an outright lie. Characterizing this as "whipping them back onto the plantation" is not too strong an image for this deeply disgusting, morally offensive tactic.
By contrast, the "B Hussein Obama" stuff is not really racism at all. We happen to be at war against an enemy that works by planting sleepers of their own among us, and "Hussein" is a common name among them. It's reasonable to expect some amount of paranoia related to the name.
Attempting to paint these as instances of the same thing is a sort of self-deception that's common among Democrats, for whom "moral equivalence" is a way of life, but it's simply and clearly false.
The reason Democrats have elected more blacks is that 90% of blacks register Democrat. That's their choice, and has more to do with the historic influence of the Democratic party in the south than it has to do with any particular virtue or vice of either party. But it's also the case that Democratic blacks in Congress have been treated with disdain and denied standing in their own party, that Democratic presidential campaign staffs tend to be lily-white, and that there are no such barriers in the Republican party.
It's true, you'll find racism in lots of places. But in the Democratic party, you find it at the top, and in the Republican party, you'll only find it in the backwaters, among those who have no influence.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Yes... that is why many leadership positions in the house are now held by African-Americans and why we are likely to have an African-American as the nominee -- because Democrats show racism at the top.
What bizzaro world do you live in?
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Name a leadership position in the House that's held by a black person.
Next -- and here's a truly relevant statistic -- give me the percentage of minorities holding positions in Democrat administrations compared to their percentage of the party nationally. And then let's see the same statistic for the Republican party. How much do you want to bet me that blacks are OVERrepresented in the Republican party, and UNDERrepresented in the Democratic party, and that the disparity increases the higher you go in the hierarchy?
And finally, you're likely to have an Afro-American nominee BECAUSE he's black. Have you noticed what percentage of black voters are voting for Obama? You think that's because they like his policies, when you can't fit a business card between his and Clinton's position on any issue?
And how far do you suppose a young, white politician with Obama's record would have gotten in this race? John Kennedy was a Kenneday; Dan Quayle actually achieved something in the Senate. What's Obama's claim to fame?
Obama has a chance at the nomination because of racism in the Democratic party.
I live in the same world you do, Teresa. I just see it a lot better than you.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
I'm curious how history will judge Condi.
the conventional wisdom now is that she certainly allowed herself to get pushed around bureaucratically and otherwise by Dick and Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld would pointedly ignore her at times during meetings and other very sexist and condescending slights.
of course, Rumsfeld and Cheney are masters at the bureaucratic "game". she was up against the best.
but in the end, she also clearly "won".
Alas, at a very tremendous cost to the country.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
yes, I would agree on strong tribal tendencies your theory though runs very close to my theory..
and it's a bit incendiary.
your suggest that your friend's stereotypes about Indians exist because she had been exposed to them.. which would also be true of course of urban whites and Billy Joe Jim Bobs in the South.
but that's a little dangerous to say, don't you think?
one develops prejudices because one is exposed their realities?
perhaps a more intelligent way to approach it is to say that racism or prejudice exists because those people are exposed to the worst traits/examples of the other group, without being exposed to the best.
which is a little sad.
a member of my family works in the correctional system and it's amazing to me how racist he has become. Perhaps not as surprising though as he deals with the dregs of society (and of the other races) on a daily basis.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Whoa.... that is not the point I was making at all. I don't think those stereotypes are true of either African American or Native Americans.
I think people define themselves against others that they see around them. I don't think the way they define themselves is actually accurate.
The fact that my roommate used exactly the same stereotypes as people in the south do -- and that in the COngo one group of pygmies talks about another group in the next village as being "shiftless, lazy, dirty" etc... -- points to the fact that every group uses the EXACT SAME SET of stereotypes.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
Serious question: do you really think it "racist" to react to a number of images consistently showing the same set of characteristics about a group?
Let me give you an example: Jesse Jackson observed once that when he sees a group of noisy, young, black men coming toward him on the city sidewalk, he'll cross the street to avoid them. Many people would do the same. Why? Is Jackson racist against his own people? I think not; I think, rather, that too many people have seen media images of young black men in gangs, misbehaving, and are reacting to the rehearsed images.
I'll give you another example. One night I was climbing steps in the Bridgeport, CT train station, when a black professor stopped me and asked me for some help. He noted the fear on my face when he first approached (my instinctive reaction), and quickly apologized for the "black face, I know you're not used to ... " and so on. He was wrong, though. I've spent years among black people and I'm not uncomfortable with blacks at all. It was his DREADLOCKS. I've never seen dreads on any male except gang-bangers before, and Bridgeport is a high crime area -- when I saw the dreadlocks, I assumed the worst. Am I racist against Rastifarians? Not at all -- it's just that I've seen lots of dreadlocks, and every time, it's been associated with something unpleasant, so when I saw them on this man, I expected something unpleasant.
