One of the clear observations that can be made about the ugly Democratic presidential primary just held in Pennsylvania is that it was marred by racism.
The winning candidate, Hillary Clinton, who bested Barack Obama by just over 9 percent of the vote after a six-week campaign, made a determined effort to court the white, working class voters in Pennsylvania’s midsection and in the heavily ethnic northeastern part of the state, and she succeeded. According to exit polls, for example, white men voted 57 percent for Clinton and 43 percent for Obama. White women went 68 percent for Clinton and 32 percent for Obama. White Catholics, a particular target of the Clinton campaign, went 70 percent for Clinton and 30 percent for Obama—her biggest margin of any grouping.
Most of Clinton’s white voters came from the overwhelmingly white rural parts of the state and the ethnic northeast and far west. The evidence: Obama won the urban vote by 60 percent to 40 percent. Clinton began her focus on the white vote in earnest during the South Carolina primary, when husband Bill famously equated Obama’s campaign with that of an earlier black presidential campaigner, Jesse Jackson. The linkage was immediately spotted as a clever way of labeling Obama as a “black” candidate, since Jackson has always been a lightning rod for white voters because of his active support for such touchy issues as affirmative action and fair housing laws.
She also made much during the Pennsylvania campaign of Obama’s membership in a black church in Chicago, and of his relationship with the church’s black liberation preacher, Jeremiah Wright (adding that she “would have left” such a church herself).
As I said, it was an ugly campaign, in which Clinton and her surrogates went out of their way to parse and divide the Democratic electorate, and to tear down her opponent in ways that could do lasting damage, should he win the nomination in August and have to go head to head against Republican John McCain.
Now, Clinton backers are trying to rebut the charge of racism in Clinton’s campaign and among those who voted for her, arguing that the 90 percent of Pennsylvania’s blacks who voted for Obama are equally racist. As one correspondent on the website Democrats.com put it, “I'm not sure how this works. I've seen splashed all over the media how we Clinton supporters are racists because a percentage of people said that race was important in their decision. And yet, 9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama. I haven't seen numbers (if they were asked at all) indicating what percentage of blacks were influenced by race when voting for Obama. Who are the real racists? We are not allowed to say. And the media is afraid to ask.”
Another individual, commenting on one of my columns, wrote, “It is ridiculous to suggest that white people who don’t vote for Obama must be racist. It is not whites who are most heavily influenced by race in this election. On the contrary, it is the black electorate who have shown a tendency to cast a race-based vote. How else do you account for Obama receiving 90% of the black vote? If 90% of whites voted for Clinton, you’d scream racism. Why aren’t you similarly critical of blacks?”
Let’s examine this claim critically, though.
Yes it is true that 90 percent of blacks who voted in Pennsylvania cast their ballots for Obama, the black (half-black, actually) candidate. But remember, these are people who for all their adult lives have been voting for white candidates for president. It cannot be said that they do not or will not vote for whites; only that given the opportunity to vote for a black candidate, they did so.
In Clinton’s case, certainly most of those who voted for her did so not because she was white, but because of other reasons (not least because she is a woman—Clinton won 59 percent of the female vote). But clearly some of her support came from whites—men and women—who, as Clinton Pennsylvania mentor Gov. Ed Rendell said, “will not vote for a black candidate.”
And there in stark terms is the answer. There are white voters in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania—a lot of them, in fact—who are simply racists. They will not vote for a black candidate for president. Period.
That is a far different thing from a black voter who votes for a black candidate, or a Catholic voter who votes for a Catholic candidate. Identity politics is not racism. A black voter might rationally feel that a person of color in the presidency could better understand the issues confronting the voter in question, just as a woman voter might think a woman candidate could better understand her issues. That does not make the black voter a racist any more than it makes the woman voter a man hater.
But the white voter who will not vote for a black candidate is something different, just as a man who will not vote for a woman candidate is something different. These are bigots or sexists.
Now clearly no candidate can be blamed if bigots simply happen to vote for them, but Clinton, in this campaign, is guilty of deliberately seeking the votes of bigots. Her use of the Rev. Wright to smear Obama, her choice of lily-white extras for her campaign ads, all speak to this obscene strategy.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
I certainly hope that you or anyone else is not shocked by Ms Clintons antics. She is so desperate to win that she will do almost anything to do it. This goes for Mr McCain also. Hillary is probably not actually a racist but her greed for victory is so great that she has used racism as a means to her ends. Gee, who does that remind you of? Could it be Geo W. Bush? There is precious little difference between Bush, McCain, and Hillary. They are all so driven to have it their way that they lose sight of right and wrong. Integrity, honor, and decency go right out the window when these three set their sights on a prize. This is not the kind of people that I would care to have running what is still one of the mightyist countries in the world. We need someone who has reason and logic in their arsenal of command and of the three candidates left in the running for the presidency only Obama comes close to this.
by
Hayesml47 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 275 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 5:07:23 PM
made a determined effort to court the white, working class voters in Pennsylvania’s midsection and in the heavily ethnic northeastern part of the state, and she succeeded.
First off, Obama outspent her nearly 3-1, so when you say determined effort, let's keep things in perspective.
Now, you discuss how the black vote has been voting for white candidates their entire lives, as if that means something.. Pardon me for pointing this out, but they have only ever had white candidates to vote for... That sort of action does not temper the fact that they nearly all voted for the black candidate given the choice.
ALSO... Hillary did not really NEED to court the white gun toting church going democrat in the middle of the state, because any type of advertising aimed at that group would have been money mis spent.. Barack already alienated that group of voters when he nakedly accused them all of being racist!
Now, Racism.. you want to discuss racism? How bout Barack stating that his mother was a "Typical White Woman" Who when she sees someone different, she looks at him/her in fear...
If THAT is NOT racist, then, my friend, NOTHING is... (no, he does not get a pass because he is black, racism is racism.... period.)
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 420 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:23:41 PM
This is utterly shameful, unfortunately the Democrats have been so compromised by the corporatist Clintonist cancer than there is no way to have an intervention in this sad charade of a sham democracy.
I personally am recommending boycotting 2008 entirely and then working with real patriotic Americans to totally flush the toilet in 2010.
The Republicans and the Clintons are a pox upon all of our houses which I might add are being foreclosed upon by the thousands while these idiots dick around with these bogus sideshow racial issues.
EE
by
Ed Encho (6 articles, 7 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 345 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:31:02 PM
BTW, I am saying this BECAUSE I understand your point...
Racism is defined by using race as opposed to the content of one's mind to vote...
Your point was to justify the black voters' racism because they identify with the black candidate...
Had you said that it was because Barack's policies were more favorable to their ethnic group, than Clinton's, and THAT is the reason they voted for him, then your point would actually be justified. (as far as the voters were concerned.
You call the discussion of his association with Rev Wright smear tactics.. It would if he had gone to the church 10 years ago, and stopped going when Rev Wright started selling hatred and racism at his church.. (which, BTW paid very well considering he is now living in a gated WHITE community..)
I REALLY do not like Hillary... I think, frankly, she is probably the worst choice for this nation.. Why? because nobody can tell anyone what it is that she believes for longer than it takes to make the statement... Her truth is a very fast moving target...
However, to suggest that she is a racist and Barack is not is to ignore the truth...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 420 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:35:47 PM
You had no problem with women voting for Mrs Clinton because she's a woman, or with blacks voting for Mr Obama because he's black, thereby justifying demographic similarity as a valid voting point, yet you seem to be appalled that whites might vote for a candidate because the candidate is white.
You noted that white men gave their votes to Mrs Clinton, but they did so by a relatively narrow margin, 53% to 46%. Sounds to me like white men, not having their own demographic candidate, were able to split their votes reasonably evenly beteen a white woman and a black man.
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 6:43:23 PM
No, stating that it was "Typical" for a white woman (especially older ones in Kansas) to fear black men, is not racist; it's stating a well-known tendency that can easily be proven (like some other "stereotypes" that exist because...well, they are commonly observed to EXIST! That's what a stereotype is, for better or worse! )
On the other hand, a Democrat stating that they would "NEVER vote for a black man", even to the extent of voting Repug instead, definitely IS racist!
