Recently in Racism Category
Anyway, none of this guarantees an Obama victory in November. Racial division has lost much of its sting, but not all: you can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot more about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all that. Moreover, despite Hillary Clinton’s gracious, eloquent concession speech, some of her supporters may yet refuse to support the Democratic nominee.
But if Mr. Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics — but we’re now a different, and better, country.
If you point out Rev. Wright's hateful words against America, you're a racist. If you were a Hillary supporter who doesn't support Obama, you're a racist. If Obama loses in November, it's because we're all racist.
Paul creatively rewrites a little history in his race-baiting op-ed as well, and gets called out for it by McQ over at RWN.
Here we go again, this time from AP's Charles Babington:
Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House — or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.
There's just one problem.
"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."
Although the author could only find one person out of 40 interviews who wouldn't vote for Obama based on race, the article seems to suggest that any other reason given for non-support is simply a veneer hiding the real reason:
Gauging voter sentiments about race is notoriously difficult. Many voters hide their feelings from pollsters and it is possible that some do not even realize race's influence on their behavior.
In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race. But several others said their neighbors might do so. Some offered objections that are familiar, and suspicious, to Obama's aides and supporters.
So if you tell a pollster you're not voting for Obama because you don't like his policy stances, you're lying to hide the fact that you're racist. Or, you're racist and just don't know it, along with your neighbors.
Surely they must have interviewed someone who objects to Obama because of issues? Of course, if you're looking for racism hard enough, you'll find it everywhere, even if you have to be creative:
Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.
"I think he's a snake oil salesman," she said. "He's a little too slick and smooth."
"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.
Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.
"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"
With so much of the coverage this election season centering on race, I find it unsurprising that an interviewee might bring it up without prompting. Even folks who aren't racist don't want to be seen as racist, after all. While I agree that flag pins should not be the reason to vote for or against a candidate, I suggest that Mr. Akers, an Obama supporter, might see any reason to oppose Obama as "not rational or valid", just as many conservatives might scratch their heads and wonder why anyone would support a liberal.
In the long run, the non-stop narrative of "opposition to Obama = racism" isn't going to help the Democrats. Nobody likes being called a racist, and there's a substantial risk of backlash among folks who might otherwise be swayed by Obama's campaign.
Well, actually it's from yesterday - Juan Williams suggests that Obama needs to make another race speech:
The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.
To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.
I sincerely doubt Obama will take Juan's advice, though. That would require the courage to address some of those pesky "distractions" rather than dismiss them.
On Fox News today:
If that's all this is - Michelle Obama said "whitey" - I defer to my previous post about the threshold this must meet in order to seriously damage Barack Obama. Of course, there could be some additional inflammatory quality based on context and recency, but for the Clinton supporters this is some pretty thin gruel.
Don't get me wrong - if she said it, it certainly is offensive, but it isn't enough for Barack to drop out of the race, which is about the only thing that can help Hillary at this point. Michelle will likely make the usual "sorry if it offended anyone" non-apology, and this will become a staple on the Sean Hannity show but largely forgotten elsewhere. Few votes will change, as there are far too many on the left who will excuse this based on the "absolute moral authority" of a black woman entitled to be angry about the black experience. Besides, what's the likelihood that the media (outside Fox News and talk radio) will cover this at all?
As an aside, I'm now hoping the tape is real for no other reason than to see Geraldo Rivera have to shell out a c-note.
H/T Larry Johnson at No Quarter.
How can anyone claim to have good judgment when they surround themselves, for years, with people that have to be disavowed as soon as a public light is turned on them?
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.
Wright, Farrakhan, and now Byrd - Obama may have some difficulties with blue collar workers and bitter middle-staters, but he's close to getting that all-important hard-core racist demographic sewn up.
AP reaches way down to dredge up some gratuitous victimization sympathy for Obama:
HONOLULU - Growing up as a young man of mixed race, Barack Obama benefited from the spirit of tolerance that defined Hawaii's racial climate.His childhood in the country's idealized melting pot was far from painless, though.
