View Story | 823 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I do think her campaign is continuing to use race to shore up her support.
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM PDT
Won't vote for the Dem? I guess your kids will thank you for the far-right Supreme Court.
by td on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
See the diary on Ed Rendell's ham fisted comments that Americans? Middle Pennsylvanians? won't vote for an African American. The comments will be those of "concern" from those we "trust." The intent of the comments will be to change the discourse from "Yes We Can" to "No We Won't (vote for a black man for president.)
What's the vision of the country that is being put forth? In my mind it is not a "realistic, pragmatic" look at the US electorate. Rather, it is a way to persuade people that it's just not realistic to support an African American...maybe in, say, oh, another 100 years...but not now.
"We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson
by mayan on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM PDT
100 years" next year, in a decade, and in a generation.
Obama/McCaskill vs. McCain/Jindal? Call it a funny feeling.
by ShadowSD on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM PDT
100 years (add a zero when needed.)
by 88kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM PDT
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. -John Stuart Mill
by word player on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM PDT
"Charlie don't SURF!"
by billydanielus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:50:23 PM PDT
to cover one's eyes with one's hands and put one's fingers in one's ear....so as to silence everyone's mouth.
To observe something is not to condone it.
To ignore something is to allow it to spread in darkness.
It is no more racist to ask whether the country or a demographic is ready to elect an black man, than it is not sexist to ask whether the country or a demographic is ready to elect a woman.
Each one of those questions are equally legitimate and both those issues have been involved in this campaign.....MSNBC's ongoing sexism and the hidden dynanic of white voters, esp in the South who may think may even think they're not swayed by the color of a person's skin....but they are.
To ignore reality doesn't make it go away...
I don't think the Obama campaign strategists don't think about these demographic issues as they plot their campaign strategy ( ah we need more white men and we need more white woman....Hmmmmm. how do we appeal to them)....just as the Clinton campaign wants to maintain her appeal to one segment and also enlarge her appeal.
It is not illegitimate...if you want Obama to win they too need to look at some reality. You too need to look at this reality.
Debra
by debcoop on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM PDT
How Republicans just happened to "Observe" Willie Horton?
by Flint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM PDT
Ever read a sociology paper or looked at a polling report or any othe scientific paper on social phenomena.
To call that closet racism is just not thinking.
You don't address any of the valid points I made. Willie Horton and the pollster Mark Blumenthal, or Zogby or SUSA or anyone who observe are not engaging in closet racism.
by debcoop on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:19:53 PM PDT
From such observations depending on what their "closet" inclinations are.
Lets just say that I look forward to the day when race and gender will not be points of significant differentiation for pollsters to even mention.
by Flint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM PDT
insisting on being "colorblind" is not the same as dealing honestly with racism? Do you think they might be taking something different from the observations than you are because they know something you don't?
I don't know exactly who you are accusing of being like the vicious bastard Republicans who used Willie Horton to play on racial fears and win votes. Is it debcoop you are comparing to them? Or anyone who disagrees with the diarist? In any case, your "argument" is baseless and wildly unjustified.
Vote John McCain for a Hundred Year War!
by Fiona West on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:46:53 PM PDT
From comments as well.
I accused no one of being a vicious bastard racist, yet you think that is so.
Others understood my comment differently than you.
My point is the observer... brings their own baggage to the observation and you have proved my point.
by Flint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:54:28 PM PDT
ads, and deliberately played on racial fears, were vicious bastards in my opinion. Do you disagree?
When you strongly imply that people are like them, as your post did, you are certainly attacking their character. I think any observer can see that.
by Fiona West on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:24:25 PM PDT
You've proven my point yet again. I appreciate the validation.
You might read the exchange with AJsMom to understand the point that I was making, but I doubt you will.
So rather than turn this into something that resembles the Monty Python skit, "I came here for and argument"... our conversation is at an end.
Good luck to you.
by Flint on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM PDT
that the majority of black people are voting for him? No. It's just reality.
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The USA for an amount of "up to and including my life." - unknown
by AJsMom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:48:19 PM PDT
However the MSM are constantly repeating the racial demographics over and over and over again and in so doing for some they have "framed" this election as one based on race.
That is where the "baggage" I mentioned before comes into play and as misguided and stupid as it is... some have framed Obama as the "black candidate."
The MSM leave out the issues in this conversation and all you hear is the endless repetition of racial and for that matter gender statistic.
Case in point...