What progressives like to call racism is frequently nothing but a perfectly rational assessment of a biased set of data. What needs to be corrected is not the people drawing the conclusions -- they're being rational. What needs to be corrected is the data.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
"........think, rather, that too many people have seen media images of young black men in gangs, misbehaving, and are reacting to the rehearsed images...."
this is politically correct horseshit that Chris Rock often completely destroys in his comedy shows.
and it's because he's black he can stand up to it and completely demolish it.
I believe he did a skit once about being in front of an ATM and watching out for some shady characters looking to rob him.
He said.. I'm not scare of the media... I'm scared of ".............s"
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Do pygmies in the COngo truly talk about others as being "shiftless....etc..? Boy what you learn in the comments section of a blog.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Yes! It is amazing how the exact same words are used over and over all around the world.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
How many different ways are there to say "They're lazy?"
Is it possible that some groups have the reputation of being lazy because... they're disproportionately lazier than other groups?
Go read Thomas Sowell's "The Economics and Politics of Race," and comment on this when you've finished.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
richard mcenroe
· 1 year ago
MAYBE she's wrong? She obviously didn't see the Rainbow coalition fleeing Bel Air and Beverly Hills during the 91 riots. it looked like the evacuation of Kuwait, all those Bentleys and Mercedes stacked with luggage and heading for the airport...
burt
· 1 year ago
Douglas Wilder is a non sequitur in Estrich's baloney. Wilder was our governor immediately preceding George Allen. He has won a statewide election. Oh I forgot. A senate seat is an entitlement for a Democrat.
Elais
· 1 year ago
Argueing that Democrats are racists is like arguing that up is down. It is absurd. I don't see a Black Republican or a Female Republican running for prez.
As far as the 'victimization' card, plenty of Republicans play that every chance they get. "Boo Hoo the mean old Democrats won't us institute a police state to protect America from terrorists".
Boo Hoo, millions of christians are being victimzed by the nasty, tiny, minority athiests.
Republicans think that ignoring a problem like racism, makes it go away. Maybe if they think hard enough, they can think Osama Bin Laden Away.
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
Who wound you up, Elais. When Republicans finally get a man or an African American running for president, at least ours will be intelligent and will not pander like you and your ilk. And, no, ignoring a problem does not make it go way. Democrats imply rename things and expect them to disappear! Geez!
sharinlite
· 1 year ago
....it's late and I'm tired. Meant to say...When Republicans finally get a woman or an..
Bogey
· 1 year ago
pure fantasy.
No Republican can ever win without the South. They're effectively a regional, "southern" party these days anyways.
the day Billy Joe Jim Bob and Ricky Bobby vote for a black man or woman is the day I will descent unto hell with ice skates.
Gaunilon
· 1 year ago
My favorite Estrich Egg was her FoxNEWS article a few weeks ago called "Sexist Surge for Hillary". The article made a contorted case for Hillary benefiting from a backlash against the sexism that holds her back....?..... The title was priceless though; I read it and thought "wow, Estrich is actually being honest about people voting for Hillary because of gender bias". Then I read the article and had my opinion of Estrich's objectivity rapidly sink back to where it started.
Someone must have enlightened her about the accidental honesty: a day later the title had been mysteriously revised to read "Sexist Backlash May Push Hillary Into White House".
HNAV
· 1 year ago
that is fun...
Susan is one interesting 'comedian' at times.
bikerken
· 1 year ago
I always get a kick out of the liberals, people who separate people by sex and color and dictate how they should be treated differently.........to avoid racism and sexism. Lib, meet mirror.
I was watching Casa Blanca the other night and was reminded of how many lines in that movie have been quoted endlessly. It has to be the movie with the most classic memorable quotable lines, not even Blazing Saddles could come close.
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
Racism used to have a firm definition, it was the belief that one race is superior to another. Leftists of the highest social classes in America used to talk openly about the importance of cleansing the unfit from the gene pool, i.e., eugenics, in the first half of the 20th century, before such talk evolved into the more useful rhetoric of women's choice.
But the definition of "racism" today is a deliberately nebulous concept. Doesn anyone even know what the word means anymore? It's certainly been purged of its eugenic connotation, and its usage has become little more than an empty "move" in the game of politics, i.e., playing the race card.
I think Susan is on to something as regards the older meaning of racism in the democrat party. We all know there is a leftist elite class that lives in Manhattan and Hollywood, that sees itself as a ruling class. Watch a Woody Allen movie, or the Academy Awards, and you get a glimpse of these insular characters. Susan is only saying what we all know to be true, that there is a liberal character type that oozes with contempt for anyone who is not "one of them."
TJM
· 1 year ago
I am a former Dem. When I learned to read and think for myself I registered as a Republican because they do not allow you to register as an Independent in Illinois. By the way, I have heard the "N" word with great frequency over the years in the Dem bastions of Chicago and Boston but rarely in the "racist" South. What I find fascinating about Estrich is she wrote a column 2 years ago exhorting the Clintoons to get off the national stage and give the Dem Party some pure air. Now she's flipped and wants the Hillster as the Dem Party's nominee. Talk about a flip-flopper.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
Susan Estrich might be onto something here. In big-state PRIMARIES without a heavy African-American population, polls have tended to over-estimate Obama's support, meaning that there might be some people telling pollsters that they plan to vote for Obama in order to sound "politically correct", but don't actually vote for him. This wouldn't be widespread racism or feigned political correctness, but it only takes about 10% (or maybe 50 to 100 people in the average poll sample) to lie to a pollster to throw the results off.
