Tuesday, May 13, 2008
|
|
Hillary Wins West Virginia
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
9:59 PM
|
Surprise, surprise. Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia by a hefty margin. The New York Times helpfully informs us that
The voter surveys showing a strong racial component to the West Virginia voting suggest that Mr. Obama would still face pockets of significant Democratic resistance if he does become the party’s first black nominee.
In other words, the Times suggests, many of those voting against Obama are doing so for racist reasons.
If I were part of the Obama team, I'd tell entities like the Times to stop the friendly fire. Back in March, Dianne Feinstein (a Hillary supporter), blamed some of her candidate's problems on sexism. I wrote at the time:
The problem with the "gender bias" approach, of course, is that it's hard to win over potential supporters by telling them that they'll be deemed to harbor invidious motives if they don't support your candidate. Not surprisingly, people don't enjoy being characterized as bigots.
The same applies to the racism argument. Sadly, no doubt some people are voting against Barack because of his race. But it does no good to accuse them of it. That's because other Hillary supporters -- who might be won over -- are likely to be offended (and with good reason) at the implication that their support for a candidate that they may prefer for perfectly acceptable non-racial reasons (maybe they believe she has more experience, or they liked her husband, etc., etc.) is actually covert racism.
Barack Obama says he can unite the party. Maybe he can -- but it won't be because he, his surrogates or his supporters (and yes, that includes most of the press) has bullied people into saying they'll vote for him, lest they be characterized as racist. That's not the way to win . . . that's the way to create a massive Bradley effect.
Barack is a very smart guy, and he no doubt knows this. What's more, at least when I knew him, he seemed willing not to view everything through a racialist lens (here's hoping that hasn't changed, given his associations in the interim). That's helpful, because sometimes, it really isn't about race -- it's about ideology. Ultimately, he'd be well-served to get race out of the discussion . . . if he can.
|
|
|
Unless americans are extremely stupid, when a candidate receives 90%+ from one demographic then that demographic defines the candidacy. For example; McCain receives significant support from military and that defines him as a military candidate. Huckabee and the evangelicals made him the evangelical candidate, and Mitt with the mormons made him the mormon candidate. Barak is the 'black' candidate not because he wanted it to be that way, but because blacks responded to Michelle's call to 'wake up and get it' and Oprah's call that Barack is 'the one' because 'it is our time'. Barak will lose on both ideology which includes a race-obsessed religion and race...because non-whites (hispanics and asians included) don't like the fact that blacks have overwhelmingly used race as a criteria for picking Barack. Why else are hispanics not supporting Barack? Why else are whites disproportionately not supporting him? Why else are seniors and military voters disproportionately not supporting him? because he has 90%+ support of blacks, and his views about this country put off patriotic americans .....who believe Barack's 90%+ from blacks is racist. |
|
|
McCain was not receiving the evangelical vote in the primary and he did not expect to receive most of it in the general election. This election will come down to the candidate whose vision is deemed to be most american. McCain and Obama offer a BIG difference in their resume, experience and most important their vision for America. Undecides will be few and the other canddiates on the ballot neutralize each other. Most americans will vote Obama or McCain - based on the vision the men give them. My money is on McCain. |
|
Sara, is that the imperialistic vision of America going to war over oil while telling its own people it was about WMD? About America building huge permanent military bases in a country that doesn't want them? Having to be bogged down in nation rebuilding in Iraq when it should be nation building at home?
An America which has lost much of the love and respect it once had around the world over unnecessary military adventurism and torture? I agree, Sara, it should be about vision and nothing else. |
|
Sorry, Kiddo; you can continue to complain about Hagee, but you still haven't provided links. In any event, Hagee recently apologized to Catholic officials in Boston.
Meanwhile, people still don't understand why Obama stayed in Wright's church. The April denouncing still leaves the question open. And the successor pastor seems as bad. But that's the cultural stuff--not race.
I'm looking forward to the reports about Obama's community-activist days in Chicago. I suspect that we're going to find that he is, in truth, nothing more than a more polished version of a typical political hack.
Oh, check out his mailer's for the Kentucky campaign.
http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kent ucky/
Classic. |
|
|
|