Hillary's "stoking the flames of racism" is the problem, not poor Whites.

Email Print posted by Tarheel88 05/08/2008 08:56:16 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

You misunderstood my post. Everybody in the world has tendencies toward mistrusting other groups of people, its called "tribalism"; though some people are consumed with it (and thats when anybody can become "trash"). The big problem with Hillary is that she "stoked the fire" of this negative part of human nature for her OWN PERSONAL GAIN instead of stoking the positive part of "coming together for the common good" as Barack does.

She helped foment "tribal war" just so she could win, that is the big problem with the Clintons. 

http://www.thenation.com/do c/20080519/betsyreed

Look, I lived in North Carolina for almost 25 years and grew up in rural Vermont.

My home state of Vermont went OVERHELMINGLY for Obama, and Vermont is as white as the "new fallen snow"! There are plenty of poor Whites in Vermont, and many, many of them voted for Obama!

Why? Because Vermont doesn't have much racism; part of which is because there is little exposure to other races. Indeed, the "Lily White States" like Vermont, and Iowa, and Colorado, poor Whites have had no problem supporting Obama. No deep underlying racism, and Obama's great leadership skills become obvious and attractive.

A MUST READ about this phenomenon is David Sirota's article, published in InTheseTimes.com: "The Clinton Firewall and the Race Chasm".

http://www.inthesetimes.com /article/3597/the_clinton_f irewall/

As Sirota points out, states with only small numbers of minorities, the racial tensions are very weak, so Obama wins. Its the states with moderate numbers of minorities (6 to 17% according to his stats), where the racial divide becomes a problem. Here, there are not enough Blacks and progressive Whites to overcome racial tensions WHEN AND IF those tensions are STOKED by politicians.

And thats my REAL POINT: its the STOKING OF THE FLAMES OF RACISM that is the problem with Hillary's campaign.

And that is the BIG PROBLEM WITH HILLARY, she "stoked the flames" of racism just so she might still have a sliver of a chance to win the Democratic nomination. She could have taken a much better road, which, ironically, might have given her a much better chance of winning, but her campaign did this just for her OWN PERSONAL GAIN, the Democratic Party be damned! 

In February, in the Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin Primaries, we as Americans were TRULY TURNING A HISTORIC CORNER, when the MAJORITY of White working-class voters turned out for a Black man, Barack Obama.

This was huge. I could barely believe we had actually made such great strides and that old racial animosities were finally at long last starting to fade away. It was truly a sight to behold. I really believed we were seeing a new day dawn in this country. And there is no reason that this tendency wouldn't sweep the rest of America as well. If it could happen in Virginia, the heart of the Old South, it could happen everywhere and of course Obama could win!

And then it happened. The Clinton campaign got scared, a little bit after South Carolina among African-Americans, but especially after the drubbing in Virginia and Wisconsin with the White working-class going for Obama. Her "so-called" BASE was slipping away!

So the Clinton campaign reached for a poker and a bellows, and they went to the fireplace and STOKED THOSE FLAMES of racism which were starting to die down. Hillary did the ugliest thing she could.


Sure, offffffffff courrrrrrrrrse, the BIG MEDIA did this too. But you expect that crap from the Media outlets, who love to spew vitriol to stir up controversy and ratings!

 But Hillary touts herself as a thoughtful and highly intelligent person! Someone who supposedly cares about people!!! Which is what really makes what the Clinton campaign did all the more terrible.

HILLARY KNEW BETTER. She knew this was wrong, and she did it anyway just for her own gain.

Yes, plenty of poor Whites (and poor Blacks and Hispanics for that matter) are upset about their worsening economic condition after 8 years of being "Bushwacked". And sure, we all have, as human beings, some tendencies of mistrust toward other groups or "tribes" of people.

But you DON'T stoke those flames. Thats the "Dark Side of the Force" that Hillary represents in the now-famous spoof "The Empire Strikes Barack".

No, we must dampen that down and instead promote the better side of peoples' natures with a sense of COMING TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD!

Coming together and "unifying" the people  with a goal toward their common rights and needs, thats what Barack Obama is doing!

THATS WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE! 

 

< The (Real) Liberal Media is right again... | More cronyism at the Bush Pentagon: Troops Suffer >
 Display:
Hillary's "stoking the flames of racism" is the problem, not poor Whites. | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
Why we lose (none / 0)
exactly what did Clinton do to stoke the flames of racism? You keep saying it, prove it.

Fact is it was Obama'a people that played the race card just before SC. The Obama people claimed that Hillary was insulting MLK because she had the nerve to point out that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. She had to be a racist and the media ran with it from there.

I am glad you brought up Mr. Sitora. did you read the article and all the hoops he had to jump though to paint whites as racist.