After all, Mitt Romney's Mormon religion was a handicap in the Republican race. Although the vast majority of Christian Republican voters (probably over 80%) would vote for a Mormon if they considered him the best candidate on issues, there is a minority fringe in some churches that considers Mormonism a "cult" and would never vote for a Mormon, and this probably was reflected in general-election polls showing Romney losing to the Democrats, and led Republican voters to choose a more electable candidate.
So far, Clinton has won 12 state primaries, Obama has won 7. Even if Obama wins VA and MD (both of which have heavy African-American populations), he still trails in primaries 12 to 9. Obama has won 9 state caucuses, Clinton only one. Why does Obama do so well in caucuses, but have trouble against Clinton in primaries?
Part of the reason may be the low turnout at caucuses, and Obama's campaign style of making long, intensely hopeful yet vague speeches might earn him enough dreamy-eyed hard-core supporters to win a state caucus without convincing the overall electorate.
But if Estrich is right, there may be another reason why Obama does so well at caucuses. Caucus-goers have to defend their candidate publicly in debates with supporters of other candidates for hours. If race and gender become issues at Democrat caucuses, some Hillary supporters may be accused of racism during caucus debates, and be pressured to cross over to Obama to avoid being considered racist by their friends and neighbors at a caucus. Primary voters have no such fear, and can privately vote for Hillary without disclosing their vote to others.
Is political correctness and caucus-goers' fear of being perceived as racist by their friends and neighbors giving Obama an advantage in caucus states, which overstates his support among the wider electorate? If any commenters here have voted in Democrat caucuses, their opinions would be interesting...
Susan
· 1 year ago
Frankly this election is all about identity politics on both sides. Not so much ideology and policy. Hope you write more about the topic.
HNAV
· 1 year ago
indeed...
it is interesting.
some is natural, to see someone you relate to succeed or have gain influence.
but there is such a fowl extreme...
the bigotry against Mormons was truly reprehensible to encounter.
Squid_Shark
· 1 year ago
I LOVE YOUR CASABLANCA REFERENCE!
"I am shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!" "You winnings sir" "Thank you"
gbear
· 1 year ago
I wish I could vote for a Phyllis Schlafly or a Walter E. Williams in the upcoming general election, I really do.
burt
· 1 year ago
I would vote for either Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell. Oh I forgot. One isn't allowed to vote for officially designated "uncle Toms".
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
To be "officially black" you have to be a liberal Democrat.
Anyone else isn't really black. I know this, because Jesse Jackson said so.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
One thing that doesn't make sense here is that some polls have been correct. Survey USA called California exactly correct on Super Tuesday. This problem is not so much the Bradley Effect as the Zogby effect. Zogby has been consistently off in almost every poll.
If you had the Bradley Effect, all the polls would be off, not just some.
She is also conveniently ignoring the fact that more white voters in SC voted for Obama than the polls predicted. Is that a "reverse Bradley" effect?
captained
· 1 year ago
Well, all the polls were off in New Hampshire. Not in California, where Zogby laughably had Romney winning by eight -- how did that turn out again?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Exactly. So how does that end up being a "Bradley effect"? More like the polling has been pretty crappy all around and in both parties this year.
Maybe we should stop looking at polls and only look at the results.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Sorry... should have read your comment more carefully singling out New Hampshire. I said at the time there was going to be a big backlash amongst women against the media and for Hillary. Obama just won Maine handily. I don't think that people in Maine are more or less racist than those in New Hampshire. The vote that was undercounted in NH was the women's vote.
sashal
· 1 year ago
zogby was consistently wrong. How the ... he makes his living?
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Notice how nobody talks about the amount of early voting in CA that locked in votes for HRC before the big swing for Obama? Naw, that's too boring an answer.
sashal
· 1 year ago
and white voters in nebraska, CT, Maine, Washington. Estrich is just stupid old cow, FOX' token liberal personality
captained
· 1 year ago
stupid old cow
OK, no sexism among Democrats! Nothing to see here, move along ....
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Does referring to her as "the beast" constitute sexism too?
sashal
· 1 year ago
plenty of sexism, capt, everywhere.
Even with the independents, like me....
Bogey
· 1 year ago
well she is an old cow.
just like some geezer males could be categorized as old stubborn bulls.
or make it even more pejorative.
ShannonL
· 1 year ago
I read hers and Novak's articles earlier today. Apparently an email was sent out by the powers in the Rep party to attempt to scare Dems away from Obama. It looks like you ladies are starting to sweat??
Teresa
· 1 year ago
According to Robert Novak's column this morning the GOP is counting on racism as a way to win against Obama in the fall.
