U.K paper asks if the Democratic Party is racist...

[mikelewis]

Is the Democratic Party hesitating about race as it moves to the brink of nominating an African-American to be president?

"Race is intertwined with a broader notion that he is not 'one of us'," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, which conducted an extensive examination of voter attitudes, particularly among Democrats who have an unfavourable view of Obama. "They react negatively to people who are seen as different."

"The big question about Barack Obama from the very beginning has been: is he safe?" said Peter D Hart, a Democratic pollster not affiliated with any of the campaigns. "Safe in terms of both the cultural values that he has, and about whether he is strong enough to be commander in chief."

For Obama, race presents two potential problems: voters opposing Obama simply because he is black, and Democrats who will not support Obama because they do not think a black man can win a general election.

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Race-question-threatens-to-derail.4024352.jp

This article is essentially saying that Obama hasn't won the primary as of yet because the Democratic party and mainly voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania are frightened by the color of his skin. I guess the possibility that Senator Clinton is a fierce opponent and a tenacious fighter has nothing at all to do with the longevity of this campaign. That's not the issue... no, it's pigmentation that's the real issue. I had ignorantly assumed that this race was lasting as long as it was because the nation had no intention of ever voting for those loathsome rat-fucking Republicans and the party felt that we should at least let every state have a say in which Democratic candidate is going to be the next President. Nope, I am an idiot... we Democrats are closet racists... yes, even us Ohioans apparently wallow in the pyrite luxury racism affords us. We are just so blinded by color that we would vote the rest of our jobs overseas and beg for more of our children to die in the sands of Babylon. The guy who wrote this article and the paper who printed it are the blind ones and if this article was printed on paper I would wipe my ass with it.

[ccharles000]

1. That article is bs.

Our party is the party of inclusion.

[fortyfeetunder]

2. I wouldn't say the article is BS

I think the Scotsman, as well as many other papers from outside the US is drawing a conclusion based on what they see and hear in the mainstream media.

[democracy1st]

12. you better open up your eyes right now

this party is nothing special,how in the hell all of a sudden Reagan Democrats get special clout

[Exilednight]

32. Only includes those who don't upset the Clinton/Bush status quo. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

37. Is that why some folks in this party are going around saying a black man can't win the presidency.

[CakeGrrl]

45. It comes from the top. HRC herself: "He can't win."

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the reasoning behind HRC attacking Obama's "electability".

She panders to the racist element to scare voters into sticking with her, and it undoubtedly helped her out in OH and PA, as it will in KY and WV.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I think that even a lot of Americans, including the young, the Indies, and

Black folks are starting to ask those questions.

It may be even clearer for those watching from the outside looking in. Maybe they see some of the things that Hillary supporters and our corporate media will be the lasts ones to see.

Maybe as a whole, the Democratic party ain't what it has claimed to be; the party of inclusion. Maybe you are only included to a point.

[bhikkhu]

26. Time will tell.

And I know what you mean...I've seen unexpected things lately, but nothing need be re-written or proclaimed lost yet.

[PBS Poll-435]

4. US Citizen asks if the Tories are racist.

The world waits for an answer..

[jackson_dem]

18. They are

They are so racist they had to send a memo to their candidates a few years ago warning them not to make racist remarks. Only a party with a lot of racists would have to send such a memo. You don't hear of Labour in the UK having to warn its candidates not to make racist remarks.

[bhikkhu]

25. self delete - misread

[boppers]

5. Does racism still exist in america?

It's a simple question, which has a "yes", or "no", answer.

If the answer is "yes", then racism is part of the public electorate, and will affect the election.

If the answer is "no", then racism is not part of the public electorate, and will not affect the election.

So, does it still exist in america?

[FrenchieCat]

6. Well, we used to think that it was more of a Republican thing.....

"they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade.When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. "-- BILL CLINTON
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

[boppers]

8. Two words:

"southern strategy"

Among the blemishes our party has is a long tradition of supporting legal racism.

[dugggy]

40. Correct...George Wallace, Maddox, Fulbright were all Democrats

Most senators voting against the civil rights act of 1960's were Democrats.
Those democrats often resorted to Filibusters to block progressive legislation.

[jackson_dem]

20. It exists when Obama loses but it will vanish on November 4

See, Obama lost PA and OH because of racism. In the general election, when an even higher percentage of racists vote than in Dem primaries, racism will mysteriously vanish for one day and Obama will carry those states in the general election. YES HE CAN!

(or at least according to Obamites...)