Honestly, prior to this campaign Clinton could depend on a large amount of support from the black community. Support she earned though years of working with and for the black community. Now she is losing the black vote to Obama at a 95% clip? What exactly has obama done for the black Community? Seriously compared to clinton what has obama done for the black community?

I suppose this anomily has nothing to do with race, correct. Obama said it best himself. If I were white I would be just another freshman senator.


yet all liberals can talk about are the 60% or so white people who vote for Hillary because they are racist. This is exactly why we are painted by Pubs as the minority party (who only cares about blacks and women).

Everyone around here likes to talk about math. But of course they ignore the method. Hillary won Texas but lost delegates. Our system is flawed.

I hate to break it to you but without those "racist" swing voters Obama loses

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 09:59:29 AM EST

Oh, I'm sorry (none / 0)

You said, "Everyone around here likes to talk about math. But of course they ignore the method. Hillary won Texas but lost delegates. Our system is flawed."

I should have made clear I was talking about the real election, not the imaginary one.

You know, the one that will produce a nominee.  In 2008 we have to deal with the election we have, not the election we want.

Is the system screwed up?  Does it need to be changed and reformed?  Of Cooooooooouuuuuurse!

Does that matter in terms of who is going to run in 2008? Not a bit.

And I would point out Obama has beat her according to the rules they were both given.  If he had been given different rules he might have beat her under those as well.  No real way to tell.  This is like watching a football game and seeing one team win 26-14 and the loser insisting they get the W because they had more total yards.  At which point the winning team would say, "Then we wouldn't have kicked all those field goals now would we?" 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 11:21:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
agree (none / 0)
Obama is winning under the rules both were playing with. he deserves credit for that.

Rules are rules right?

Also according to the rules, the nominee must obtain a certain number of delegates to become the nominee. Right?

If not then the superdelegates are supposed to nominate the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. That was the whole purpose of their creation.

No where in the rules does it say that the superdelegates must vote for the leader in the delegate count.

Yet that is the interpetation of the rules according to Obama supporters. the SD must vote for the delegate leader or they disinfranchise the voters (yet they have no problem disinfranchising FL & MI).

I think we both can agree that Dem primary voters are more liberal than most.

The facts say that Obama has roughly 51% of Dems and Hillary has 49% of Dems (remembering that this is a Dem primary).

Who decides who wins in November? What group of voters has determined every presidential race since 1980?

Middleclass and poor whites. those swing voters or reagan dems, if you prefer. That is the Demographic we need to win. Who does better with that group, that demographic? Clinton.

Sheer logic and common sense would suggest that if you have two equally good candidates, you should select the one that matches best against your opponent, right?

Clinton stated as much today and is getting grilled as a racist (again) for simply speaking the truth (again).

Liberals want to believe that whites are racist fine but if that is indeed the case why are we nominating a man for whom these racists cannot vote?

I simply want to win in November, I don't really care who it is Obama, Clinton, Gore, Edwards etc. but considering the circumstances and the voting history it would appear that we are nominating the wrong person at the wrong time.

This is no disrespect to Obama, I think he is a fine candidate. I just think it is too soon for him. He needs seasoning and exposure. Most voters still don't know him. In my view he would be perfect at VP. it would get the voters a chance to really get to know him and become comfortable with him. It would also give him a chance to distance himself from some of his past. (much of which will not come out until after the convention).

I see a storm coming and we are not prepared for it.

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 01:42:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen Brother Foul... (none / 0)
I know coming from me its probably the mark of the beast on this blog, but once again, you have so eloquently hit the nail on the head concerning this election...

The storm is coming... Just wait...

The Liberal wing of the party will never learn...

Thanks for your post

:)

by bobo1 on 05/08/2008 01:53:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0)

Obama does better with Republicans.

Obama does better with Independents.

Obama does better with voters.

Hillary is seriously crippled by voting for the war.  This is probably unfair and you can make all the arguments you want about it but at the end of the day the people you are arguing will decide this election just don't give a damn about the nuance.  Hillary is a war flip-flopper, Obama is not.  Reality has no place in this argument.  If this was a reality based election it would be 98%-2% Dem. 

The SuperDelegates don't "get to decide" if no one hits the magic number, they just cast a vote.  It counts as a delegate.  They are voting, no one is arguing they shouldn't.  They are voting more and more for Obama.  Hillary will be losing in SuperDs by WV.  I don't give a damn how they vote.  I don't really think Obama does either now.  He has won.  Its over.

I have no problem with Hillary.  She ran.  She lost.  Their is not significant evidence to believe she is stronger than McCain, IMO.  I would have no problem admitting it if she was.  My support for Obama is based solely on him winning the nomination. 

by ProfRich on 05/08/2008 02:08:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Respectful diasagreement (none / 0)
Liberals need to stop with "she voted for the war"

She did not vote to go to war.

She voted for an authorization to use force IF NECESSARY.