Or is the argument that it is ok for Republicans to be racist because they don't bother trying to not be racists?
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"According to Robert Novak's column this morning the GOP is counting on racism as a way to win against Obama in the fall. "
Really? I just read Novak's February 11 column 3 times, and he never said that. Did he write another newer column since this one came out this morning?
Try combining that column with this statement from a recent Novak appearence on Meet The Press:
"Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/cate...
Is the light coming on now?
txslr
· 1 year ago
So, in order to do something that has never been done before, the Democrats are going to nominate someone who is way too far to the left for the American electorate and is profoundly lacking in any serious qualifications for the job in terms of personal accomplishment.
Are you getting it yet?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Up above we are told that Democrats hold black conservatives in contempt, but somehow it is different for you to hold black liberals in contempt?
Just trying to understand the rules here.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
to be fair, I don't think black liberals are held in contempt.
all liberals are held in contempt.
what's infuriating to an outside observer is that if you are black but somehow not liberal, it's then decided you are not "black". but merely an Oreo.
which is preposterous.
but this is slowly changing.
philwynk
· 1 year ago
If the Republicans were, in fact, saying something so vapid as "it's ok for us to be racist because we don't pretend not to be," they'd only be mimicking the Democrats' excuse for why it's ok for Democrats to be homosexuals, but not ok for Republicans.
But they're not saying anything of the sort. Novak observing that the Democrats are asking for trouble by choosing this year to nominate a black or a woman is not an admission of racism at all -- it's a recognition of somebody else's racism. Novak is not saying HE doesn't like blacks; he's saying lots of voters might not. Do you understand the difference? If I point out that Hutus are murdering Tutsis in Rwanda, does that mean that *I* want to murder Tutsis? Of course not.
You can turn the light off now, Teresa.
MarkTheGreat
· 1 year ago
Ah yes, the old, you have to read between the lines to find the super secret real meaning of what he wrote argument.
I once argued with a young lady who also happened to be black. She declared that all whites are racist. The only difference between them is that some are better at hiding it then others, an if you search hard enough, you can always find evidence to prove it.
Funny anecdote. Shortly after this, a friend of hers came up to apologize for her behaviour. He said he couldn't understand her behavior. According to him, when she was among friends, she never acted that way. I asked him if all of her friends were black. He admitted that they were.
Enough said.
If you look hard enough for what is not there, you will always find it.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Somehow Novak forgot to call john Edwards "the new George Wallace."
The sun is setting for Novak and a host of other pundits. The nearly brought down Clinton and smeared Gore to a standstill. They were rich, powerful, respected, and feared. Not any more.
NAFTALI
· 1 year ago
When reading Novak, I recommend Morton's Iodized salt, just a pinch between your cheek and gum. The GOP is hoping (pretend this is italicized) for some scenario in which they win. They are hoping Obama says something or does something so outrageous (breathing doesn't count) that GOPers come out and vote. And this is only because their own nominee is among the billions on the planet less charismatic than Obama. Too bad there isn't a cabinet post for Designated Speaker. Sure could have used one the last eight years.
sashal
· 1 year ago
bingo. It is laughable to hear that from repubs , isn't it Teresa? The embodiments of bigotry
captained
· 1 year ago
If she disagrees with you, would that make her a "stupid old cow", as per your remark above?
sashal
· 1 year ago
sorry, cap. That was not about disagreement, but about falsity and untruths of her pseudo-intellectual blabbering
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Why not just say that instead of calling her a cow?
Bogey
· 1 year ago
well, because by looking at her, that's the first thing I think of. (though I recognize by using such language you are immediately in a "no win" situation (all downside, no upside)
however , I am sure one could come up with equally pejorative names by looking at some ugly old geezers on the male side.
and perhaps people SHOULD, if they are going to use the old cow remark.
njcommuter
· 1 year ago
Let us apply the word cow to people only as a verb, as in "The Left's highest aspiration is to be cowed by our enemies."
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Probably. I'm not sure that racism per se is alive and well in the Democratic party, but there sure is a lot of sexism there, in the media and on the right.
sven10077
· 1 year ago
Racism is plenty alive in the Donks, unless Condi has a genetic birth defect that makes her melanin enhanced with Anglic genes.....
nobody so blind as those who refuse to see(Sheets Byrd) Teresa...
Bogey
· 1 year ago
of course it's alive and well in the Dem Party. look at the voting patterns in Democratic primaries.
Billy Joe Jim Bob and Ricky Bobby won't vote for a black man (of course there are tons more BJJBobs and Ricky Bobbys who are Republican)
but in urban areas.... Johny Trailer Park White trash won't vote for a black guy either, and of course Joey Goombah from Jeysey or Philly won't be voting for a black guy either.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
And, yet, Obama has won over and over in red states, blue states, west coast states, southern states, east coast states....
Bogey
· 1 year ago
yes he has.
but his percentage of the white vote in Southern states has been very small. (he's won because of heavy black vote)
and the white hayseeds in out of way places like Colorado and Maine and Nebraska.. they seem to be far less racist than their redneck and white working class cousins.
that's why it's critical for Obama (as you yourself admit) to win a "big state".