[Exilednight]

33. Just like sexism will disappear in Illinois? n/t

[jackson_dem]

39. That was a cop out excuse

[Skwmom]

7. The voters in OH and PA are voting for Bill Clinton. I was just

in OH and PA and that is how MANY in that area view the race. Why do you think Bill "slipped" and talked about it like it was his third term? Remember the poll in NH when they asked Hillary voters who they would vote for if both Bill and Hillary were running and the majority voted for Bill.

Are there some racists who won't vote for Obama - sure? But there are a heck of a lot more voters who won't vote for Hillary.

Furthermore, the meme was that Hillary will take VP b/c she will be in the cat bird seat (and I'll leave you to figure out what that means b/c I won't post it).

[democracy1st]

13. No way guy She turned to GOP tactics

and everyone I know is talking about that

[Two Americas]

9. a shallow understanding of racism

The Republicans have no problem appointing individual people of color to positions of power. That is not a good measurement of racism.

The same demographic that is rejecting Obama rejected Kerry and Gore to about the same degree. If race is a factor, it is not the main one.

It is the "professors" we keep nominating that is the problem. In style, manner and sentiment, they resonate well with the relatively upscale academically-oriented intellectual activists. That is the prime cause of the alienation of the blue collar and rural people from the party. It is not about race or even about politics. We select leaders whose style and speech, mannerisms and taste, backgrounds and credentials that we are most comfortable with and identify with- very shallow and superficial and emotional reasons - and then criticize the general public for rejecting our candidates upon the same shallow basis.

It is almost as though we want to lose - want the people to reject us. We would rather be right, we would rather express ourselves, we would rather make a statement in the culture wars than to go for real world results by taking effective political action. The Obama movement reminds me more of a tent revival religious movement than it does a true powerful, serious, and muscular political movement.

It is as thought the activists are saying - "watch this! I bet those knuckle draggers will reject a guy just because he is from New England - stupid idiots get everything they deserve!" Now we are once again throwing down the in-your-face ultimatum - "watch this! I bet those stupid racist assholes will now reject a Black man!"

This drama means that we lose, but we get to be "right" in our views of modern American society and our role and position in it. Since the activist community generally consists of people who are better off and relatively immune from the worst ravages of free market capitalism - or in many cases profiting from it - they can afford to be right at the expense of losing, and we would be naive to deny that this plays a role.

We are seeing the spectacular culmination and ultimate extreme expression in the Obama campaign of a trend that has been growing for over thirty years now. It is a desperate in-your-face confrontational and strident culture war movement. "We are right and they are wrong, those stupid morons! Fuck 'em! We don't need them! If they are so stupid as to not agree that we are right and they are wrong, then they have everything coming to them! I will take an early retirement and move overseas if I don't get my way! This country isn't good enough for me!" The arrogance toward and disconnection from the working class that this movement represents is truly obscene. Adherents to this cultural doctrine of superiority blame everyone but themselves for the failures of the party and the mess the country is in - they will not look in the one place that would be powerful and useful to look - the mirror. That is because they are "right!!!" and all of the rest of us are wrong.

Now it is not merely the racists they hate, now they hate all Republican voters (how we can ever grow the party if we are going to exclude anyone who ever voted Republican is a mystery, and how we win them over by hating them is, as well), now hate Clinton, hate half the Democratic voters, and now even hate anyone who expresses the slightest criticism of Obama or reservations about the way the Obama campaign is unfolding. "Fuck 'em! Fuck all of them! We don't need them! We are right and they are wrong! Anyone disagreeing is on the evil side! Attack!!"

[FrenchieCat]

10. Your entire thesis in wrong.

You are speaking about Americans in general; the Article is talking about Democrats in particular.

Neither Gore nor Kerry were rejected by Democrats.

There seems to be hesitation on accepting Obama (that is what the article is referring to) and it appears to be absolutely because of his race.

[Two Americas]

11. I disagree

All the people are Democrats, as far as I am concerned. We just haven't reached them all yet. I am not writing anyone off. The red and blue team mentality is part of the problem I am describing.

[democracy1st]

14. All the people are Democrats,man thats not what made America great

I don't know where you're coming from with all this Democratic righteousness

[Two Americas]

24. that doesn't make any sense

I see all people I meet as possible converts, and strongly believe that the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party are in the best interests of 90% of the population, and that the reason that people don't see that is because we have yet to reach them with effective arguments. What is wrong with that, and what does that have to do with "what made America great?" What could your objection possibly be? I don't see it as a red team versus blue team game, and I am not looking to categorize people into the enemy camp so I can justify using them as a target for hatred and anger.

