Arnold Kling summarizes quite succinctly just how much the stars aligned to put Obama in the lead:
Since my father's death, I have been trying to think about how to articulate his views on politics. Insider politics, as exemplified by Congressional earmarks defended here, struck him as normal and rational. Outsider politics, coming from libertarians or other radicals, struck him as irrational.For the public at large, he took seriously the results of studies of voting behavior. Based on those, he predicted that Obama would not win the nomination, much less the Presidency. Historically, one's vote can be predicted quite well by one's parents' party affiliation, by one's ethnic group, and by one's economic class, in that order. I don't think my father took into account the Democratic Party's rules, which worked out this year to the detriment of Clinton by putting caucuses in states that she might have won as primaries, by negating a state with a large elderly population (Florida), and by negating a state with a large blue-collar population (Michigan).
Arnold thinks that as soon as the dust has settled, the party will unite behind the nominee.
I would guess that this will be less true of a Hillary Clinton nomination than of a Barack Obama nomination. The identity politics just doesn't resonate the same way for her base. For reasons that I can't quite articulate, I think that even the sixty year old women who strongly personally identify with her will be less angry and disappointed with a Clinton loss than blacks will at an Obama loss. If Kennedy had had the nomination snatched from him at the last minute because the party elders thought a Catholic couldn't win--or worse, because some Democratic voters were uncomfortable with a Catholic president--you'd have had a great deal of trouble motivating Irish-American turnout come November.
There are also the swingy Democrats who liked McCain in earlier Republican primaries. Those people are in the Obama camp right now. The war has changed the picture somewhat, of course, but Hillary will have a much harder time keeping Obama's supporters from defecting to the other side than he will hers. Obama also appeals to some of McCain's support among independents.
That said, I'm overall unconvinced by the large numbers of people who say that they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win. Most of them will fall back in line, and of the ones who don't, most of those will stay home. What problem there is comes down to turnout. If Barack Obama is the nominee, I expect that blacks will react the way the Irish-Americans, and to a lesser extent the Catholic community, did about Kennedy--i.e. if they had to stand in line on a bed of hot coals to vote for him, they'd happily do it. You'd barely need an urban turnout machine. Hillary motivates some women this way, I think, but not as many, and too dispersed to do the party much good.
Meanwhile, if Clinton is the nominee, the Republican turnout problem is largely taken care of--even people who are sick of Bush and don't much care for McCain will hustle to vote against her. No obstacle will be to great for those people to overcome; the polling place could be destroyed by a flash flood, and they'd just swim to the next town.
But it's not clear to me how big a problem this is for either party. The election still seems mostly like a referendum on Bush. Which spells Democratic victory in November.
The election still seems mostly like a referendum on Bush. Which spells Democratic victory in November.-MM
That's certainly the way Obama supporters would like to frame the debate. But the fact that John McCain has clashed publicly with the Bush administration on so many issues (eg the treatment of detainees, global warming, federal spending...) means that they are unlikely to succeed.
Some of President Bush's critics just froth at the mouth at the mere mention of his name. But these are not reasonable people, and they wouldn't vote for a Republican anyway. They hated Ronald Reagan just as much as they do Bush.
But their are many reasonable people who are disappointed with the President and their criticisms tend to crystallize around two issues: first, the incompetent handling of the Iraq War; and second, the runamway growth of government spending.
McCain has a persuasive case to make that he is very different from Bush on both of these issues. He was critical of Donald Rumsfeld's strategy early on, and was calling for more troops. He was also an early proponent of the surge, which has dramtically improved the situation in Iraq. So there is every reason to believe that McCain has better judgment about military and foreign affairs than the President, and would have handled the war far more skillfully.
Also, McCain, unlike most of his colleageus including Obama, consistently resisted the wasteful spending that has done so much to discredit the Bush economic policies. McCain didn't take any earmarks in 2007, Obama took plenty. McCain wants to scale back the President's prescription drug benefit. Obama has always wanted a bigger one.
So McCain has a good case to make for himself. Unlike Obama, he has the requisite experience in military and foreign affairs to handle them competently (Let's not forget how little Obama knows about foreign policy, it wasn't so long ago that he was advocating an invasion of Pakistan). And again unlike Obama, McCain has made a serious effort to stand athwart the rising tide of government spending and waste.
It's way too early to make reliable predictions about the election because it all depends on how things are going in Iraq and with the economy. Much can change between now and November.
Maybe I'm not typical of Republicans, but I viscerally dislike Obama and I don't really mind Hillary. Most Republicans, I suppose, do hate the Clintons - I've never quite understood why - but I think you underestimate how much we're getting to hate Obama. Between Wright and bittergate and everything else, I think he really lost the bipartisan appeal he used to have.
There is little real difference on the issues between Clinton and Obama, turning the focus to hotbutton sideshow issues like lapel pins, Rev. Wright, Bosnia, bittergate, campaign staff conflict of interests, etc.
The Obama/McCain contest this summer and fall will be markedly different. Iraq and the economy will be the watershed issues. The Democrats will frame the race as a referendum on Bush 3 in the person of McSame. The inevitable Atwater/Rove Willie Horton/swiftboat tactics will have less resonance this year.
2008 will be a Democratic year. The yearning for change will only increase as the problems in Iraq deepen and the economy continues its descent.
This analysis just strikes me as wrongheaded. BHOs main voting blocs are blacks and lace cuff liberals. Which of these groups is going to switch to McCain in large numbers?
Hillary has the support of lower income whites that BHO views as bitter, racist, and xenophobic. Not to mention their clinging to god and guns. You really expect these people to accept their nominees contempt for them and go vote for him anyway when Mr. War Hero is on the other side of the ballot?
My analysis: McCain gets way more Dem votes is BHO is the nominee.
The only problem is there is no clarity on who the Vice Presidential Candidates will be for either party.
McCain, with the proper running mate, can overcome much of the advantages that Obama or Clinton might bring to the Democrat ticket.
The reality is, with the orgy of self immolation and fratricide that have been going on since Iowa, and it likelihood of continuing at least till May, it may no longer be possible for the party to "come together".
I am not sure if anyone noticed --- but there is one factor that can turn out to be fatal to both Clinton and Obama: Physical and Emotional Exhaustion of the Candidates AND their key staff.
That factor may play a bigger role than who defects where or changes votes.
Another issue --- even if the Democrats win, you are dealing with an Administration whose top people are going into the job exhausted, tired, and just not with it even as the nation face the greatest economic and political challenges in over a century.
Not good karma and there is a high probability that this can become a one-term Democrat President.
Other issues - even if the Democrats win the Presidency, they could lose control of the Senate.
It is not a pretty picture the American Political system maneuvered itself into.
Obama, like McCain, commands the attention of a certain kind of youngish educated demographic.
McCain may have a strong case to make, but the only way I can figure his inability to poll past 45% when the Democrats are engaged in civil war is that people are reacting to Bush. I agree that he isn't that close to Bush, but the polls seem to indicate that the voters don't.
The yearning for change will only increase as the problems in Iraq deepen and the economy continues its descent.-Truesdell
Actually, by all accounts, the situation in Iraq has been improving, and thusfar we have not had even a single quarter of negative growth. But what I really want to comment on is the emptiness of this continuing call from Obama and his supporters for "change." It's not enough to call for change. Some changes are for the worse.
Obama wants a massive increase in the capital gains tax (from 15% to 28%). But the capital gains tax is an extremely inefficient means of raising revenue, as any economist knows.
Obama also wants to backslide on free trade and rengotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements. But free trade has been enormously beneficial to American consumers and exporters as well as hundreds of millions of poor people around the world.
So, yes, Obama is proposing changes--but those changes would not be improvements. It's time to get past empty slogans like "hope and change" and begin a real critical anlysis of the man's policies.
"...the only way I can figure his inability to poll past 45% when the Democrats are engaged in civil war is that people are reacting to Bush..."-MM
I don't know how Megan looks at a poll that shows McCain and Obama dead even and concludes that McCain has little or no chance of winning.
Sure the softness or the economy is hurting McCain, as is the general disrepute the Republicans earned for themselves in recent years. But Obama has some problems of his own that are arguably more serious. Chief among these is his evident inability to appeal to middle and working class whites.
And the really remarkable thing is the extent to which McCain has been able to escape the taint of being a Republican in what has generally been a good couple of years for Democrats. While George Bush's approval rating languishes in the low 30's, John McCain's soars to 67%.