If Bush were a man of honor, a man of honesty and integrity this war would have never started. The vote was to back weapons inspectors and was not a validation of Bush's war for oil policy. Ask kerry why he voted for it.

and she has not flip-flopped in fact she has been grilled on this very page for not admitting the vote to be a mistake. She stood by her vote while pussies like Kerry did not. Her vote was not for the war

The accusation shows that you are greatly misinformed or deliberately decietful

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 02:26:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When people (none / 0)
See  John McCain  (R) on the ballot   they are not going to vote for him. Its just not going to happen.

There is a shit storm coming alright and its the rout of the republican party. In fact Newt Gingrich   agrees with that assessment .

You think obama cant handle it? Wait till you see him and McCain on the same stage debating each other.

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

by Chinese Democracy on 05/08/2008 02:17:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What has Obama done for the Black community??? (none / 0)
Are you serious?  If you are not black, then you are posing this question to play the race card against Obama...you are saying that CLINTON cares more about blacks than OBAMA, and you're saying OBAMA played the race card???  If you don't live in a black community, then don't pretend that Obama hasn't done anything for them.  White people want to think that the Clintons are this saviour to black people because they actually listened somewhat to the black community, but WAKE UP MCFLY!  That's their JOB!  The Clintons looked really good to the black community because they were not the typical "whites only" type of president.  Fact is, the American public knows that whites have not paid attention to women or minorities until they basically protest in the streets.  Both Hillary and Barack know more about this struggle than John McCain, but to question if Obama has done anything to help blacks during this time of struggle...you don't understand that he is progressing the black movement by existing right now.  He is making sure that "racist" white America knows that blacks are good enough to be in office.  He could not do anything more for the black community.  To be an ambassador that crosses racial lines that have not been crossed since the jim crow laws were repealed is more than any black person could do as one man.
Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 05/08/2008 10:46:25 AM EST

Reality bites (none / 0)
So does distortion. I never said that Clinton cared more for Blacks than Obama. and yes I grew up in a black community. Once again from a legislative stand point what has Obama done for the black community compared to Clinton (this is not a trick question).

So what you are really saying is that just by being black he is progressing the "black movement" (what about his white half).

I guess we can see who is really the racist here. Since you won't answer the Legislative question I got another. Do you consider Clarence Thomas an ambassador who is making sure that white (racist) america knows that blacks are good enough to be justices? I mean he is black isn't he.

Final question, blacks make up what percentage of the voters? Answer 13% and we wonder why we lose elections.

by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 01:55:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legislation??? (none / 0)
Where's Hillary's legislation?  If you're going to say I need to produce the legislation for Obama, then you need to show me Hillary's legislation. 

As far as Clarence Thomas goes...it would be different if he were the FIRST black supreme court justice, but he wasn't, he was the second after Thoroughgood Marshall.  If you want to see Thomas as an ambassador, he was a terrible one.  That would be the major difference, he made black people look bad by example, because he was in a position in which he gets direct scrutiny because of his race.  It's unfair, but blacks basically have to be on their best behavior...look at colin powell...He got the label of being "well spoken".  this is a direct cause of him being an "ambassador" for the black community.  If he wasn't "well spoken", the media would have said something along the lines of,"general gives orders in ebonics" or something ridiculous like that.  Unfortunately Clarence Thomas WAS a representative of the black community to "racist whites" but he was not fit for this position, thus he failed...if you are calling ME racist because of my observations, then you are definitely barking up the wrong tree...i am in an interracial relationship, and the fact that I can talk about race does not make me racist.

by chrisandyasemin on 05/08/2008 03:55:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Way to go (none / 0)
An answer without really answering. How quaint

You cannot be judgemental towards clinton if you don't know her civil rights record, her affermative action record or her legislative record. Your answer shows me what I already knew about Obama's record (    &n bsp;     ;    &n bsp;     ; ) zilch

Just like his now famous race speech. Did he give that speech during the Jenna 6 crisis? How about the duke lacross rape case? Nope. It came as a result of his fear that his Presidential aspirations were in trouble. (what a guy!!!)


You admit that just because Clarence Thomas is black doesn't mean he is a good ambassador. Why is it assumed (simply because of his color) that Obama is any different. (He has liberal views and Thomas conservative views?)


I could care less that you were in an interracial relationship, so was I, So what? There is no difference (white or black) if you are simply voting for a candidate simply based on the color of their skin.

You stated and I quote: you don't understand that he is progressing the black movement by existing right now.  He is making sure that "racist" white America knows that blacks are good enough to be in office.  He could not do anything more for the black community.

So blacks should vote for Obama simply because he is black. Doesn't matter what he has or hasn't done. Nor does it matter what hillary has or hasn't done. Let me ask you, will it help blacks if he loses? Would you feel the same way about Colin Powell?