All Comments
Ironically, this lets Joe Biden off the hook somewhat. His comment about Obama being "clean" was probably a reference to this phenomenon.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
They don't love blacks, just the votes of blacks.
Frankly, I'm shocked that Bill Clinton (our 1st black [humour] President) would be so up front with his form of Bubba-ism, that pats good old boys on the backs while joking how they managed to sucker those poor black boys into voting their way again and again.
How dare black people see a black man as the guy with the most votes and the most delegates in the Democratic party and really believe that Democrats are interested in anything but their votes?
There is something to be said about pride (from standpoint of blacks who finally have a very national, very legitimate candidate, who is an example of their best qualities and their progress? highly intelligent, articulate and intelligent, and not a race baiter)
Obama's life story is very compelling and inspirational to just about anyone who's not an outright racist. I'm not saying that's enough to vote for him, but to ignore that fact and reduce it to the above is embarrassing.
Here's what Scrappleface had to say:
"Former President Bill Clinton today downplayed the significance of his wife’s losses in Maine, Nebraska and Washington over the weekend, noting that just as being half-black helped Sen. Barack Obama win in the south, “his white half gives him the edge in primarily Anglo-American states.”
“Obama gets to play both sides of the race card,” said Mr. Clinton, “I told you he won South Carolina because he’s black, like Jesse Jackson. So, to be consistent, I’d have to say he won Maine because he’s white like Michael Dukakis.”
The former president acknowledged that his reasoning “doesn’t make sense at first, but if you think about how hard it is for me to avoid saying Hillary lost because Democrats don’t like her, then I think you’ll agree it’s the only prudent thing I can say.”
The Democrat Party has been building divisions to gain political influence for years.
Of course we all know it is the old Party of Segregation.
I wanted to say sadly, I see it with so many who vote Republican and call themselves Conservative, doing the same thing.
The bias against a North Eastern Republican is vivid, from those in other arenas, the Mormon bigotry was simply awful, as the Evangelical Identity pull seems very strong.
But I remember being in MD, after Steele lost, and actually believe some 'Conservatives' I encountered may have had a similar bias against this fine Man's skin color.
I have asked myself repeatedly if I am biased for a Male in Leadership positions.
Don't believe so, I have voted for Women, and thought PM Thatcher was OUTSTANDING.
But I imagine everyone has a bias in some manner.
There is a fine line however, where the 'identity' creates the dehumanization of 'others'.
Mr. Huckabee seems willing to build divisions, for personal gain...
In other words, was there a subtle but unmistakable racial subtext in Hillary Clinton's move . . . was it at least partially an effort to try and reconnect with African Americans, one of the ending elements of the Democrat Party coalition -- just before the Potomac primaries?
Now, the actual staff change was done as essentially a "love fest" change, with Hillary issuing effusive praise for both of them:
But the fact is that with her husband Bill, having singularly failed to turn around problems with her campaign by confronting Barack Obama in what anyone could see was a disturbingly racial manner, has Hillary taken a more subtle but still racial approach to try and turn around her campaign by putting Maggie Williams in charge?
Then perhaps you can explain why ABC News asked her if Patty Solis Doyle, as the only Latina campaign manager, was being scapegoated? Was ABC just pimping for Matt Drudge?
And, did you listen to Hillary's ridiculous answer? Watch her face. Watch her eyes drop as she is grasping for a logical explanation. Heh.
"There's just too much to be done .." . . . and . . . " .. we've got to get more help"?
And then the odd statement that Patty Solis Doyle will be "deeply involved in the campaign going forward, and she always has been for 16 years."
Incidentally, you may claim people don't know, but there are apparently some very important folks (i.e., Super-Delegate important) in the Hispanic community who did notice the "scapegoating" of Patty Solis Doyle. Oh, but you probably believe that Salon is pimping for Drudge, too!
Whatever Hillary's real reason for the replacement, it was not just because they needed more help! And replacing her with Maggie Williams, whose role in Whitewater, etc., does raise questions about what the public signal from the campaign was supposed to be. Democrats always play "identity" politics. It's a little like reading old Kremlin photos!
People tend to vote for who they identify the most with. For years, people had to choose the upper class white guy they most identify with. This Dem primary is truly groundbreaking. For first time, not only is there a legitimate black presidential candidate, but there's a legitimate female candidate... and they're running against each other.
Is it really that surprising that blacks are voting for Obama and women are voting for Clinton? Are they racist or sexist for NOT voting for them? No. I think it's a ridiculous claim without any real substance behind it.
After all, going after a guy like McCain is easy. White, Republican, male, military background, Viet Nam vet. That is an easy target. Obama..well, that is something else. And when Bill Clinton jumped in there he just made it easier to go after Hillary.
a long standing love affair with St. John of the Wonderful Story. As soon as Obama secures the nomination, they will turn on him like rabid dogs.
his personal story notwithstanding.. McCain made sure the media were always well fed, well boozed (2 of the most important things) and the "coup de grace" provided almost constant access.
it was media heaven. (and almost anyone covering McCain in 2000 will agree and admit these points)
this good will will not disappear in general election, though as always the media will be chasing "the story".