So far the evidence indicates that voters are smart enough to see that McCain is not a carbon copy of Bush and that he therefore has a pretty good shot at the Presidency, whatever Megan and other Obama enthusiasts would have us believe.
Rwe, my problem exactly. His campaign is incredibly intellectually dishonest. He's running as the change agent. But Hillary is for more concrete changes. So what makes him Mr. Change? Well, his campaign will tell you, he's going to change how things are done in Washington. He'll bring us a more elevated politics. But his campaign is the litmus test of that, at least the elevated politics part, and it's simply not true. His campaign hasn't been much less negative than hers has. Mainly, what distinguishes his campaign from hers in this respect is that she recognizes personal attacks as legitimate, whereas if you attack him, he cries "distraction! How does this help the average voter pay their bills?" Oh, is that all politics is about anymore, what helps people pay their bills? The "new kind of politics" talk is just a stick to beat Hillary and the media with anytime anyone raises a question he can't answer. As for changing how things are done in Washington, nothing could be more impossible. Every man who's ever ran for President says the same thing, and of course it never happens because we have an entrenched two-party system that isn't going anywhere, money will never leave politics altogether unless you scrap the First Amendment, gridlock is designed into the Constitution itself, etc. etc. etc. Meanwhile, his policies are a mystery. He's a protectionist but he's really a free-trader. He wants to dismantle No Child Left Behind and do whatever will please the teacher unions, but secretly (or so some would like to think), he's an innovative education reformer. He'll leave Iraq, but he might not. He's for billions in new spending, but he loves to remind us he's "a strong proponent of pay-go," which is to say, if he were consistent, he wouldn't actually be for most of his own proposals because there's no way he'll be able to pay for them as he goes. He wanted to vote for John Roberts, but his aides told him it would be politically risky, so he didn't. Of course, the Megans and Sullivans of the world think that once he gets elected, he'll show his his true heterodox colors, that he's just saying this "stuff" to get elected, but what happens when his people tell him it doesn't pay to break all your promises? Then all that "stuff" will become national policy. Or at least, until it all backfires and we get a Republican Congress.
If you want to know how the election in November will go, look at the state polls for Obama v McCain and Clinton v McCain.
What is very clear to me is that an Obama candidacy runs a high risk of losing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Clinton polls so much better in these states vs McCain than Obama does, plus she polls much better in Florida, too.
If I had to make a prediction today, I would say that if Obama is the nominee, McCain will win every state Bush did in 2004, plus Pennsylvania.
If Clinton could win the nomination by any method not seen as "stealing" it from Obama, she would be the next president, but I just don't see how she can win the nomination that way. Thus, I think McCain is the winner in November.
And then there are those of us Republicans who might well vote for Obama over McCain, but would instantly vote for McCain over Clinton.
Not (at least in my case) due to any particular animosity towards Clinton. But just because we want to get away from the politics of distruction that have characterized the past decade or more. Clinton would give us more of the same, and the country doesn't need that. McCain, and Obama even more, offers hope of starting to get a way from all that. And not before time.
If the average american decides to vote for Mr. "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" (who still doesn't have the foggiest idea of how all this war is going to be paid for), then we deserve the slide to third-world status that will inevitably result.
Hello, people? Straits of Hormuz? $300/bbl or higher oil? Anyone want to predict what that will do to the US economy?
Not to mention food prices, etc. And the US auto industry is now realizing that oh, at $4/gallon gas people might not want to buy all those SUVs, but hoocodeanode...
And anyone who doesn't think that the US isn't in a recession yet hasn't looked at the latest numbers. We ARE.
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!...
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!
It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to go."
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Jacksmith, It's pretty obvious who is an idiot.
Chanelling Jeff Foxworthy is not exactly going to destin you for the Hall of Fame for political punditry.
Finally, it doesn't really matter who the Democrats end up nominating. McCain will win over either of them, in an overwhelming fashion.
Marcus
They make things for this so you don't have to guess. These "polls" show no difference between the two in Democratic support in November, or a slight edge for Hillary.
Other issues - even if the Democrats win the Presidency, they could lose control of the Senate.
Do you know how stupid that makes you sound? The only Democratic Senator in danger of losing this year is Landrieu of Lousiana. Democrats have one assured victory already(Mark Warner in VA), and many more likely. So no, the Dems won't lose control of the Senate. In fact, it is more likely they reach 60 this year(to overcome the Republicans filibustering everything).