When some of my neighbors heard Rep. Maxine Waters come out in support of Hillary, they immediately framed her statement as "Oh for her gender trumps race."
I turned to the individual who had made the comment and I said, "did we just see the same broadcast? Waters clocked off a laundry list of Hillary's positions on specific issues that she agrees with and at no time did she say anything about being a woman."
Its one thing to have a true sociological study done, but to have the pundits and talking heads repeat them over and over begins to frame the election in a very unhealthy way.
by Flint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:25:29 PM PDT
It does appear that the black vote is overwhelmingly going to Obama because he is black and not because Hillary is antiblack or anything.
So my point is, if a white person won't vote for a black person because he is black, then they are racist.
BUT, by the same token, the same goes for a black person who votes for a black person just because they are black.
Both votes are based on race.
by AJsMom on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM PDT
I'd like to think that some of the voters out there who back Obama do so because of his stand on the issues and his personal character.
I'd like to think the same for Hillary supporters.
Oh I know that many will vote because of racial or gender biases... but in truth I think this country will be lucky to survive 24 hour non-stop News shows that more often than not reduce complex issues to 40 second incomprehensible sound bites, if they discuss the issues at all.
And thoughtful analysis... nary a drop in the media dessert.
--------------------------------------------------- America will never be free until the last pundit is strangled with the entrails of the last pollster!
by Flint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM PDT
Hahaha, so true!
by AJsMom on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:57:18 AM PDT
how this article is observing the racist classifications the voters are placed into?
And then that means that this article, by talking about the racist classifications here, this diary's goal of exposing it will make people stop doing it, thus one will ignore talking about race based classifications, thus racism will spread like darkness? I know you don't mean it, but the implication is there.
I agree with your "observation" point, but I don't think this diary is silencing anything, I think its pointing out the fact that the classifications themselves are pretty racist; like the subtle implications that black people are classified into less educated, would never drink lattes, and poor group. Are there poor, less educated black people who don't drink lattees? You bet, but to classify black people as only in these categories is f'd up (not you Deb, the statements in the article), and I think that is Grannydoc's point.
Though I could be reading it wrong too.
by KLRinLA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM PDT
election...Ignore the fact of race and in the general election, if Obama is the nominee, the piper will be paid because it won't have been acknowleldged and dealt with. Because in November he will be running against a different person.
And unlike the primary.... while most people think the dynamic is along the white-black parameter...what may actually be happening in this race is that the paramemter being played out is in terms of the man vs women dynamic.
Well if Obama is the nominee in Nov. there will be no woman to vote against...it will be another man...in all likelihood McCain.
So race will have to looked at and dealt with....if you don't deal with the hidden, ingrained, almost unconscious racism of many whites then the bill comes due in Nov. and it's a larger bill than you would imagine.
by debcoop on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:05:03 PM PDT
The results so far show most Democratic Americans aren't being deterred by race but the misogynist white males are not voting for Hillary.
by Tulla Flatbush Nana on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:20:45 PM PDT
....sort of like all those white folks in Utah, North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Maine would never vote for a black man?
by metal prophet on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM PDT
that between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, PA is the same as Alabama....
I live in a suburb of Philadelphia and I think it is quite a stretch to call Ed Rendell a racist.
I'm pissed off more people aren't pissed off...
by rofodem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM PDT
Both in his mayoral campaign and for the City of Philadelphia. He is not a racist. He is, however, highly distainful of the Black community.
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM PDT
I didn't see links.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM PDT
were a compilation of three media sources heard this morning. MSNBC, CNN, and FOX (I listen so you don't have to) News. I did not enhance or distort their words, I merely took the specific demographic references from all three sources and combined them.
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:22:21 PM PDT
.. the other morning.
These terms themselves are insulting -- putting numbers behind them seems disingenuous too.
I wonder who is REALLY going to characterize themselves as "less educated" to a stranger.
Maybe Williams' crabby attitude MAYBE came from having to repeat those distasteful things as if they weren't spin. This broader use of them might be the hallmark of planted talking points rather than uncomfortable statistics.
No chicken should follow John McCain across that bloody road!
by MT Spaces on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM PDT
... just maybe. I should maybe watch for repetition.
by MT Spaces on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:59:50 PM PDT
scratched my head as he kept repeating that "Obama has a black voter problem."
What problem??? He seems to be doing really well with African American voters and white voters. It is Clinton who has the problem. :)
by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM PDT
probably don't describe themselves that way, they simply answer a question about education level to a pollster. I assume if you answer "high school diploma or less" then you are categorized as "less educated."
Just sayin'.
Hand me my old guitar, Pass the whiskey 'round
by htat33 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:16:17 PM PDT
by Boston Boomer on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM PDT
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." ---- Ray Mummert, creationist from Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005
The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa
by NCrefugee on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:29:01 PM PDT
It still cracks me up!!!
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:01 PM PDT
I was sufficiently annoyed at the implicit racism of NPR's morning edition pieces that I fired off an email yesterday to tell them so. Their framing this morning was bad, too.
"The most significant difference between now and a decade ago is the ... rapid erosion of spare capacities at critical segments of energy chains." Cheney, 2001
by Akonitum on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM PDT
haven't emailed them. I suppose I should. The reports are atrocious and deeply offensive.
by Philoguy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM PDT
they just asked "what is your highest level of education?" Folks aren't generally going to say they got PhD's when the didn't graduate from highschool.
Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.
by Guinho on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM PDT
and is so vague about it. Was it the MSM or was it Hillary?
If this were a newspaper it would border on libel.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:48:19 PM PDT
spurious trollrating of the diarist, I seem to recall a certain candidate making precisely this point. Who was that candidate. The name escapes me. Oh yeah, it began with a C. Hmmmm. Well anyway, I seem to recall this candidate whose name escapes me talking about black voters and working voters last week.
by Philoguy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:11:38 PM PDT
meaning they are working-class, not "comfortable" like my retired parents are. My dad likes Obama and would probably skip his Saturday morning golf to vote for him.
I voted Hillary because I cannot afford to vote hopes and dreams. I need a little more steak with the sizzle.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:26:22 PM PDT
well defined policies and positions, just go to his website. Precise and detailed policy discussions, however, do not belong in campaign speeches... At least if you know anything about effective rhetoric. Look at history: Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, George HW Bush, Gore, Kerry. What do all of these candidates have in common besides losing? They were all policy wonks on the campaign trail that did very little in the way of developing a coherent narrative or vision. Here we have one of the most talented democratic orators to come along since Kennedy and you folk are sneering about lack of substance. Over at MyDD today I read a similar comment, claiming that Obama just didn't talk enough about policy. I tell ya, you folk really floor me. Haven't you ever studied rhetoric? Haven't you ever looked at the qualities that the great and effective leaders throughout history had? This is our chance to win and win big and perhaps produce a lasting and left-leaning change among the American people like Reagan was able to do with the right and you folk go for the petty bureaucrat! I'll never understand how the democratic party, who is by and large supported by all the folks in the humanities and social sciences, doesn't draw on these resources and what rhetoric and sociology have taught us about popular movements.
by Philoguy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM PDT
I hope I'm wrong about him. Why can't he talk about these policies in his debates? I've read that he contradicts his website in debates.
I need to hear it from the candidate's mouth.
And his church bars whites, latinos, asians? Oh but Hillary's the racist. The Republicans are going to have a field day. And his pastor swears in surmons?
Hello President McCain.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM PDT
these in debates.
If you folks think this is what's going to win Hillary the election in the general you're sadly blind.
by Philoguy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:59:45 PM PDT
and not a level I'm comfortable with. But more importantly, the people voting for him never cite policy.
A candidate needs personality and charisma. But they need some policy.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:00:59 PM PDT
"He doesn't have policy positions!"
"Go to his website, there all clearly laid out."
"But they're not real! But, but they're not substantive!"
(hangs head)
Policy is important and has to be there, but it is never what has produced powerful coalitions and majorities within the United States. For that you need a narrative, vision, and charisma. Just look at the most effective presidents in our history and how they got folk behind them. But really the subtext of everything you're saying is:
"He's not Clinton!"
To that I say, "Thank God!"
by Philoguy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:04:31 PM PDT
Not everybody should get health care - only insured should have health care. But only get insurance if you feel like it.
Her plan goes further in bringing down costs and providing subsidies for low-income folks.
He negotiates with energy companies to make regulation adherence voluntary. He opens negotiations by ceding his demands.
Social Security and health care - very important to me.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:11:44 PM PDT
My God...
GWOT - Global War on Terra(-firma) - Bush's War on the Planet.
by grndrush on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM PDT
Not everybody should get health care.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:23:26 PM PDT
Gimme mine - and f*** everyone else.
by grndrush on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM PDT
He said not everybody should have health care. I say that's cold, EVERYBODY should have health care.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM PDT
Quoted from here.
