politburo diktat 2.0

Related Posts

Let’s Party Like it was 1984

2006 National Geographic Survey

South Carolina - the white vote

Live-blogging the Kansas 2006 Primary

Nutroots Orgasm

Trackbacks & Pings

1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 16 Apr 2008 at 11:28 pm

   Big Donors Among Obama’s Grass Roots…

   Sen. Barack Obama credits his presidential campaign with creating a “parallel public financing syste…

Comments

1. Redhand wrote:

   Hillary Clinton supporter Bob “[Uncle Tom]” Johnson has revived comments previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, * * *

   Fixed.

   Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 7:32 pm ¶

2. David C. wrote:

   Hillary Clinton supporter Bob “[Uncle Tom]” Johnson has revived comments previously made by Geraldine Ferraro, * * *

   Fixed.

   All black people have to support Obama?

   Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 7:52 pm ¶

3. The Unabrewer wrote:

   Yeah, that Bob Johnson is such a freaking racist.

   Posted 17 Apr 2008 at 1:13 am ¶

4. Alon Levy wrote:

   Actually, someone named Jerry Smith is reasonably likely to be black.

   Posted 17 Apr 2008 at 10:04 am ¶

5. canuckistani wrote:

   IIRC, Clinton started out with a fair amount of black support from people who had positive memories of the Clinton presidency. Somehow, that seems to have trickled away.

   Posted 17 Apr 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶

6. Alon Levy wrote:

   Clinton used to get more support from black people than Obama. It became less and less true as 2007 went on. She probably would’ve still captured a decent part of the black vote if she hadn’t made the MLK/LBJ gaffe, or accused Obama of past drug use. Sometimes racism really does backfire.

   Posted 17 Apr 2008 at 10:47 pm ¶

7. John the Marine wrote:

   O.K. this is really going to hurt, but for the sake of intellectual honesty I’m going to do it anyway. I’m actually going to defend, on this one point only, H-Beast.

   She probably would’ve still captured a decent part of the black vote if she hadn’t made the MLK/LBJ gaffe, or accused Obama of past drug use. Sometimes racism really does backfire.

   The MLK/LBJ comment wasn’t racist and has a strong basis in historical fact. MLK lead the movement and was obviously the true catalyst for change. However, LBJ championed the legislation which required a huge amount of the other party’s, GOP, support because the Democratic party down south was after all the “Jim Crow” party. LBJ does deserve some credit for standing up to the “Dixiecrat” wing of his party.

   Excuse me I must puke. Ah, thats better. Moving right along. The drug thing, spot on Alon she got nailed. Perhaps if Obama hadn’t inhaled she wouldn’t have brought it up.

   Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 7:33 am ¶

8. canuckistani wrote:

   I kinda raised an eyebrow at the LBJ fracas as well. Not to defend Hillary or anything, but I didn’t think the inherent racism in her campaign really started showing until they started dismissing Obama’s wins in heavily black states as unimportant.

   Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 11:36 am ¶

9. David C. wrote:

   I didn’t think the inherent racism in her campaign

   I’m highly skeptical of the constant cries of racism whenever Obama is attacked. In what way is the Clinton campaign inherently racist? I don’t think trying to define & marginalize Obama as a black candidate is necessarily racist. It may be sleazy, nasty or whatever, but identity politics is a huge factor in campaigns.

   they started dismissing Obama’s wins in heavily black states as unimportant.

   But why wouldn’t they do this? They had to find some plausible argument to explain away Obama’s victories and try to demonstrate that they weren’t as significant as they looked. What else were they going to do, just say something like: “well, we are running a terrible campaign and our candidate just isn’t connecting with voters”?

   If Mitt Romney were a Democrat and won big in Utah, wouldn’t the Clinton campaign point out that Utah is overwhelmingly Mormon? Would it make them bigots to try to downplay that loss and try to marginalize Romney as a Mormon candidate?

   Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶

10. canuckistani wrote:

    Not all attacks on Obama are racist, just like not all attacks on Clinton are sexist. But when Obama’s black supporters are dismissed as unimportant for allegedly voting based on race, that is a racist attack. A fairly mild one, closer to calling Obama “boy” than a lynching, but racist nonetheless.

    And yeah, “inherently” might have been putting it a bit strong, but it’s a good sounding word and I like using it.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 1:33 pm ¶

11. David C. wrote:

    canuckistani,

    Bob Johnson says:

    if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called ‘Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably no.
    

    Do you think that’s incorrect? I don’t think it’s possible to reasonably argue against the idea that Obama’s strong support among blacks is heavily influenced by the fact that he himself is black. Does that mean black voters are only supporting Obama because he’s black? No. If Obama was a conservative Republican instead of a liberal Democrat, he would certainly not have anywhere near the same level of black support that he does now.