I don't think my father took into account the Democratic Party's rules, which worked out this year to the detriment of Clinton by putting caucuses in states that she might have won as primaries, by negating a state with a large elderly population (Florida), and by negating a state with a large blue-collar population (Michigan).
Does it take into account that Hillary didn't think she'd have to campaign past Super Tuesday? That she thought the campaign would be one long coronation? That her main opponent would be a charismatic former community organizer?
If Hillary steals the nomination, not only can she kiss the election good-0bye (deservedly, considering what she will have done to steal it), but The Democatic party will have fallen on its store. The contention that Hillary's supporters will support Obama is correct -- unlike thier candidate, they can accept being beaten fair and sqaure -- but Obama's supporters will remember and not forgive.
Many Democratic voters WILL swing to McCain in Nov. McCain has always been popular with Democrats, especially during the last 8 years. McCain has shown that he is a moderate and has confronted the Bush Administration many times which is more than Hillary or Obama has done. Remember in 04 that even Kerry wanted McCain on his ticket and McCain refused. I am a lifelong Democrat, voted for Hillary, but would strongly consider McCain over either Democratic candidate. While the electorate is eager to get rid of the Bush Administration, most see McCain as very different from Bush. The Bush campaign tore McCain apart in 2000 and is therefore also a victim of the Bush Presidency. Megan, if there is one thing you should know is that Democrats do not "fall into line". We are freer and more original thinkers, which also mean crossing over if necessary. McCain is an attractive candidate to Democrats anyway so when the media and Democratic establishment are grossly unfair to my preferred candidate (Hillary) and then promote a virtual unknown to office (Obama), McCain looks better every day as Choice #1.
I think polls of the Democratic candidates against the Republican are meaningless now. Why? Because all the money and effort is not being directly targeted and the focus is not there. McCain is halfway fundraising, enjoying himself, building his structure, and the Dems have all their energy focused on locking in their own numbers.
We have to wait till the point that Obama and McCain go heads up against each other, and also, see if the addition of a vp candidate makes a qualitative difference for either side.
I happen to like both McCain and Obama, for different reasons, and would be satisfied with either. I've voted Republican in every election since Bush senior in 1988. My gut desire is to see radical change or at least debate over new ideas and not mere tinkering here and there.
I do think the Democrats will win if all their hufffing and puffing during the Bush years was not merely that. If Iraq and healthcare are truly important to them, and they get to the polls, then they should win. But if they get caught up in nonsense, staying home for this or that, then McCain will have an easier time of it.
Hillary is in the bunker. The only rationale for keeping this thing going is to give Obama an excuse to bomb Dresden.
It's simple demographics, really.
Obama is the "new base" - urban, coastal white professionals who've gone from even to 3:1 Democrat in the last twenty years.
Hillary has some claim on the "old base" - working-class whites. She did well in this group in PA. Let's be more specific though. She did well among working-class white women. Working-class white men are already lost to Team D.
Me? I'm hoping for an Obama nomination. He's got a strong hold on people who would vote D anyways, and no hold on swing voters. Plus, while he's been hard to attack from the left, he's a big, fat, juicy target from the right. The attack ads almost write themselves.
That being said, if Obama wins the nomination, I am writing a check to John McCain.
Brian 08:
Care to tell me how exactly has McCain been popular with Democrats? He's only popular with his "base", the TradMed.
I think Megan may be falling victim to a very common problem - assuming that the electorate shares her own views. This shows up in two key errors, I think.
First, I suspect that many centrist voters who might vote for McCain are currently in Hillary's camp, not Obama's. Hillary is, after all, a much more centrist candidate, and has been garnering support from centrist voters. Megan has, of course, chosen to back Obama and has rationalized it with an argument about Obama's attitude to regulation - but the fact remains that most centrist voters are going to be torn between the two most centrist candidates. That doesn't include Obama. (Frankly, it's pretty hard to see how anyone could be torn between Obama and McCain if policies and issues are important to them - and polls back that up.)