YOUR QUOTE. In case you can't look upthread a 1/2-dozen comments. I have no interest in 'debating' someone who denies their own, printed words less than 2 hours after writing them, in the same thread they wrote them. Nowhere close to worth my time. I'm going to bed. Spend all night convincing yourself you didn't write the words above if you choose. All the reality-based community has to do is look one screen up.
One of the most bizarre denials I've ever seen here. Hope you're feeling better in the morning. <Shakes head>
by grndrush on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM PDT
I was saying that I don't like his positions, positions such as:
Maybe you should get some rest. Or some professional help.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM PDT
Catfish, see that little button under the comment box labeled "Blockquote"? I suggest you read the FAQ, and get a clue. Anyone who's been here longer than I and doesn't understand as much as the people who joined this site yesterday is, my friend, a SAD example of a "politically aware" individual.
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.
by grndrush on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:49:42 PM PDT
wtf?
by catfish on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:21:42 PM PDT
If you look far enough through my comment history, you'll see some angry, but this thread ain't it! You aren't worth getting angry over, LMAO!
Angry...NOW I see why you've been here for years and still don't understand the function of blockquote - you are a VERY slow learner, and an extremely poor reader of emotions, to boot.
I'm not angry - I feel sad for you, in fact.
And I'll NOT follow this silly thread further. Enjoy.
by grndrush on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM PDT
There's no way she can pull this around. I'm thinking about November.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM PDT
Oh, that's right. You've already drank it.
by grndrush on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:57:40 PM PDT
comment. The comment was even tipped by the diarist.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:27:50 PM PDT
Do you realize you said "look at what the MSM and the Hillary campaign are saying"?
There was no link, no publication, no news network, no show no person cited. But it was enclosed in quotes.
Kos could get sued for libel.
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM PDT
Gov. "Blunt Talk"
Not a news article -- a column. This is just about the only part of the interview that is addressed.
IGTNT: Our war dead. Their stories. Read "I Got the News Today."
by monkeybiz on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM PDT
by Tony Norman. Norman falsely cites Obama's victory in Alabama's Democratic-only primary as a measure of Obama's broad appeal. A general election in Pennsylvania would be different than a Democratic primary election in Alabama. Obama could win in Pennsylvania, but Norman is comparing (dishonestly) "apples and oranges."
For people of deep faith like George W. Bush, beliefs are intoxicating, and facts are sobering. Sober up, America!
by slip kid no more on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:10:06 PM PDT
...highly distainful of the Black community
"Racist Lite?"
There has to be an invisible sun / That gives us hope when the whole day's done -Police
by rightiswrong on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM PDT
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:45:34 PM PDT
of people who would dare support hillary clinton.
there is enough sexism and racism to go around in this race.
I'd rather vote for a black man with a white penis than a woman with teeth in her vagina.
by countrysexual on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM PDT
of this dairy, and the failure to understand the main topic is starting to piss me off! This is not about candidates - either of them. It is about campaigns, and main stream Media playing the race card. One group in desparation, and the other just 'cause it's FUN!
by Granny Doc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM PDT
You negate the stated intention of your diary - or was Hillary Clinton one of the closet 'racists' you planned to call out?
To say on the one hand you don't think Senator Clinton’s racist - and then condemn her campaign as such - you seemingly praise with one hand while wiping it away with the next. You say this isn't about supporting one candidate over another. Wonderful. But the insinuation seems to be that every one who supports someone other than Obama is a racist – and I highly resent that implication.
I supported Senator Obama way before he ever declared his intention of running for the Democratic nomination. You may have read one of my diaries on the subject – exhorting Obama to run. I have since changed my mind. It’s still legal to do so, last time I checked. After Obama I supported Kucinich, then Dodd/Edwards and now Clinton. I will not go into the reasons – pro Obama commenter’s are rarely interested in anyone else’s opinions – so enumerating mine would be a waste of time (as probably is this comment – but I couldn’t let the racist charge slip by unchallenged).
Ya know – I wrote about this too – that should Clinton become the Democratic nominee – the Republican hate machine would try and attack her over her strengths. They did Kerry. He was a war hero – so they called him a traitor; undeserving of the honors he earned. How to hit Clinton? Call her and her husband a racist. Why? Because they have been so strong on protecting minority rights (especially African American). You’d think this truth was unassailable; but then so was Kerry’s.