By the way, I am not talking about pandering or compromising. I have given hundreds of very strong left wing socialist speeches in the reddest of red rural areas over 30 years. People in those areas most definitely reject modern liberalism, but they strongly embrace old school FDR New Deal Democratic party politics. I don't ever see any liberal activists in those areas, by the way, nor in the poor neighborhoods I work in.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Well, maybe you didn't write them off,

"they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade.When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. "-- BILL CLINTON
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites: "Screw 'Em"

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

My Recollection of Hillary Clinton at the 1995 Camp David Meeting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theda-skocpol/my-recollection-of-the-19_b_97291.html

Additional links on the matter: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/hillary-clint-7.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/screw-em-hillary-said-about-working.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/17/907891.aspx
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillary-on-working-class-white.php

[Two Americas]

19. I am not a Clinton supporter

I don't support either of the Clintons and agree with you about your criticisms of them. I was an outspoken critic of the Clinton administration, and thought that it destroyed the party and set us up for the Bush administration.

[democracy1st]

16. FrenchieCat thats exactly the game they play

ignore what your eyes can see and make up all kinds of convoluted arguments. I have heard it all from both Rep/Dem

[Two Americas]

22. I take strong exception to that

I object to your remark about how "they" are doing something, made in reference to my post, and would request that you withdraw that statement. I am not part of any "they" in your imagination, and your remarks are prejudicial and inflammatory.

If you disagree with what I said, have the guts to stand up and counter it by force of reason rather than making a sly and malicious ad hominem attack.

Before you judge or categorize or smear me, you might want to search my posts. Then, if you have some disagreements about the opinions that I have strongly and honestly expressed and effectively supported and defended in hundreds of posts, I would be more than willing to debate with you. Merely calling an argument "convoluted" because you don't like it, and coyly putting it in the same category as Republican arguments, and then accusing me of ignoring what I see is childish and destructive.

[Catchawave]

30. "they" ?

Pretty broad brush there towards your fellow Dems :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

21. Richardson finished 4th. Is it because of his race?

jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr-25-08 08:39 PM
Original message
Poll question: Why did Richardson lose? Racism or limited appeal?

Why do you believe Bill Richardson's campaign finished a distant 4th? Was it because of racism against Latinos or because he had limited appeal?

Poll result (71 votes)
Racism (1 votes, 1%) Vote
Limited appeal (70 votes, 99%) Vote

[jackson_dem]

23. "hesitation on accepting Obama". So it must be racial!

What race was Jimmy Carter in 1980 when he lost a string of primaries at the end like Obama is now doing, including Pennsylvania?
What race was Walter Mondale when Gary Hart surged?
What race was Gerald Ford when he lost a string of primaries at the end like Obama is now doing?
What about McGovern?

Deja vu?

-snip-

1968 loser Humphrey also won some contests, and both he and Wallace were neck-and-neck with McGovern for total votes in the primaries at the end. But the activist, fervently anti-war supporters of McGovern managed to add up enough delegates in a combination of primary and caucus states to give him the nomination. The tactics of primaries and caucuses were in a stage of transition; no longer could party leaders who won a few states (or even just their home state as a 'favorite son') use their block of delegates to influence the nomination in the 'smoke-filled rooms' of a convention. Here a candidate with a well-organized force of zealots had beaten the system in an example of what is now the normal strategy: before 1972, entering and winning a few select primaries was merely a demonstration of support, because victory in the primaries would not guarantee a win at the convention and many candidates avoided potentially embarassing head-to-head showdowns for votes; after 1972, no candidate would be able to win the nomination without winning enough votes nationwide to defeat all challengers. Exciting, up-in-the-air conventions were a thing of the past. Of course the same radical enthusiasm which propelled McGovern caused the Democrats to consider guaranteed incomes and other socialist measures that alienated the 'silent' mainstream of the country, and McGovern would also have some shocking running-mate troubles; he would be humiliated like no loser had been humiliated before--or at least not since 1936 when Republican candidate Landon won 8 electoral votes against FDR.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1972.html

