That's it folks, no further analysis needed or required. Really? REALLY? The implication of course being that blacks are voting for Obama simply because he's black. Never-mind that Sen Clinton used to have a HUGE lead in the polls among blacks as their leading choice for the Democratic nomination. That is not to say that they're isn't a percentage of blacks that aren't in fact voting for Sen. Obama for no other reason than the amount of melanin in his skin. But the thing that irritates me the most is that if someone is a paid political analyst, why, WHY can't they dig a little deeper than that to try to
understand why some of those same blacks who used to support Clinton are now casting their votes for Obama?
Could it be that some (perhaps the majority) blacks have now examined the two candidates and have determined that Sen. Obama is simply the better candidate? But that would require blacks to think and reason, which apparently the media thinks blacks are incapable of doing. And even if one is to take that
overly-simplified/elementar
y analogy that blacks are voting for the candidate with the most melanin in his skin, then why is that I never hear the pundits make the most obvious argument to the contrary?
Sen Clinton has been lauded as being capable of "reaching and feeling the pain" of the blue-collar/working poor of America, and those folks are supposedly voting for her because of her exceptional political skill. Puhleeeze! Since the media has already excluded blacks from the equation (you know... all the blacks are going to vote for Obama) then the blue-collar/working poor is nothing more than code for "white people". While it is certainly possible that some whites think Sen Clinton is the better candidate, couldn't it also be true that many of those so-called working poor (aka whites) are voting for Sen. Clinton for no other reason than... wait for it... she's WHITE?! As Cenk would say, "OF COURSE!!!"
When faced with the choice of voting for a black person or a white person, there is most certainly a percentage of whites whether they are rich or poor, educated or uneducated who will cast their vote for the white candidate for no other logical reason than he/she is white. But, we can't go there can we? Instead, the pundits make it sound as if Clinton has some special political ability that Obama is somehow lacking. But I beg to differ. And I haven't even begun to talk about gender...
This does not diminish the challenge that Sen. Obama would face as a Presidential candidate. But, my point is that if you're a political analyst, whether on The Young Turks or anywhere else, please PLEASE dig deeper! But most of all, speak the truth.
I'll finish with this. My belief is that Sen. Barack Obama has done extremely well in states with large black populations for the exact same reason that he has done well in states that have an overwhelmingly large white population with virtually no blacks. I'm not going to provide the answer, I've already said that many believe that Obama is the better candidate, but the question becomes "WHY is he the better candidate?" If one can figure out the "why"... then one will most certainly stop
mis-underestimating the black vote.
posted by newseven 