As part of the islands' small group of black Americans in the 1970s, he encountered racism and struggled to form a black identity.
Obama's experience in Hawaii is echoed by other blacks, including some of his schoolmates, and challenges the state's vaunted image of racial harmony.
"A big joke amongst the brothers was you could be anything else but a brother and have free rein of the world in Hawaii," said Rik Smith, a black former schoolmate of Obama's at Punahou, an elite private school in Honolulu. "When it comes to people of color, black people, there's a huge amount of racism."
Obama has carefully avoided making his race the main issue, but his surrogates and the media use it at every turn. One has to wonder if there will be a backlash against the continuous drumbeat of "If you don't vote for Obama you're a bigot", which the above-quoted article serves to underline. This is a major expansion of the theme, showing Obama as a life-long victim of racism, and the votes that aren't cast for him are just a continuation of that same injustice.
In discussions with friends and around the workplace, I've heard lots of reasons for not supporting Obama. His race isn't among them. If Obama's supporters in the media keep pushing this theme, that could change. Fostering racial division isn't the best way to win folks over.
This morning I wrote on the topic of racism being used by the media to explain why anyone would want to vote for someone other than Obama. Charles at Little Green Footballs has another example:
Meanwhile, some white Americans are turning themselves inside out to come up with excuses for why they’re not supporting Obama. It seems like just yesterday that these folks were arguing there is no racism in the immigration debate, and now they’re insisting there is no racism in the presidential election.
The quote above is from CNN, another media outlet known recently for fawning coverage of the Messiah. Ironic is that the author suggests that blacks are supporting Obama because of his race, a notion that gets charges of racism when put forth by non-supporters. Follow the link above to LGF for more.
Update: In a similar vein, also check out this excellent post from Paul at Power Line: Loathing of fear on the campaign trail, Part One.
The MSM is going scorched earth on Hillary. As she trounces Obama by a greater than 40 point margin in W. Va., an Obama-smitten media is going where they've never gone before in order to minimize the victory - racism in the Democrat party. From the New York Times, we're treated to this wrap-up on W. Va.:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won a lopsided victory on Tuesday over Senator Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary, where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. Mrs. Clinton drew strong support from white, working-class voters, who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.The number of white Democratic voters who said race had influenced their choices on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their votes. More than 8 in 10 who said it factored in their votes backed Mrs. Clinton, according to exit polls.
Besides a few hints at the end, the article doesn't really say why the 80% for whom race was not an important factor voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. You'd think that would be the bigger story - that, for example, 53% of West Virginia voters felt that the Messiah was dishonest, apparently so much so that 8 of 10 of those actually favored the heroine of the Tuzla Dash at the polls.
For another good example, take this article by the Washington Post with the loaded title "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause" filled with examples of Obama workers being treated to racism as they courted registered Democrats for the Indiana primary:
Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"
You might think the "ugly truths" I reference in the title is that Hillary's base (and by proxy the Democrat party in general) is swimming with racists. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Both parties do have some individuals who are racists, although those of us on the right have argued for years that the Democrat party's policies are racist, as they discourage assimilation into and participation in the American dream.) No, the "ugly truth" is that the media is willing to paint large parts of the population as racist in order to secure the victory of a favored candidate.
Willing, too, is Obama's campaign. All of this is telegraphing Obama's (and the fawning media's) strategy for the fall, as hinted to by Obama's own campaign manager, David Plouffe:
I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already.
If the Obama camp and the media are willing to go this route in a blue on blue contest, imagine what we'll see in the Fall. In spite of all the pretty rhetoric about new politics and civility, this is starting to shape up as the nastiest Presidential campaign in history.
Race-baiter Al Sharpton getting perp-walked:
You know, Al really should have taken the leap when he was offered that sit-com back in '05.
H/T Gateway Pundit.