What I never foresaw was Democrats doing the Republicans job for them. Yet here we are – another Hillary’s a racist, or Hillary employs racists, or Hillary’s campaign is racist diary. Fine. I think I’ll take a vacation until all this is over. For anyone who’s interested – River Daughter has created a haven away from the Hillary hate. Come join me there if you like. Goldberry’s waiting.
Deus ex Machina
by The Fat Lady Sings on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM PDT
What I never foresaw was Democrats doing the Republicans job for them.
I just went to my local news paper message board, and the righties have sure picked right on up on what Rendell said! Yeah, the Democrats within the Clinton supporters are seeing to it that this Presidential campaign is LOST if they can't win it!
Here is what the rightie had to say on what happened:
Title:
Some Dems not ready to vote for a black man, says Democrat
Introduction:
Ed Rendel, a Liberal Democrat and Hillary supporter, has gone on record saying that some Liberals will refuse to vote for Obama because of his race. He thinks that will give Clinton a win in Pennsylvania. Very sad. Here it is the twenty-first century and democrats are still harboring the same racist attitudes that led them to 'control' blacks with fire hoses, stand guard at the schoolhouse doors, force them to the back of the bus, and keep them in slavery. We MUST end this rampant and ugly racism at once! Yes, there are also some liberals who will refuse to vote AGAINST a black candidate out of white guilt, but that is just as bad. Vote for the candidate based on his RECORD and EXPERIENCE, not his skin color!
Ed Rendel, a Liberal Democrat and Hillary supporter, has gone on record saying that some Liberals will refuse to vote for Obama because of his race. He thinks that will give Clinton a win in Pennsylvania.
Very sad.
Here it is the twenty-first century and democrats are still harboring the same racist attitudes that led them to 'control' blacks with fire hoses, stand guard at the schoolhouse doors, force them to the back of the bus, and keep them in slavery. We MUST end this rampant and ugly racism at once! Yes, there are also some liberals who will refuse to vote AGAINST a black candidate out of white guilt, but that is just as bad.
Vote for the candidate based on his RECORD and EXPERIENCE, not his skin color!
http://forums.courier-journal.com/...
Now go ahead and spin what Rendell said all you want, any of the Clinton supporters BUT ALL her campaign is doing is RIPPING the Democrats APART in the SOUTH!!!
How in the heck can we EVER stand up to the Race baiting of the Republic Party again????
Oh, I forgot, her campaign has already written off those red states Obama won as 'they'd never vote Democrat anyway, they are those lattee drinkers"
Now what the heck can we Democrats expect anyway????
What can I say about that, eh??? Democrats going BACK to their 'old racist' ways, see, it's making the right wing circuit, I promise you that, how else would they get this??
"People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"
by Wary on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM PDT
But you did well on the ???? and all the capitalization.
Postscript: I wasn't speaking to Rendell, Bill Clinton or the man in the moon. I was talking to the diarist; though perhaps my comment placement could have been better. I would think the meaning was clear from the context, however. I guess I didn't use enough punctuation.
by The Fat Lady Sings on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM PDT
shape if it weren't for her.
Also, Rendell didn't say that dems wouldn't vote for an African-american. He said some people. He then referenced his 2006 election and I really doubt it was partisan dems who would have swung over to lynn swann if he was white.
Final question: What exactly did Jesse Jackson mean when he said that Hillary didn't cry after Katrina?
by collegekid318 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:49:45 PM PDT
esp your highly disdainful of the black community statement.
i had to look up the word to make sure of what it meant because i couldnt believe i was reading it.
and im not a fan of rendell....didnt vote for him for re election...wrote in another name....but i have been close enough to him to never see anything i would call disdain for the black community.
by countrysexual on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM PDT
Sorry, but the whole diary is unintelligible.
But I discern the tired tactic of shielding Obama from any scrutiny by citing racism.
Hillary '08.
by Athena on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:12:29 PM PDT
or disagreeing with their supporters is not racist or sexist by default.
Trying to discreetly conflate politics with race or gender is.
by rightiswrong on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM PDT
wrong is right
black is white
how can you divorce race and gender from politics?
by countrysexual on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM PDT
and something closer to the intent of this diary: How do we get the media return to the business of being objective reporters of the news rather than race-baiting makers of it?
You can divorce the cynical manipulation of race and gender from politics when you have an impartial press loudly calling it out whenever they see it, not contributing to it.