McCain, fortunately, also has a good story. (given up for dead, both in Viet prison, and politically in 2008, he resiliently rises from ashes)
the media generally loves McCain.
for many reasons. (and good ones)
it's precisely his popularity in the media that make him so suspicious the lunatic right fringes of the party.
but there are legitimate reasons for this.
HRC's campaign has always treated the media as illegitimate stepchildren. (some of this based and probably justly on Monicagate, etc)
but what's far more important and relevant is the Obama is the far bigger and better STORY.
the media is all about the story.
The coronation of the Queen was announced to the peasantry last year, yet for whatever reason the peasants aren't enthusiastically participating in the coronation ceremonies.
What's the most compelling and interesting story?
the preordained coronation or the peasant rebellion?
But this is nothing new. I wrote about a month ago about about how many of the left's stink bombs they're lobbing at each other are packaged in comments about what the Right is going to say. It's how they do it -- sling the poo, blame the Republicans.
Is that the self same Douglas Wilder those racists Virginians did elect to the governorship of the Old Dominion? Maybe the Virginians just didn't like his agenda for the Senate.
what i mean by that is that in the South and in large urban areas, the white working class is precisely as racist as we know they are and everyone tries to deny they are.
what's a little surprising is that it's the white hayseeds in the West and NorthEast who have almost no black people around them are turning out to be less racist in their voting patterns.
any theories as to why this? (I have at least one, but it's a bit incendiary)
This came home to me as a freshman in college. I had a roommate from Whyoming. She and I were watching the news one night and saw coverage of a KKK rally in Charleston, SC. She went on and on about how racist people in the south were.
A few months later there was a story about American Indians on the news. "Dirty, thieving, good for nothings," she said to me. "They just lay around not doing anything." It went on and on. All the worst stereotypes that some in the south have about black people, she had about American Indians. Probably because there were a large number of Indians in Whyoming and hardly any black folks.
If you study anthropology, you learn that every group across the world creates their own sense of identity by defining itself AGAINST another group. The other group may be a different race, a different religion, or just the next town over, but there is something basic to human psychology that causes that sort of thing.
Perhaps by recognizing those impulses, we can try to rise above them.
I know several Democrats who have already told me they will not vote for Obama. They say it is his middle name that troubles them or something like that, but I think it is something else.
The old guys are quite blunt about it however, they mince no words. I will not vote for that ...insert the "n" word they say. No bones about it. It happens.
There are bigots in every party, but if you look at which party has elected more African
Americans and women to congress, I think the Dems win hands down.
BTW, I have no problem with African Americans being conservatives. I have a big problem with Condoleeza Rice not being good at her job.
By contrast, the "B Hussein Obama" stuff is not really racism at all. We happen to be at war against an enemy that works by planting sleepers of their own among us, and "Hussein" is a common name among them. It's reasonable to expect some amount of paranoia related to the name.
Attempting to paint these as instances of the same thing is a sort of self-deception that's common among Democrats, for whom "moral equivalence" is a way of life, but it's simply and clearly false.
The reason Democrats have elected more blacks is that 90% of blacks register Democrat. That's their choice, and has more to do with the historic influence of the Democratic party in the south than it has to do with any particular virtue or vice of either party. But it's also the case that Democratic blacks in Congress have been treated with disdain and denied standing in their own party, that Democratic presidential campaign staffs tend to be lily-white, and that there are no such barriers in the Republican party.
It's true, you'll find racism in lots of places. But in the Democratic party, you find it at the top, and in the Republican party, you'll only find it in the backwaters, among those who have no influence.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
by African-Americans and why we are likely to have an African-American
as the nominee -- because Democrats show racism at the top.
What bizzaro world do you live in?
Next -- and here's a truly relevant statistic -- give me the percentage of minorities holding positions in Democrat administrations compared to their percentage of the party nationally. And then let's see the same statistic for the Republican party. How much do you want to bet me that blacks are OVERrepresented in the Republican party, and UNDERrepresented in the Democratic party, and that the disparity increases the higher you go in the hierarchy?
And finally, you're likely to have an Afro-American nominee BECAUSE he's black. Have you noticed what percentage of black voters are voting for Obama? You think that's because they like his policies, when you can't fit a business card between his and Clinton's position on any issue?
And how far do you suppose a young, white politician with Obama's record would have gotten in this race? John Kennedy was a Kenneday; Dan Quayle actually achieved something in the Senate. What's Obama's claim to fame?
Obama has a chance at the nomination because of racism in the Democratic party.
I live in the same world you do, Teresa. I just see it a lot better than you.
the conventional wisdom now is that she certainly allowed herself to get pushed around bureaucratically and otherwise by Dick and Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld would pointedly ignore her at times during meetings and other very sexist and condescending slights.
of course, Rumsfeld and Cheney are masters at the bureaucratic "game".
she was up against the best.
but in the end, she also clearly "won".
Alas, at a very tremendous cost to the country.
your theory though runs very close to my theory..
and it's a bit incendiary.
your suggest that your friend's stereotypes about Indians exist because she had been exposed to them.. which would also be true of course of urban whites and Billy Joe Jim Bobs in the South.
but that's a little dangerous to say, don't you think?
one develops prejudices because one is exposed their realities?
perhaps a more intelligent way to approach it is to say that racism or prejudice exists because those people are exposed to the worst traits/examples of the other group, without being exposed to the best.
which is a little sad.
a member of my family works in the correctional system and it's amazing to me how racist he has become. Perhaps not as surprising though as he deals with the dregs of society (and of the other races) on a daily basis.
true of either African American or Native Americans.
I think people define themselves against others that they see around them. I don't
think the way they define themselves is actually accurate.
The fact that my roommate used exactly the same stereotypes as people in the south
do -- and that in the COngo one group of pygmies talks about another group in the next village as being "shiftless, lazy, dirty" etc... -- points to the fact that every group uses the EXACT SAME
SET of stereotypes.
Let me give you an example: Jesse Jackson observed once that when he sees a group of noisy, young, black men coming toward him on the city sidewalk, he'll cross the street to avoid them. Many people would do the same. Why? Is Jackson racist against his own people? I think not; I think, rather, that too many people have seen media images of young black men in gangs, misbehaving, and are reacting to the rehearsed images.
I'll give you another example. One night I was climbing steps in the Bridgeport, CT train station, when a black professor stopped me and asked me for some help. He noted the fear on my face when he first approached (my instinctive reaction), and quickly apologized for the "black face, I know you're not used to ... " and so on. He was wrong, though. I've spent years among black people and I'm not uncomfortable with blacks at all. It was his DREADLOCKS. I've never seen dreads on any male except gang-bangers before, and Bridgeport is a high crime area -- when I saw the dreadlocks, I assumed the worst. Am I racist against Rastifarians? Not at all -- it's just that I've seen lots of dreadlocks, and every time, it's been associated with something unpleasant, so when I saw them on this man, I expected something unpleasant.
What progressives like to call racism is frequently nothing but a perfectly rational assessment of a biased set of data. What needs to be corrected is not the people drawing the conclusions -- they're being rational. What needs to be corrected is the data.
this is politically correct horseshit that Chris Rock often completely destroys in his comedy shows.
and it's because he's black he can stand up to it and completely demolish it.
I believe he did a skit once about being in front of an ATM and watching out for some shady characters looking to rob him.
He said.. I'm not scare of the media... I'm scared of ".............s"
around the world.
Is it possible that some groups have the reputation of being lazy because... they're disproportionately lazier than other groups?
Go read Thomas Sowell's "The Economics and Politics of Race," and comment on this when you've finished.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
As far as the 'victimization' card, plenty of Republicans play that every chance they get. "Boo Hoo the mean old Democrats won't us institute a police state to protect America from terrorists".
Boo Hoo, millions of christians are being victimzed by the nasty, tiny, minority athiests.
Republicans think that ignoring a problem like racism, makes it go away. Maybe if they think hard enough, they can think Osama Bin Laden Away.
No Republican can ever win without the South. They're effectively a regional, "southern" party these days anyways.
the day Billy Joe Jim Bob and Ricky Bobby vote for a black man or woman is the day I will descent unto hell with ice skates.
Someone must have enlightened her about the accidental honesty: a day later the title had been mysteriously revised to read "Sexist Backlash May Push Hillary Into White House".
Susan is one interesting 'comedian' at times.
I was watching Casa Blanca the other night and was reminded of how many lines in that movie have been quoted endlessly. It has to be the movie with the most classic memorable quotable lines, not even Blazing Saddles could come close.
But the definition of "racism" today is a deliberately nebulous concept. Doesn anyone even know what the word means anymore? It's certainly been purged of its eugenic connotation, and its usage has become little more than an empty "move" in the game of politics, i.e., playing the race card.
I think Susan is on to something as regards the older meaning of racism in the democrat party. We all know there is a leftist elite class that lives in Manhattan and Hollywood, that sees itself as a ruling class. Watch a Woody Allen movie, or the Academy Awards, and you get a glimpse of these insular characters. Susan is only saying what we all know to be true, that there is a liberal character type that oozes with contempt for anyone who is not "one of them."
After all, Mitt Romney's Mormon religion was a handicap in the Republican race. Although the vast majority of Christian Republican voters (probably over 80%) would vote for a Mormon if they considered him the best candidate on issues, there is a minority fringe in some churches that considers Mormonism a "cult" and would never vote for a Mormon, and this probably was reflected in general-election polls showing Romney losing to the Democrats, and led Republican voters to choose a more electable candidate.