Second, I suspect that many rank and file Republican's are going to be at least as motivated by an Obama nomination as a Hillary nomination. Any Republican motivated by ideology is going to be more upset with an Obama nomination for obvious reasons. Further, even those motivated by character and personality will have to weigh recent issues such as bittergate, Wright, and Ayres against the now ancient offenses of the Clinton administration. Again, Megan has chosen to back Obama over Hillary - and I think that's leading her to significantly underate the extent that others might choose the reverse. It would be a mistake to underestimate Hillary's negatives, but at this point there aren't any skeletons hiding in her closet - there's almost no scope for a "swiftboating" since that was already done during the 90s. The same isn't true for Obama - I think he's potentially very vulnerable to negative campaigning during the general election.
Of course, I may well be guilty of the same sin - I'm a centrist with strong libertarian leanings, and I could see myself voting for Clinton but never Obama. Naturally, I assume that all centrists prefer Clinton. :-) Still, I think there's significant anecdotal and empirical evidence to back my view. (Then again, my biggest issue is free trade, so I'm unlikely to vote for Clinton either at this point - barring a radical reversal in either her or McCain's respective positions on trade).
Still, for what it's worth, I know only one person with a visceral dislike for Clinton strong enough that she'd never vote for her - and she's an anti-war Democrat who hasn't voted for a Republican in decades and isn't about to start this election cycle...
I may be projecting, but I don't think so. Hillary doesn't have any unknown skeletons, but Obama hasn't deployed any criticisms of the Clinton administration, because he's hoping to run on the "Democrats make the economy awesome" platform. McCain will have no such problem.
If I recall 2000, the Democrats who polled for McCain tend to be educated professionals, urban and suburban not rural--more Obama's demographic than Hillary's. Nor do I think it has anything to do with policy proposals, though frankly I also don't think there's any daylight worth talking about between Hillary and Obama on any issue I care about. Hillary taps into all the accumulated rage of the Clinton years, the photographic negative of Bush derangement syndrome. And she's personally much less likeable than Bill, or even Obama.
Believe me, I am not in any way under the impression that the American public agrees with me on much of anything. But I think it's pretty clear from the primaries that Obama attracts way more independents and marginal Democrats than Hillary does--how many people registered as Democrats just so they could cast a vote for another Clinton?
"I also don't think there's any daylight worth talking about between Hillary and Obama on any issue I care about."-MM
Very recently Megan was explaining that she opposed McCain because he had strayed too far from Hayek's ideas of respect for market outcomes and spontaneous order. The implication was that Obama is closer to Hayek than McCain is.
Now she admits that Hillary Clinton has essentially the same views as Barak Obama. So that means that Clinton must also be closer to Hayek than McCain is, which is absurd. Hillary is, after all, the woman who devised a Byzantine plan to have the state seize control of the health care system.
And with that reductio ad absurdum I'm going to quit this argument about Obama and libertarianism. I think the case has been made overwhelmingly that supporting Obama over McCain is inconsistent with classical liberal ideals.
The GOP will be highly motivated to turnout regardless of the Dem nominee. Every election I'm stunned by the otherwise intelligent people who rely on polls in the spring.
When was the last time a voter in the mushy middle heard or saw anything in the news (about Iraq, the economy, or the environment) that wasn't straight out of the Dem playbook? Does anyone think that the election will take place without the GOP making any effort to pushback against 3 1/2 years of left-wing propaganda?
Both Clinton and Obama have negatives that will flood the internet in the fall whichever is the nominee. By the week of the election, Democrats with a brain will be wondering who the idiots were that thought either was electable.
I think Megan is right that a Clinton nomination will have slightly less of a "unite the party" effect. It might be better to phrase it simply as "how many Democratic voters will turn out to vote for Obama, how many for Hillary". Blacks historically don't have high voting rates, but they do when Obama is in the race. Women historically have high voting rates, and they're not going to stay home just because Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary.
A more media-ish narrative would be that blacks have a powerful historical memory of being cheated by government, cheated at the polls, cheated in the courts, cheated just about everywhere, and that still frames their approaches to issues like this. And if Obama loses the nomination now, their response will be that they've been cheated through racism once again. And they would, of course, be right; the use of bullshit like the Jeremiah Wright nonsense, not to mention the "Hamas's preferred candidate" calumny, is just the same kind of coded racist crap that will always be used against any legitimate black candidate to keep him from the Presidency.