But that ain't happening right now.
by rightiswrong on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM PDT
We need to get the media to quit conflating this race into an epic battle of black vs white, man vs woman. It's disingenuous. It's an outright lie.
The competition between the two is in reality about two things, policy differences and electibility/coat-tails. Both are competent, both are moderate to liberal Democrats, and both would make great Presidents. I believe that neither is fighting the other over who is female and who is black.
The issue of education, IMO, is more about economic disparity. I know three men, lower income, lower education level, who are voting for Hillary because they think that she will deal with the economy better. If I had to label either, and I want to stress this is on a very minor level, they would be more sexist than racist. It's about healthcare and employment and wages and the economy in general.
The media is running this race. I have believed this for months. Edwards and his message were shut out, every word of the Clinton campaign is parsed for racism, and no one is addressing sexism at all.
How many of the media are being called out on their closet sexism? Do you think that Katie Couric would have gotten away with asking Obama is his high school nick name had something to do with his sexuality?
Edwards Democrat voting for Obama would like to remind you, "Concentration Moon, over the camp in the valley" Frank Zappa knew.
by high uintas on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM PDT
Hillary Clinton referred to it being given her by "some boys".
by getlost on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:18:46 PM PDT
Hillary said "for some boys". It was garbage.
by high uintas on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM PDT
"Hillary is not a racist BUT" she is.
Ed Rendell is a racist, that's what you are saying. Disdainful of the black community is racist.
But you can get away with it because people see your handle and assume no ill intent.
Let's get our pitchforks and find all the other "closet" racists!
by catfish on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM PDT
isn't just that such racist reinforcement is coming from a Democrat, it is that his whole reason for making the statement (his support of Hillary) is undermined as well.
Yes, there are some people (and "uninformed voters" exist both in and out of PA) who wouldn't vote for a black man for president. But guess what? I think they wouldn't vote for a woman for president either.
Damn weak support if that's the intention of Hillary's campaign.
Try my dream: President Obama
by MrSandman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM PDT
The Dems will be sailing in uncharted waters this fall. No major party has ever had a female or an AA nominee for prez.
As this diary noted, a conversation that I recently had w/ 5 relatives who are current Obama constituents offered food for thought on this issue. There is still plenty of racism out there that may hurt Obama as a nominee. There is also, however, plenty of sexism that may hurt HRC.
What's disturbing is that a prominent HRC supporter makes comments like these in public. HRC is banking on Rendell to help deliver a must-have primary for her. Imagine Tim Kaine, for example, publicly raising questions about HRC's electability b/c of her gender.
Rendell's comments, when taken in context w/ Bill Shaheen's comments, Bob Johnson's comments, and WJC's post-SC comments, raises some unsettling questions. There is an unfortunate pattern here that may get worse in teh coming weeks.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:18:55 PM PDT
I think they wouldn't vote for a woman for president either.
Isn't that exactly what Rendell said, but using gender instead of race. I think we have to be careful before we become too politically correct. To say we can't talk about race or gender as a demographic and how it might affect an election is kind of stiffling. Haven't we all talked about race and gender and how it might affect this race? Let's not get too carried away. On the other hand, racist and sexist comments and race and sex baiting have to be critisized. When someone says Obama can't win in Nevember because he's African American, I cringe. Same thing happens when someone says Hillary can't win because she's a woman.
by immigradvocate on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM PDT
generally have more than one demographic to hate.
Therefore, I inferred that Rendell's logic was a tad off if his racial overtones were meant to support Hillary's run. I think the same people who would never, ever vote for an African American buy into more than one stereotype and would be just as likely to refuse to vote for a woman.
Make no mistake; I cringe at both as well. I just don't understand Rendell's position when we have two candidates that by a fact of birth (and the lies of centuries) belong to a demographic that has historically been oppressed and diminished.
I actually think Rendell's comments were more sexist than racist. Because I think in those few short comments, he trivialized what Hillary has accomplished. A sort of "no big deal" and better than the black alternative.
It's a big deal, a huge accomplishment. For both of our candidates.
by MrSandman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM PDT
Rendell cares about one thing here, and that is winning. He is just being honest.
by Lilipons on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:41:54 PM PDT
Simply promotes the urban myth that "liberals" can't be racists.
by Miles in WesternWA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM PDT
card. All you need is to be desperate and/or cynical.
We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.
by Lepanto on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM PDT
unscrupulous, etc etc
by bugscuffle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM PDT