So far, Clinton has won 12 state primaries, Obama has won 7. Even if Obama wins VA and MD (both of which have heavy African-American populations), he still trails in primaries 12 to 9. Obama has won 9 state caucuses, Clinton only one. Why does Obama do so well in caucuses, but have trouble against Clinton in primaries?
Part of the reason may be the low turnout at caucuses, and Obama's campaign style of making long, intensely hopeful yet vague speeches might earn him enough dreamy-eyed hard-core supporters to win a state caucus without convincing the overall electorate.
But if Estrich is right, there may be another reason why Obama does so well at caucuses.
Caucus-goers have to defend their candidate publicly in debates with supporters of other candidates for hours. If race and gender become issues at Democrat caucuses, some Hillary supporters may be accused of racism during caucus debates, and be pressured to cross over to Obama to avoid being considered racist by their friends and neighbors at a caucus. Primary voters have no such fear, and can privately vote for Hillary without disclosing their vote to others.
Is political correctness and caucus-goers' fear of being perceived as racist by their friends and neighbors giving Obama an advantage in caucus states, which overstates his support among the wider electorate? If any commenters here have voted in Democrat caucuses, their opinions would be interesting...
Not so much ideology and policy.
Hope you write more about the topic.
it is interesting.
some is natural, to see someone you relate to succeed or have gain influence.
but there is such a fowl extreme...
the bigotry against Mormons was truly reprehensible to encounter.
"I am shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment!"
"You winnings sir"
"Thank you"
Anyone else isn't really black. I know this, because Jesse Jackson said so.
If you had the Bradley Effect, all the polls would be off, not just some.
She is also conveniently ignoring the fact that more white voters in SC voted for Obama than the polls predicted. Is that a "reverse Bradley" effect?
Maybe we should stop looking at polls and only look at the results.
I said at the time there was going to be a big backlash amongst women against the media and for Hillary. Obama just won Maine handily. I don't think that people in Maine are
more or less racist than those in New Hampshire. The vote that was undercounted
in NH was the women's vote.
How the ... he makes his living?
Estrich is just stupid old cow, FOX' token liberal personality
OK, no sexism among Democrats! Nothing to see here, move along ....
Even with the independents, like me....
just like some geezer males could be categorized as old stubborn bulls.
or make it even more pejorative.
Or is the argument that it is ok for Republicans to be racist because they don't bother trying to not be racists?
Really? I just read Novak's February 11 column 3 times, and he never said that. Did he write another newer column since this one came out this morning?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/787086,CST-E...
"Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/cate...
Is the light coming on now?
Are you getting it yet?
but somehow it is different for you to hold black liberals in contempt?
Just trying to understand the rules here.
all liberals are held in contempt.
what's infuriating to an outside observer is that if you are black but somehow not liberal, it's then decided you are not "black". but merely an Oreo.
which is preposterous.
but this is slowly changing.
But they're not saying anything of the sort. Novak observing that the Democrats are asking for trouble by choosing this year to nominate a black or a woman is not an admission of racism at all -- it's a recognition of somebody else's racism. Novak is not saying HE doesn't like blacks; he's saying lots of voters might not. Do you understand the difference? If I point out that Hutus are murdering Tutsis in Rwanda, does that mean that *I* want to murder Tutsis? Of course not.
You can turn the light off now, Teresa.
I once argued with a young lady who also happened to be black. She declared that all whites are racist. The only difference between them is that some are better at hiding it then others, an if you search hard enough, you can always find evidence to prove it.
Funny anecdote. Shortly after this, a friend of hers came up to apologize for her behaviour. He said he couldn't understand her behavior. According to him, when she was among friends, she never acted that way. I asked him if all of her friends were black. He admitted that they were.
Enough said.
If you look hard enough for what is not there, you will always find it.
The sun is setting for Novak and a host of other pundits. The nearly brought down Clinton and smeared Gore to a standstill. They were rich, powerful, respected, and feared. Not any more.
It is laughable to hear that from repubs , isn't it Teresa?
The embodiments of bigotry
That was not about disagreement, but about falsity and untruths of her pseudo-intellectual blabbering
however , I am sure one could come up with equally pejorative names by looking at some ugly old geezers on the male side.
and perhaps people SHOULD, if they are going to use the old cow remark.
but there sure is a lot of sexism there, in the media and on the right.
nobody so blind as those who refuse to see(Sheets Byrd) Teresa...
look at the voting patterns in Democratic primaries.
Billy Joe Jim Bob and Ricky Bobby won't vote for a black man (of course there are tons more BJJBobs and Ricky Bobbys who are Republican)
but in urban areas.... Johny Trailer Park White trash won't vote for a black guy either, and of course Joey Goombah from Jeysey or Philly won't be voting for a black guy either.
coast states, southern states, east coast states....
but his percentage of the white vote in Southern states has been very small. (he's won because of heavy black vote)
and the white hayseeds in out of way places like Colorado and Maine and Nebraska.. they seem to be far less racist than their redneck and white working class cousins.
that's why it's critical for Obama (as you yourself admit) to win a "big state".