1984




February 20: Iowa
February 28: New Hampshire
March 6: Vermont
March 13: Alabama (Democrats), Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, plus caucuses in Nevada, Oklahoma, Washington (Mixed results: Mondale in the South, Hart in New England, Florida, and the West; Glenn eliminated)
March 18: Puerto Rico (Mondale wins)
March 20: Illinois
March 27: Connecticut (Democrats)
April 3: New York (Big win for Mondale over Hart), Wisconsin (primary--this one won by Hart)
April 10: Pennsylvania (Another important Mondale win)
May 1: DC, Tennessee
May 5: Louisiana, Texas (Republicans)
May 8:Latter two were narrow Hart wins but not enough to stop Mondale)
May 15: Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho
June 5: California, New Jersey, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota (Democrats), West Virginia (Hart’s win in California was not enough to prevent Mondale going over the top)
June 12: North Dakota

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1984.html

Hart screwed himself by making "bittergate" type remarks about NJ. He tanked in NJ and lost the state. Had he won he may have won the nomination. He needed both California and New Jersey to have a shot and was on his way to getting them.

1980



-snip-

In 1980, the incumbent Carter was weakened by economic and international problems, and Teddy Kennedy saw an opportunity to unseat him from within the party. However, Carter defeated Kennedy in the early contests, and Teddy's campaign sank like a car plummeting off a bridge. In part this was due to initial rallying around the president in a time of crisis; however, as the nation's inability to change either its international or economic situations was revealed, Carter lost support. In some later contests Kennedy had a resurgence and won a lot of delegates in large states like New York and California, but this was not enough to keep Carter from winning a majority of the delegates. Nationally, however, Carter was dropping rapidly--the endless counting of days the Iranians held our hostages, the declining economy, and the apparent weakness of our country (a botched hostage rescue attempt didn't help this, nor did the meek response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which set off a series of nasty events that would eventually bite both superpowers in the ass) all gave Reagan's message a lot of power. Reagan, of course, had gained respect by defending the nation in his years of service on the battlefields of Hollywood. The national election, at first expected to be close, was a surprising landslide for the actor over the peanut farmer.*

Schedule of 1980 primaries from Congressional Quarterly’s Presidential Elections, 1789-1996. Note shift of many states’ primaries to earlier dates compared to 1976 and especially 1972. The number of primaries as opposed to caucuses and other delegate-selection methods has also increased dramatically.

January 21: Iowa
February 17: Puerto Rico (Carter win)
February 26: New Hampshire
March 4: Massachusetts, Vermont
March 8: South Carolina (Republicans)
March 11: Alabama, Florida, Georgia
March 18: Illinois
March 25: Connecticut, New York (Democrats)
April 1: Kansas, Wisconsin
April 5: Louisiana
April 22: Pennsylvania but Carter is dominating most states]
May 3: Texas
May 6: DC, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee May 13: Maryland, Nebraska
May 20: Michigan , Oregon
May 27: Arkansas (Democrats), Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada June 3: California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi (Republicans) <[b>several Kennedy wins but not enough to take nomination away from incumbent]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1980.html

1976



Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan fought it out in the most prolonged, evenly-matched primary-and-caucus race in recent Republican Party history. Ford won a series of early contests until Reagan managed a pivotal win in North Carolina, after which the struggle was back-and-forth. Reagan's strength is apparent in the conservative south and the west, including his base in California. Ford, although not winning a majority of the caucus delegates (he was slightly short of a lock even at the time of the convention, marking the last time in history a party convention might matter), managed to win enough of the big primaries in the midwest and east to hold onto the nomination. (According to the Dave Barry analysis, Ford finally won by "a margin of four brain cells to three"). This year was a turning point for the Republican party, as the last time the moderate wing had enough clout to ward off a challenge by the united forces of the pro-big business lobby and the fundamentalists (whose ranks were being swelled as the former segregationists abandoned the Democratic party, which they felt had abandoned them under the control of Northern social liberals). Even so, Ford's appointed VP, Rockefeller (one of the endangered breed of liberal Republicans--yes, they did exist, just like the conservative Democrats!) had been replaced by Dole as veep candidate. After his nomination, Ford had an uphill battle against Carter, which he almost managed to pull off (1976 was the closest presidential election until 2000's mixed decision). However, Ford would lose the election and go down in history known mainly for pardoning disgraced fellow Republican Richard Nixon and for providing fodder for Chevy Chase's pratfall skits.