It's the Christian thing to do, really. After railing against rich people for 30 years, he's decided it's time to walk a mile in their shoes - you know, just to gain some perspective:
We've seen it over and over again in recent weeks - Obama's claim to have better judgment than the other candidates. Here's one example below (H/T Hot Air):
Link: sevenload.com
He always uses the Iraq war vote as his shining example of superior judgment. Yet no one points out that as a state senator, he wasn't privy to any of the intelligence that led most of Congress to approve of military action against Saddam. None of it. How can judgment based on ignorance be so superior? I've always felt that this was the singular most dishonest claim from Obama, and have been vexed by the fact that few have seen his claim for the snake oil that it is.
The only way to get insight into a man's judgment is to review instances where the man has a full command of the necessary facts and makes a decision based on them. The few public examples of this applied to Obama are disturbing.
When he was a state senator, he routinely voted "present". Why he did depends on who interprets - either he was incapable of judgment regarding these votes (as his opponents claim), or he was being a party tool, too weak-minded to vote based on his oft-bandied "judgment" (as Obama himself claims). Either paints a picture of someone who is wholly unqualified to hold down a job where decisions aren't optional.
The most recent revelations about the church Obama attends gives us further insight into his ability to judge and act. Twenty years is a long time to be a member of a church and yet be completely blind to the racist tendencies of it's pastor, as Obama claims. His tepid responses once videos came to light were shown to be poor judgment by his own actions as the controversy failed to dissipate, and he had to give a more forceful repudiation of the Rev. Wright.
The lack of good judgment aside, it's difficult to believe that he was unaware of his church's views. The wild applause during Rev. Wright's sermons suggest the normalcy of those views within the walls of Trinity United. His wife's comments on the campaign trail display some of the same anger and rhetoric. Does anyone really believe Obama was blissfully ignorant over a twenty year period of the leanings of his church?
Shouldn't his honesty be an issue in addition to his judgment?
Comes a prominent civil rights figure joking about Bill Clinton's prowess with black women:
"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live television audience. Young, 75, was quick to follow his comment on Bill Clinton with the disclaimer, "I'm clowning."
Dr. Melissa has much more, go read the whole thing. She's right when she says "And Hillary doesn't need this kind of help." Because all of this trashy and racist talk takes away from discussing Hillary's resolute policy stances, the depth of her experience, or the warmth of her personality, um... no, wait - I guess this is all due to Hillary's supporters having too much time on their hands.
Via Right Wing News, where if John got crappy bloggers like me to fill in on the weekends instead of the bunch he's been using, I'd be talking about his weekday posts instead. ;)
The Democrats held a debate/forum last night in Iowa, called the The Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum. It's described as "...the nation’s only presidential forum in which all candidates have an opportunity to answer essential concerns of African-Americans and Latinos."
Of course, those "essential concerns" mean little if you're an African-American or Latino who can't afford a High-Definition TV. Sorry, this debate wasn't meant for you.
I'm sure you've all heard the revelations about the University of Delaware's diversity training from Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and others. Today the story merits front page above-the fold treatment at the Wilmington News Journal, our local daily paper. From the story by Beth Miller, a quote from one of the students who had to attend the training (emphasis added):
Brooke Aldrich considers herself open-minded and accepting of all kinds of people.But the University of Delaware freshman said statements made in a recent diversity training session on her floor of Russell Hall tried to make her believe she was a racist.
"I personally have no problem with anyone of any background, race, sexual identity, or any religion," said the 18-year-old Hockessin resident, who is majoring in animal science. "I accept people for who they are as people. But coming out of the group sessions makes you feel as if I was in some way a racist, just by the color of my skin. It was like, 'Because you've never been oppressed, you're part of the problem.' "
Here's another from later in the article:
Aldrich said other exercises made many students feel uncomfortable. In one, she said, students were asked if they approved of such things as affirmative action or gay marriage. If they did, they would join students on one side of the room. If they didn't, they would join students on the other side of the room. They were not permitted to explain their reasons or to answer "I don't know," she said.
While this is now getting some attention and will likely be changed as a result, keep in mind that the program ran for four years before anyone heard about it. My question is how many more schools are doing this that we haven't yet heard about?
Update (11/1/2007 8:51 PM) As predicted, UD has discarded their indoctrination program. Good. Here's the post at FIRE's website.