And, I believe there's plenty of that in Pennsylvania, and that was all Obama was trying to say by way of explaining why he didn't expect to win there. Hillery just too advantage of that, as she will of anything to suit her ends.
by
Bia Winter (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 148 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 6:13:46 AM
"What did Clinton do to us, you ask? Well, if you are a committed Democratic activist, your list of grievances may be longer than mine. But anyone mildly interested in politics may find Clinton's presumptuousness distasteful. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, called a Judas by the mob-like Clinton camp when he endorsed Obama, put his finger on it. He basically said he had been a devoted, loyal member of Bill Clinton's administration, but that he never signed up to be a loyal, devoted member of a Clinton dynasty. He was offended at the un-American presumption that his loyalty should automatically be deemed transferable, as the Clintons assume, to the former president's wife."
"But in this contest, despite all the passion and excitement, the two Democratic candidates see almost eye-to-eye on every issue. They care about the same things and want to carry out almost the same set of policies. To me, then, Clinton's whatever-it-takes tenacity is about one thing and one thing only: herself. Check that, two things: herself and the family dynasty."
Isn't everyone free to vote however they like, for whomever they like, for whatever reason they like? If people are afraid of one candidate or hate another, or distrust them why waste your time discussing the outcome instead of the solution?
The solution won't be found in polls describing voting blocks, that is the outcome of the process. The solution is to find ways to reach out to people, help them understand Obama and allow them to feel comfortable with who he really is, not with what Clinton or anyone else trys to paint him. Once people know Obama, they will feel more comfortable voting for him. This is why his standing has increased in national polls over the last 3.5 months.
Help people understand fear, hatred and distrust is not solving any of their problems with education, healthcare, infrastructure, terrorism or other problems the US faces today. Fear, hatred and distrust of one candidate by another is encouraged by politicians so they can hide their own inadequcies as leaders and make their weaknesses less obvious to voters. Voters must get past the fear, hate and distrust sown, or they can't see the true abilities of the candidates. Isn't that the real reason we ended up with George W. Bush as President, twice?
If voters are to recognize "true leaders" from "ambitious, manipulative, demigods", they must first understand the tactics false leaders use to hide their own inadequcies. Tactic #1, spread distrust, fear and questions about the leadership ability of your opponent so people do not question your own weaknesses and motives in running for higher office. I think it makes far more sense to help people understand why these tactics are used instead of complaining about their effectiveness. Ultimately, it is up to the voters to decide whether they care, believe or embrace this kind of politics. I wouldn't expect miracles. However, that doesn't mean we can't all work to help a miracle or two along by educating people.
by
Peter Wedlund (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 123 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 11:40:01 AM
No, stating that it was "Typical" for a white woman (especially older ones in Kansas) to fear black men, is not racist;
He did not say it that way, he called her a "TYPICAL WHITE WOMAN" that statement, regardless of whatever he says later, is BOTH sexist and racist...
If I said the words "typical black woman" in describing someone, anyone, I would be denounced as a sexist racist bigot... PERIOD.. I think there is a great many people in the United States who do not want to give him a pass on those types of remarks, nor should they.
On the other hand, a Democrat stating that they would "NEVER vote for a black man", even to the extent of voting Repug instead, definitely IS racist!
How many democrats are actually saying that they would "NEVER vote for a black man"? Do you have any numbers to support the idea that there are many?
And, I believe there's plenty of that in Pennsylvania, and that was all Obama was trying to say by way of explaining why he didn't expect to win there. Hillery just too advantage of that, as she will of anything to suit her ends.
He didn't expect to win there because there were too many racists in Pennsylvania.. REALLY? There are too many RACISTS IN PA??? Well GEE, Pennsylvania could nor really win with you could it? The choice was to either be too sexist, or too racist, right? That is what our state's choice was in the Democrat Primary, right? Because it could NEVER be that the people in Pennsylvania think that the policies either candidate puts fortk are not good for Pennsylvania, right?? It could not be that Pennsylvanians could not figure out where Obama stands on issues, because he does not actually SAY where he stands on issues, OR Pennsylvanians don't know where Hillary Stands on issues, because that changes from speech to speech, sometimes 2,3, 4 times a day!
Nope, it has to be that PA is filled with a bunch of racists or Sexists....
that IS what you are saying...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 420 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 3:01:43 PM