I'm just reading Brendan Koerner's forthcoming "Now The Hell Will Start", which goes extensively into the viciousness of segregation during the WWII draft -- the Army actually kept black volunteers waiting for up to nine months while it built extra segregated training facilities so whites wouldn't be subjected to the indignity of going through basic training with blacks; it concocted medical opinions that blacks were physically unfit for combat (!!??) to justify putting almost all of them in scutwork brigades, cleaning latrines and breaking rocks for roads. Really disgusting crap. During basic training at one camp black recruits were sent out as unpaid agricultural laborers at a local officials' plantation. It just reminds you how close the historical memory of open, naked discrimination is, and how logical it is that that wold structure black political responses.
And they would, of course, be right; the use of bullshit like the Jeremiah Wright nonsense,...just the same kind of coded racist crap that will always be used against any legitimate black candidate to keep him from the Presidency.
Or, maybe the American electorate isn't quite ready for a candidate whose long-time spiritual adviser didn't resort to any ciphering at all when preaching the clattering jangle of radical black nationalism, and viciously expressing his disdain for the country that protects his right to express his disdain for it.
Finding a obfuscative way to say "No, see, they hate him because he's black" is just a transparent smear trick. It's not like Ron "Apostle" Paul got any slack -- nor did he deserve any -- for letting his shingle wave in the hot breeze over Lew Rockwell's screeds.
So why is it, brooksfoe, that blacks are so anti-Semitic? Presumably they are unaware of who financed the slave ships, per Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade.
rwe wrote:
To be fair, I think Megan is making a distinction between positions on specific issues (such as healthcare) and overall attitudes.
What Megan is arguing here is that while Obama and Hillary advocate the exact same leftist policies, Obama does so because he's a Hayekian, whereas Hillary does so because she's a statist. Meanwhile, McCain advocates free trade and market based solutions, but he does so because he distrusts markets.
Note 1: I'm trying to be as accurate and serious as possible. The above is not meant as mockery, but a fair restatement of what Megan has said on the issue.
Note 2: That being said, the cognitive dissonance involved is giving me a splitting headache...
aMouseforallSeasons:
You know that Jeremiah Wright served in the Marines, right?
So did Lee Harvey Oswald, and Charles Whitman.
Your point?
brooksfoe: And they would, of course, be right; the use of bullshit like the Jeremiah Wright nonsense, not to mention the "Hamas's preferred candidate" calumny, is just the same kind of coded racist crap that will always be used against any legitimate black candidate to keep him from the Presidency.
Great way to insult black people by implying that Wright is what black people are like.
Mouse: blah blah blah. A large segment of the American black population feels quite rightly that the United States is not a country to be particularly proud of. For blacks, the United States is not in fact a country to be particularly proud of: the US officially discriminated against blacks, the US Army officially attested to their inferiority, white Americans (Northern and Southern) said they would refuse to serve alongside blacks, and so on, up until the Civil Rights movement from the '40s-'60s. So for the past 50 years we've been trying to make up for treating blacks like crap for the previous 400. Any genuine black politician in the US is thus going to have strong links to someone -- Wright or whoever -- who expresses anger against the US, because a huge segment of the black population retains a certain level of anger at the US, especially the white US, and they're absolutely right to.
So any genuine black politician is going to have close relationships with someone who at some point said something like what Wright has said: that the US is racist, exploits dark-skinned people, and so forth. The only black politicians who won't have links to figures like Wright would be people like Alan Keyes, who has no black support and no real roots in the black community and basically exists only to provide white people with a handy black person to spout right-wing dogma.
Wright is bullshit. It's just classic racial smear campaigning: find the Scariest Black Man connected to the black candidate and tar him by association. It's all the same old idiocy.
Occam: "So why is it, brooksfoe, that blacks are so anti-Semitic?"
That doesn't deserve a response, but it does deserve to be tattooed on every comment you make until you apologize for saying it.
secret asian man: "Great way to insult black people by implying that Wright is what black people are like."
You pretty clearly don't know very many black people, or have never spoken with them about politics. First of all, I have little problem with Jeremiah Wright, and those who claim to have a problem with him are really just talking themselves into hysterics. Secondly, many of Wright's controversial opinions are in fact widely held in the black community. Not universally, obviously, but widely. Some of those opinions are silly (i.e. AIDS as US biowarfare); others are arguably correct (US as imperialist).
Incidentally, just to put this out there, I would like to note that John McCain is verifiably the preferred presidential candidate of the Vietnamese Communist Party. In fact, the former head of Hoa Lo Prison, the "Hanoi Hilton", recently told me completely sincerely that he and McCain had parted in 1973 as friends, they'd had wonderful conversations together even during McCain's time as a POW, and he wishes he could vote for McCain for President.
Please note I'm not saying Vietnamese like McCain. (Most prefer Hillary Clinton, because they have such fond memories of Bill.) I'm saying the Vietnamese Communist Party and its senior officials -- the authoritarian regime that is currently locking up Vietnamese dissidents and democracy activists right and left -- like McCain. And unlike Obama and that Hamas guy, the Vietnamese Communist Party knows McCain and has had intimate dealings with him, both during the war and since. So I'd like him to explain further what exactly he has in common with the leaders of Vietnam's Communist Party.
Nice try, brooksfoe, but prominent blacks, at least, !@#$% hate Jews. Deny it, and I'll bombard you with links to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan quotes.
Face it, and accept it. I have no intention of apologizing for the truth. Jews financed the slave trade, according to Hugh Thomas. Not surprising, since they financed everything at that time, when loaning at interest was forbidden to Christians. And blacks hate Jews to this day, as they do Koreans, for exploiting them economically, as they see it.
The truth may be hateful to you, but it is the truth.
The way one does, with someone one has tortured.
Christ, brooksfoe, you're a sorry excuse indeed for a primate.
Anyone who wants their vote in 2008 to be "a referendum on Bush" is an idiot. That referendum was four years ago; Bush is off to Waco whoever you vote for this year.
Anyone who thinks that electing McCain would be like having a third Bush term is also an idiot. McCain has always been his own man, and has a proven ability to cross the aisle and get deals done with Democrats. He would stand a better chance of getting difficult entitlement reforms done than would a Democratic president: McCain wouldn't be afraid of pissing off a few Republicans to strike a centrist deal with Dems, and Dems would have more confidence to pass difficult legislation when they could share the blame for it with a Republican president.
Antisemitism is far more prevalent among blacks than whites. *shrug*
http://www.adl.org/antisemitism_survey/survey_iii.aspI don't have access to any more recent survey; given how static the numbers have been prior to 1998, I doubt they changed my much in the last decade.
(Note: Some have accused the ADL's survey of being biased as overstating the amount of antisemitism. Even IF you grant this, it doesn't account for the relative numbers.)
The way one does, with someone one has tortured.
You haven't read McCain's autobiography or any of his accounts of his captivity. He was tortured, by his own account, briefly during a period of 4 days in July or August 1969. He gave in, made a radio statement, and the torture ended. The officer responsible for that torture was then denounced by the Communist Party and relieved of duty. Beginning in October 1969, as McCain and every other POW writes, all torture of POWs ceased. After that point McCain was punished for violations of camp rules only by being confined to solitary. His health improved dramatically and by 1970 he said he was in better shape than when he was a pilot. His relationships with Vietnamese camp officers were also dramatically better; he chatted amicably with them, though he continued to refuse, honorably, to make any more denunciations of the US's war effort. His characterizations of his interactions with North Vietnamese vary depending on who he's talking to. When he's talking to conservative Southern audiences, he exaggerates the extent to which he was mistreated. When he's talking to the Vietnamese Communist government, with whom he has cultivated close relations, for whatever reasons, since the early 1990s, he plays up the warmth of his interactions with Vietnamese and his respect for their honorable conduct.
McCain's commanding officer while he was in the camp where he claims to have been tortured, Col. Ted Guy, didn't actually believe McCain had ever been tortured. I wouldn't go so far as to doubt McCain's word on that score; I'd just take him at his own word that he was briefly tortured by one camp commander, who was subsequently stripped of command for excess cruelty, and that other than that he was treated reasonably well.
Joe Klein's Conscience:
"You know that Jeremiah Wright served in the Marines, right?"
As a former Marine, that is a fact for which I will be forever ashamed.
Marcus
Re: There are also the swingy Democrats who liked McCain in earlier Republican primaries. Those people are in the Obama camp right now.
Is this really true? The peerceptyion at least isthat Obama is more progressive than Hillary. I would think the McCain Democrats would be more likely to support her than Obama. In fact I know people who feel that way: they would vote for Hillary, but will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Re: Jews financed the slave trade, according to Hugh Thomas. Not surprising, since they financed everything at that time, when loaning at interest was forbidden to Christians.