    But when Obama’s black supporters are dismissed as unimportant for allegedly voting based on race
    

    I see this characterization (by Clinton supporters) as overly simplistic and dismissive, but I’m still not seeing how it has to be racist.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶

12. David C. wrote:

    sorry about the reversed quotes

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 2:07 pm ¶

13. canuckistani wrote:

    Well, as Alon and I noted earlier, Obama did not start with 90% of the black vote - I remember reading articles about black people regarding him with some suspicion, either for inexperience or for assuming that he would automatically get the black vote, or because a vote for a black man would be a wasted vote in a racist nation. These objections seem to have been largely overcome.

    You might also ask what the level of support from blacks would be if Condi Rice or Alan Keyes were the Republican candidate. I doubt it would be anywhere near 90%, so I am not inclined to believe that blacks will vote along racial lines against their own perceived interests.

    And I’m sorry Bob Johnson disagrees with me about the racism I see in Clintons dismissal, but if we agreed about everything, I wouldn’t need to waste my time here.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 2:28 pm ¶

14. David C. wrote:

    You might also ask what the level of support from blacks would be if Condi Rice or Alan Keyes were the Republican candidate. I doubt it would be anywhere near 90%, so I am not inclined to believe that blacks will vote along racial lines against their own perceived interests.

    Right. I definitely agree. That was my point when I said they are oversimplifying. Obviously blacks are not voting for Obama only because he’s black. But at the same time I think it is also correct to note that it is unlikely that he’d have the same level of black support if he were not black.

    disagrees with me about the racism I see in Clintons dismissal

    Again, I agree with you that they are being dismissive, but I’m still not seeing why it is necessarily racist, and not just an obvious political tactic.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 2:45 pm ¶

15. libarbarian wrote:

    I’m highly skeptical of the constant cries of racism whenever Obama is attacked. In what way is the Clinton campaign inherently racist?

    David - I dont know anyone who thinks the Clintons are racist but I know a lot of people, myself included, who think they are willing to appeal to the racism in others to win.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶

16. libarbarian wrote:

    Again, I agree with you that they are being dismissive, but I’m still not seeing why it is necessarily racist, and not just an obvious political tactic.

    What do you think is worse, racists or non-racists who will cynically appeal to racist sentiments to get elected?

    Of course, racist or not, her tactics are even more annoying in light of her own extreme sensitivity to anything that could possibly be construed as sexist.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 5:26 pm ¶

17. a former european wrote:

    Even if you give HRC the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she was being racist, she is merely reaping what she has sown lo these many years. I believe the term “hoist by her own petard” is also appropriate.

    The modern Left/Liberal/Progressive movement began imposing the concept of Political Correctness on our society a few decades ago. I, like many, decried this concept as an attack on free speech and the free exchange of ideas. We lost, and political correctness has now created a type of orthodoxy of thought and speech which has not been imposed on the West since the Medieval Church.

    For the Left, long accustomed to Pravda, and adherence to Party-approved Truth, such intolerance in furtherance of the Revolution was nothing new. Shamelessly Orwellian, circa 1984, there are now strict controls over what may or may not be said or thought.

    For example, a frank discussion of race relations is nearly impossible anymore. Political Correctness will not permit it. Charges of racism or “hate speech” will shut down any real exchange of ideas.

    After HRC’s championing Leftist ideas like Political Correctness, I now find karmic satisfaction in Hillary being destroyed by her own creation.

    She should have known better. It was a common tactic for the Left to shout “racism” any time a black candidate was criticized by a Republican, or when social entitlements like welfare were cut. Did she really think she would get a pass when her turn came around? The old parable: “Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it” comes to mind.

    Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 11:34 pm ¶

18. Alon Levy wrote:

    The MLK/LBJ comment wasn’t racist and has a strong basis in historical fact. MLK lead the movement and was obviously the true catalyst for change. However, LBJ championed the legislation which required a huge amount of the other party’s, GOP, support because the Democratic party down south was after all the “Jim Crow” party. LBJ does deserve some credit for standing up to the “Dixiecrat” wing of his party.

    I don’t think it was racist of Clinton to say that, just badly phrased and in bad taste. I’d have gone with something like, “If we were engaging in direct action, I’d be the first to imitate Martin Luther King’s tactics; however, we’re running for President, so I imitate Lyndon Johnson’s.” Or, better yet, no comment; then the pundits would have said Obama’s comparing himself to MLK rather than that Clinton thinks LBJ was more important than MLK.

    Obviously blacks are not voting for Obama only because he’s black. But at the same time I think it is also correct to note that it is unlikely that he’d have the same level of black support if he were not black.

    This is possible. But I also think it’s likely Obama would have gotten more white support if he were white. An ominous trend is CNN’s exit poll, which asks the Democratic primary voters if the race and/or gender of the candidate was important to them. Invariably, those who say gender was important overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. Those who say race was important usually vote for Clinton by higher margins than those who don’t.