What was that that MLK said about judging somebody simply based on the color of their skin. I thought so!


by LORD FOUL on 05/08/2008 04:55:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I never said "Black people should... (none / 0)
YOU SAID THAT!!!  Never once did I say that.  If you saw in my other post, I said that blacks are voting for Obama because of the issues.  I talked to a white person today who said they are voting for obama because he's black.  I don't agree with that, but is that person racist?  you're saying I Never answered the question, when you were the one who challenged obama's record without proof of "Billary's" legislature.  If you want to say that Hillary made a bunch of legislation specifically aimed to help blacks, and no one else (not bill), then where is it at...you're just misconstruing my words now.  Obama is a lot different from Clarence Thomas.  If you can't see that, then YOU haven't been paying attention.

by chrisandyasemin on 05/08/2008 10:57:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay I get it (none / 0)
Blacks are voting 95% for Obama on the issues not on race because blacks apparently as a group are more informed than White people.

Whites on the other hand are voting for Clinton 60% of the time because white people are not nearly as informed and are just racist.

Any "informed" person like 95% of the black community would of course be compelled to vote for Obama.

I am glad to see that the black community has advanced so for. In 1988 I worked in a place that the majority of the employees happened to be black, on election day everyone of the black employees talked about how they all had to "go vote for Jesse", and made comments like "gotta vote for the Brother" and other statements that if made by white people about a white would be construed as racist.

Not that I took offence as I understood the pride blacks must have felt to see a black man mounting a serious run for the nomination. Let's remember Jesse did win 11 States and got over 6 million votes.  Of course because I have just pointed that fact out means I have just played the race card and will now be labeled a racist.

Well it's good to know that when my guy Edwards dropped out and I didn't IMMEDIATLY throw my support to Obama it was only because I'm really a racist, and the 95% of blacks who vote for Obama are just well informed.

by Hubble on 05/10/2008 09:29:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Buddy (none / 0)
Where ya been, glad to see ya.

You are such a racist, welcome to the club!

Our friends can't seem to figure out that the MSM has selected our candidate for us.

by LORD FOUL on 05/10/2008 12:02:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hillary called her voters uneducated (none / 0)
it wasn't me...if you want to say they are more informed, that's you and hillary's argument...what about al sharpton?   did he win anything?

by chrisandyasemin on 05/10/2008 08:39:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great article. (none / 0)
I too was beginning to think that this country had reached a new stage of enlightenment in regards to race relations. There is still hope, but thanks to Hillary Clinton and the race baiting that her campaign and the press did, we are being dragged right back into last century's racial fights and divides. Not only that, with this issue, she handed the repubs the only weapon that has the potential to blow this whole thing up. Divide and conquer is republican 101. Don't think they did not notice the damage this issue is doing to the Democratic coalition. And you can bet that the MSM will be right there with them fanning, no, throwing gasoline on the flames. If this election becomes about only about race, were screwed. The fucked up thing about it is that there is nothing to fight over. We all have the same problems, the same wants and desires. Above all else, WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. Also, let's not forget that there are more in this country than just black and white. White, black, brown, yellow, Jew, Muslim we ALL got screwed over the last 8 years.

The WHOLE world is watching this and how we as Americans behave in this election will go a long way in determining our future image on the world scene. The behavior of the Clinton campaign in this already feels slimy. Imagine what it will feel like once the Limbaughs, and Hannitys, etc. start spewing their racialist rants.

There is a weakness in the right wing racialist approach though. Everyday, they are more and more representing themselves as a whites only need apply party. This may not be 100% true, but that is the face that is being put on the Republican Party. THEY can thank the MSM for that. It is their achilles heel and plays right into Obama's strength. Once Hillary is out of the way, Obama needs to STRONGLY emphasize the big tent inclusion aspects of the party and the fact that the Democratic Party looks like America and is the very embodiment of the "out of many..one" concept. In the end, it is this dynamic that has the potential to sweep the Democrats into power and perhaps end the corrupt, rightwing, neo-con, incompetent GOP stewardship for years to come and put this country on track to move foward into the future as one America.

by mijoh on 05/08/2008 11:01:35 AM EST

Inadvertant LOL (none / 0)
Tarheel, please don't take this as a slam or a "gotcha." I do this only in the spirit of someone who has had occasion to regret wording something in a certain way.

"Look, I lived in North Carolina for almost 25 years and grew up in rural Vermont."
 
It's a good thing you moved to Vermont or you never would have grown up...

by MedfordTim on 05/08/2008 06:58:14 PM EST

I don't have to say anything... (none / 0)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn. com/archive/2008/05/09/9995 66.aspx
Hillary said it all...

by chrisandyasemin on 05/09/2008 10:44:20 AM EST

Hillary's "stoking the flames of racism" is the problem, not poor Whites. | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: