Comments on: Racism and Sexism in the Democratic Primaries

By: greg laden

greg laden — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:39:33 +0000

Anne and Janie, thanks for joining in.Janie, there may be voters voting for Obama or Clinton beausae of their black/femaleness ONLY, but I do think that that is really rare. You and I have gone through similar though processes this election, with me maybe being a bit less interested in Edwards.I also agree that Michigan and Florida should have a couple weeks of campaigning and a do-over (maybe campaign .. vote then campaign ... vote).Anne, I think you have a good point with Obama's Message of Melding.I have taken the issues raised by my friend Ana and my colleague Larry on to the next post, to which I invite you'all: HERE

By: JanieBelle

JanieBelle — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:24:15 +0000

Sadly, there are voters who are voting for Senator Obama for no other reason than he happens to be black.Equally sadly, there are voters who are voting for Senator Clinton for no other reason than she happens to be female.And yes. From personal experience, Appalachian folks tend to be both racist and sexist. It sucks. It’s the way it is. I doubt however, that this shame is limited to Appalachia.Personally, I did my very damnedest to look at issues and only issues. What is each candidate saying about the issues that matter most to me?At the beginning of this primary season, I was tickled. There were actually three wonderful candidates from whom to choose. I would have been ecstatic with any of them, especially after having the Republic and the world deliberately run into the ground full steam ahead by the current administration.After a while, former Senator Edwards dropped out, and although it saddened me greatly, it narrowed and simplified the selection process for me.Senator Clinton told me she wanted to get religion out of science. Senator Obama waffled and gave great speeches that were full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.Neither candidate addressed civil equality for all Americans in the way the Constitution demands. To hear each of them, especially Senator Obama, support “separate but equal” stances on sexual orientation was depressing.Hearing Senator Obama move closer to ‘in Iraq forever and ever’, and hearing him pull his Jesus out of his pocket more and more, and then hearing Senator Clinton follow his lead, has really sucked my enthusiasm right out of this race.Listening to Senator Obama’s rabid supporters scream for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race, with all the vicious nastiness of a dyed-in-the-wool Rethuglican has further diminished my once shiny excitement. Ours is supposed to be the party that values every vote. Were we not the ones who bitched so loudly when the 2000 election was stolen by back-door shenanigans that disenfranchised millions of voters? Screaming for Michigan and Florida voters to be raped of their empowerment for the advantage of one candidate or the other is disgustingly hypocritical. It’s nothing less than the weakling becoming the bully when the bigger bully moves on.I would like to see a fair do-over in both states, but Senator Obama’s supporters have seen to it that it won’t happen. I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Obama campaign. It wasn’t the voters who gave the DNC the finger, it was a bunch of party hacks with no concern whatever for the common person. To hear the Obama supporters tell it, you’d think there had been a referendum.Oh, don’t get me wrong. Since Senator Obama is the predestined appointee of the DNC, he’ll get my vote, but only to prevent another four years of Bush-Cheney Inc. damaging the Republic and the world even more than they already have.–But make no mistake, I’m not voting for Senator Obama, I’m voting against theocracy in favor of slightly less delusion. At best, an Obama administration will hold the line; but judging by what has transpired so far, it will not take a damned thing back or slide the Overton Window one single iota back toward sanity.And that’s all I have to say about that.

By: Anne Gilbert

Anne Gilbert — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:10:13 +0000

Nobody e-mailed me about this! (sniff!) But anyway, What has been happening with this whole campaign is just plain weird! Last year at this time, I couldn't decide who would be a good Democratic nominee. I kinda liked Edwards, as a matter of fact. But I'd heard Obama a few times, and thought he was very "inspiring" in certain ways. I never was "for" Hillary Clinton, because, quite frankly, I thought she was too closely tied to "same old, same old" politics, e.g. outfits like the Democratic Leadership Council, and her vote to authorize war in Iraq). And given her choice of a husband, she just has too much "baggage". But I would have supported her as the Democratic nominee if there had been no other choice.Fortunately for me, there was, and I liked more and more of what I saw of Obama. So I have become his supporter, despite being in a "demographic" that is supposed to support Hillary.But, like Greg, I've become increasingly disturbed by the sexism and the racism employed in parts of the campaign. Because there's plenty of both to go around already. Sure, I'd like to see a woman president some day. And overall, I think this campaign is historic, in many, many ways. Because I can still hear my mother saying, years ago, that this country was not ready for either a black or a woman president. I wish she could have lived to see this time and day. But the one big difference I see between Obama and Clinton, and why I won't vote for her, is, that Obama is sticking to his theme of uniting the diverse elements in this country under the Democratic Party. And he continues to be extremely gracious --- publicly, at least --- to Hillary Clinton's efforts to stay in the race, despite the fact it is very unlikely she will catch up to Obama's delegate lead.Mrs. Clinton, OTOH, has stooped to "coded" racist attacks on Obama, like the "hardworking people" remarks she recently made, implying that blacks don't work hard at their jobs, too. And of course there are others, though this is the most recent. I also have a distinct impression that many Hillary supporters Just Have To Have A Woman President, Or Else(some of them have suggested they would switch to McCain if Hillary is not nominated).While Obama himself has not stooped to sexism, some of his followers have. And of those who are not overt sexists, I get the impression from some of them, especially on certain blogs, just can't stand the idea of a woman president, in their heart of hearts. They are all of the male persuasion, just as many of the "diehard Hillary supporters" are female. Don't worry, Greg, this is nothing against you; it's obvious that you understand these things pretty well yourself.To me, it's all very sad. From the POV of what Obama expresses, though, he comes through as someone who wants to meld the races and the sexes and the various political "sides" into a unified whole that is willing to work to better this country. Hillary Clinton comes off, more and more as something of a "politics as usual, get elected by any means" kind of person. For these reasons, I think that Obama would make a better president, but at the same time, to give Mrs. Clinton her due, I think she has, at least up until recently, acted very courageously to put herself up there as the first serious female candidate for the presidency. And whoever wins the nomination, I hope they all calm down and unite behind the nominee. We don't need four more years of someone like McCain.Anne G

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:15:24 +0000

“THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledgeI shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidentialelection primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as ‘campaigning’ is defined byrules and regulations of the DNC. “”participatev. to invest and then receive a part or share, as in business profits, payments on a promissory note, title to land, or as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of a person who has died.””participate Show phoneticsverb [I]to take part in or become involved in an activity””1. to take or have a part or share, as with others; partake; share (usually fol. by in): to participate in profits; to participate in a play.-verb (used with object)2. Archaic. to take or have a part or share in; partake in; share.”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJn4VListen to Hilary Clinton say, on the radio, that any votes before the DNC approved date- “will not count for anything”.

By: Larry Moran

Larry Moran — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:51:14 +0000

The real question is what would have happened if Obama were a white man.Do most people believe that he would have clinched the nomination months ago? And the reason he hasn’t is because he’s black?I don’t think that hypothesis stands up to close scrutiny. Maybe Clinton would have won the nomination if her opponent had been some white senator from Illinois. In that case, Obama might win because he’s black and not in spite of his race.What do you think?Here’s an interesting fact from the CNN website. It concerns the primary in Misssissippi.

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country. And black voters make up nearly 70 percent of registered Democrats.But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.According to The Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized — neighboring Alabama, and Clinton’s former home state of Arkansas.The exit polls also indicated roughly 40 percent of Mississippi Democratic voters said race was an important factor in their vote, and 90 percent of those voters supported Obama.

Hmmm … 90% of those voters who say that race was an important factor ended up voting for Obama.Greg, do you conclude that most black voters are racist or do you have some sort of rationalization that allows you to maintain a double standard when it comes to comparing Kentucky and Mississippi?

By: Ana

Ana — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:33:27 +0000

Phil – there was no directive for candidates to take their names off ballots in Michigan. Obama decided to do that on his own, probably to not upset those in New Hampshire who so want to be firstish. Clinton did not campaign in Michigan, but there was a “grass-roots” effort, totally independent from the Obama campaign (they say), to encourage his supporters to vote “uncommitted”.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:12:06 +0000

“From NBC/NJ?s Mike MemoliOn a conference call this morning, Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes argued not only that Michigan?s and Florida?s delegations should receive full votes at the convention, but that the Michigan’s 55 uncommitted delegates should be seated as such, not given to the Obama camp. “So now Clinton thinks Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan, a state where, in the best tradition of Stalin, only one name was on the ballot, and where Clinton had signed in writing not to campaign or accept delegates.

By: Ana

Ana — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:58:02 +0000

Greg – good discussion here! I’m glad you decided to put this stuff “on the table”. One more thought from me:When Clinton clarified her statement about “hard-working people” to say hard-working “white” people (and she clearly was not quite sure how to say it), I don’t think she was “implying”, Greg, that non-white people are not hard-working. Elizabeth was on to something there with her impression; the commenting on her comments was far more outrageous than the comments were themselves. Come on. And, call me what you will, it was an important point for someone to make. Of course, not all hard-working white people are racist. Many of them in West Virginia were eager to give Obama a chance, but he did little more there than touch-down and take-off. His campaign decided he wouldn’t win there and that he didn’t need to bother. But he will need them in November.As for other instances of “race-card”ing, you didn’t mention any, other than some nebulous supporter-talk about rural Pennsylvania, and I guess I’d just point out that Obama didn’t venture north to introduce himself or to talk with them either.I was also surprised, Greg, to read in the original post here that you’d be “happy” with Clinton’s fulfilling other major roles, even as head of the ticket, given that a few days ago you wanted to see her resign from the Democratic Party. I do hope that means those feelings have passed.And Phil, start laughing:http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_responds_to_cli.htmlHis ads ran on CNN during the primary coverage.

By: Joel

Joel — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:45:22 +0000

So yes, I am really not interested in putting fort a candidate who is likely to lose. I prefer one that is likely to win.I remember in grade school when we started talking about elections our teacher mentioned the tendency of people to do as much. His thought was it is better to vote for the person who most matches your ideals.I tend to agree. To each there own.

By: Coriolis

Coriolis — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:57:09 +0000

Let’s face it, it’s just different when a minority (blacks in this case) is acting in a racist way, when compared to a majority (if they are actually acting racist, the fact that initially they were pretty evenly split, and other factors throws some doubt on that).The fact is that even if all black people would suddenly stop hiring white people or snubbing them in various social occasions and generally being racist… that would have a bad impact on very few white people, infact it would end up hurting blacks far more then whites, in the not-so-long run. Since of course, our society is dominated by the majority.As it relates to this election, are the extra black people who would vote for Obama out of racist reasons really even going to make up those who won’t vote for him out of racist reasons? Who can really blame them if they want to give a guy from their tribe an extra edge to make up for his skin color being otherwise be a disadvantage?Sure, we’d like to move past this whole racist bent, and have black people voting like white people, with no racism on either side. Which is why Obama should never (and has never to my knowledge), said anything along the lines of “Good hard working black people support me”, or implied that if you’re not voting for him you’re a racist, or that anyone was bashing him because he’s black (again, unlike Hillary with her “the boys are shoving me aside/ganging up on me” attitude).But let’s get real here, if 40% of black people are going to vote for him because he’s black, that would be only about breaking even with 10% of white people not voting for him because he’s black. Both groups should stop doing that, but let’s not go off and whine about counter-racism.It’s just as silly as when I see people in physics whining about women having some type of advantage in getting a job in physics because of diversity requirements – with the societal bias they have to overcome it’s a small thing to throw them a bone by having some official advantage when getting a job.