    The natural constituency for Obama’s message of hope and change is the educated upper-middle class, as well as liberal-leaning Independents. These were the base of his support throughout most of 2007. He subsequently reached out to black voters; if he were white, it might’ve been harder for him to compare himself to MLK. Still he could have plausibly achieved it, and if not, he could have gotten support from other groups. For example, the aforementioned constituencies are pro-immigration, so he could have taken a pro-immigration stance to appeal to Hispanics. He could have also tried economic populism à la Dean in the weeks before Iowa, for example by attacking NAFTA and reminding people which administration pushed it through.

    The modern Left/Liberal/Progressive movement began imposing the concept of Political Correctness on our society a few decades ago.

    Yeah, pretty much. In the 1950s, people were free to voice every idea they wanted and protest for every cause they supported without fear of violence. The Civil Rights Act changed all that by imposing laws prohibiting offensive speech.

    Posted 19 Apr 2008 at 2:28 am ¶

19. David C. wrote:

    Of course, racist or not, her tactics are even more annoying in light of her own extreme sensitivity to anything that could possibly be construed as sexist.

    True, but that’s basically the same point I’m making about Obama supporters.

    This is possible. But I also think it’s likely Obama would have gotten more white support if he were white

    I think that’s almost certainly true. Identity plays an undeniable role in politics. People like to vote for candidates they feel they can relate to, or who they see as one of them.

    Posted 19 Apr 2008 at 9:16 am ¶

20. libarbarian wrote:

    For example, a frank discussion of race relations is nearly impossible anymore. Political Correctness will not permit it. Charges of racism or “hate speech” will shut down any real exchange of ideas.

    I have never seen this happen to someone who didn’t confuse a “frank discussion of race” with “spewing false stereotypes as though they were true”.

    Posted 21 Apr 2008 at 1:09 pm ¶

21. canuckistani wrote:

    I have never seen this happen to someone who didn’t confuse a “frank discussion of race” with “spewing false stereotypes as though they were true”.

    Often accompanied by “How come black people call each other ‘nigger’ but I’m not allowed to say it?”

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 10:34 am ¶

22. a former european wrote:

    Thanks for making my point for me, guys. Even mentioning the possibility of a frank discussion of race gives rise to veiled charges of racism and bigotry.

    As far as stereotypes being another taboo topic that will get one burned at the stake by the zeolous monks of Political Correctness, get over it for Chrissakes! General statements about large groups are not inherently evil. I have heard several comedians decry the grim, stiff-lipped, ever-ready-to-be-offended PC crowd as trying to destroy the ability to laugh at ourselves.

    I think it was Chris Rock that used to do a standup routine defending stereotypes against the PC-types. Things like, everyone knows:

    — Women hate to shop
    — Men never like to watch The Game
    — Germans don’t like beer
    — Russians hate vodka
    — Italians hate pasta
    — The French are always courteous and polite to visiting american tourists
    — Orientals can’t stand rice
    — Blacks hate fried chicken
    — You never see white people at a NASCAR event, etc.

    Oops, I forgot. As a black man, Chris Rock would always get a free pass from the PC Commissars. After all, criticism of any black man must obviously denote secret racism and other thought crimes.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶

23. canuckistani wrote:

    I’m all set for a frank discussion of race, if you want. But what happens if you say something I perceive as racist? Do I assume that you an actual racist, are unwittingly saying racist things because it’s normal in your culture, or I’m oversensistive? Who is at fault, the one who sees racism where none exists, or the one who denies racism when it’s right in front of his nose? You get an injustice either way. Pick your poison.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 3:47 pm ¶

24. Alon Levy wrote:

    There’s laughing at yourself, and there’s doing a minstrel show, just like there’s objecting to race riots, and there’s talking about the American left’s record on race without mentioning the Civil Rights Act or why it came about.

    Some people can pull off laughing at other groups. Sarah Silverman is good at that. The trick is to be an equal opportunity offender. It also helps if you give the impressions that you know what you’re talking about, and that when the chips are down, you don’t believe those stereotypes. It doesn’t matter if it’s about an ethnicity or political group or nationality; the rules are always the same. A Modest Proposal wouldn’t be nearly as funny as it is if it were written by an Englishman whose more serious essays were about the natural inferiority of the Irish.

    There is one exception to this rule, and that’s making fun of the mainstream. Everyone can be assumed to be familiar with what’s mainstream right now. So it’s natural to cut outsiders some slack if they make fun of the West, Americans, educated people, whites (and increasingly Chinese), the ruling party, etc. And even then some things are just stupid - e.g. Baudrillard on America, or Mahatir and Lee Kuan Yew on the West.

    Posted 22 Apr 2008 at 8:42 pm ¶