Schedule of 1976 primaries from Congressional Quarterly’s Presidential Elections, 1789-1996

Iowa straw poll
February 24: New Hampshire
March 2: Massachusetts, Vermont
March 9: Florida
March 16: Illinois
March 23: North Carolina <[u>First Reagan primary win]
April 6: Wisconsin
April 27: Pennsylvania
May 4: DC (Democrats), Georgia, Indiana
May 11: Nebraska, West Virginia
May 18: Maryland, Michigan
May 25: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee
June 1: Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota
June 8: California, New Jersey, Ohio

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Rep1976.html

[IsItJustMe]

38. You see the world like the msm sees it, and I don't agree at all. You like to take your labels and

put everybody into nice little boxes to fit the labels you have for them.

Whites, blacks, old people, blue collar workers, catholics. This is all contrived bull shit concepts that our media has handed to us so that we can divide ourselfs to fit into their catagories, and so that we can also use these catagories to define ourselves.

These are concepts and not reality. I pitty anyone who allows this labeling process to define who they are.

[jackson_dem]

17. If Obama loses it is because of racism, if Richardson loses it is because he has limited appeal

If Clinton loses 90% of the black vote consistently it is because of her and race is no factor.

Sincerely,

Obamanation

[kevinmc]

27. Is the Democratic Party racist?

Is the Democratic Party racist?... NO .. are there some racist in the Democratic Party? ... YES

[Perry Logan]

28. I doubt there's a Hillary supporter in the world who hasn't been called racist by Obama supporters.

[goldcanyonaz]

29. Or, a sellout.

[Liberal Veteran]

34. On the flip side, I doubt there is an Obama supporter in the world that hasn't be called sexist.

....by the Hillary supporters.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I've learned this cycle

What I have learned is that the Demcratic Party has many homophobes, far more virulent and active than I would ever have imagined. There are a few Democrats I loved that I know see as atavistic and small minded, and in some cases I see them as Religious Right infiltrators.
So the Party has lots of homophobes, but I don't think the Party is homophobic.

I see all bigotry as one. If the Party crawls with bigotry against gay and transgendered people, and I can see that many members are very sexist, then I assume many racists also dwell with a D. Prejudice as a way of life is one signle monster. I'd go so far as to say the homophobes are also racists, as I see no difference. I don't split hairs over bigotry. One is or is not a bigot. The Party has many, but the Party itself is not bigoted.
For example, the DNC is seeking to have GLBT peoples represented among the delegates at the Convention, against the protests of such now questionable people like Donna Barzille. The Party prevailed, and we are invited, Donna and her crowd can go to chruch instead of Convention if they don't like it. I hope they do.

[EFerrari]

41. Exactly.

:toast:

[mmonk]

35. The Hillary campaign playing the race card is proof enough.

They didn't use it until South Carolina (think that was just a coincidence?). This isn't rocket science.

[stillcool]

36. Just more fear...

same old same old. Every dormant sentiment of racism has been stirred up to paint a candidate as 'unelectable'. Kind of reminds me of what our government does to other countries...divide and conquer.

[grantcart]

42. The problem with this premise in this article and other threads like it is that it

doesn't make any allowance for the fact that it is indeed a race between a candidate who happens to be African American and a candidate who happens to be a woman.


There are a lot of supporters who have gone for Senator Clinton because they are quite frankly interested in promoting the candidacy of a woman and think that Obama could follow her. Does anyone really think, for example, that Maya Angelou would not support Obama following Clinton?

It would have more relevance if Obama had been running against a conventional white male candidate. Many of Clinton supporters, including DU supporters are in fact conflicted and would like to have both Clinton first and Obama second.

I don't agree with them but to imply that people who support Clinton do so out of racial animus is unfair.

[frickaline]

43. I don't believe this for a second, its just a close race

Anyone implying that there is some sort of landslide victory on either side that is getting ignored for race or gender reasons must have failed math class.

[kentuck]

44. Those yokels can get back to us after they elect their first black prime minister

Many of them still refer to us as the "colonies"..

[cyndensco]

46. My image of racism in America has improved since this primary started.

There was no way this time last year I would have thought Obama would be the front-runner. I liked and supported him (the whole IWR thing), but this country was far too race conscious to give him a chance. Or so I thought.

I attended 2 rallies here in Wisconsin - one with him, the other Michelle. I was moved by how EVERYONE there was as excited as I was with his candidacy. (I guess we all, black and white, had drunk the Kool Aid).The kids at my son's predominately white, republican HS, the same ones with "W" bumper stickers on their cars four years ago, seemed to largely rally behind Obama. Overall, it has been a positive experience for me. I am carrying a bit less baggage.

Still, though, racism is alive and well in America AND in the democratic party. While I do not think everyone supporting someone other than Obama is racist (albeit misguided}, some posters here do appear, at best, race conscious.