This is nonsense. By the time the European-American slave trade got under way Jews had long since ceased to be Europe's only bankers (see: Medici, Fuegers etc.). The Protetsant Reformation had broken the power of the Catholic Church to dictate its morality into law, and the ban on interest had been quiely forgotten.
"Anyone who thinks that electing McCain would be like having a third Bush term is also an idiot."
I plead guilty. McCain's economic policy is the same as Bush's, his Iraq policy is the same, and he's now channeling Joe McCarthy. In what way would he be an improvement on Bush?
In recent decades Americans do not elect anti-war presidents during a war. We are fighting an uphill battle then to get Obama or Hillary into office during these two wars we have going.
It is not as ripe for a change as so many think.
Yes, we hate the war but we hated the war in 68 and really hated the war in 72 and it didn't matter. It certainly didn't matter in 2004.
Occam's Beard:
If Blacks hates Jews, or vice versa, why are both groups big parts of the Democratic party? Also, if your point was true how could Steve Cohen win the TN-09 race last year(the seat formerly held by Harold Ford, Jr.)?
Occam: the people who tortured McCain are still in power in Hanoi. They were still in power in 1994, when he recommended we reestablish relations with Vietnam. Vietnamese now have economic freedom, but they still have no political freedom, certainly not by McCain's lights. McCain believed that our fight in Vietnam, to prevent a Communist victory, was just and correct -- indeed, he believed we should have fought on to the end.
So, if he was tortured by these totalitarian thugs, why did he support normalizing relations with Communist Vietnam? Why has he continued to have friendly visits to Vietnam over the past 15 years? Why has he been a strong friend of Vietnam's interests in the US Congress?
I mean, I know why I think the US was right to normalize relations with Vietnam, but I also think the US's involvement in the Vietnam War was a horrific mistake. What I can't figure out is why John McCain supported normalizing relations with Vietnam. What did he think he was fighting for in Vietnam? It doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure he actually believes in anything, besides the nobility of war.
Brooksfoe, this is not your finest moment. Obama himself has conceded that the controversy over Reverend Wright is "a legitimite political issue," saying that he understands why people were offended by Wright's remarks and concerned about his own long association with the Reverend. Yet you say it is all "racist bullshit."
And then, after attacking Obama's opponents for a supposed smear, you engage in your own smear by trying to denigrate McCain's honorable service in Viet Nam. I never had you pegged as a partisan fanatic before, but you're starting to sound like some of the more predictable and vitriolic leftists on this blog.
In other words, people you disagree with are motiviated by racism or some other irrational urge while people you agree with are enlightened and making intelligent choices.
I don't care how many black people hold Wright's views, they are still repugnant. Just like I don't care how many white racists there are or were, their views are also repugnant.
This is absolutely true, but doesn’t change the point: Jews were intimately involved in financing the slave trade. At first, solely, later, jointly with Gentiles. As Thomas’s book details, the slave trade began with the Portuguese in the 15th century (i.e., pre-Reformation) and was financed by Portuguese conversos – Portuguese Jews who had at least nominally converted under duress.
In later years, as you correctly point out, they were joined by Gentile financiers when the prohibition against lending at interest had fallen by the wayside. But that’s not to say Jews stood down from financing slave voyages, is it?
My point is that there’s plenty of blame to go around. Yes, Gentile whites are to blame. But so are Jews, even though they don’t like to hear it, and fashion themselves as the champions of the blacks (even though it seems as though many blacks don’t perceive them that way).
The blacks themselves are to blame, too. Slavers didn’t go to Africa and capture slaves; they bought them. Chieftains of coastal African tribes thought all of their Christmases (Kwanzaas? Kidding.) had come at once. Free money! All they had to do was grab their enemies (in their own tribe, and more prominently in neighboring tribes) and sell them. As Thomas also details, one of the biggest obstacles to stopping the slave trade was resistance from African chieftains, one of whom was making ca. #250,000 p.a. at a time when the wealthiest noble in England made #12,000 p.a. from his estates.
So there’s lots of blame to go around. Lots. No one is blameless. No one.
Gee, this sounds great, kinda like summer camp, but with an opportunity to learn a foreign language and make some new friends. I bet a lot of people wished they’d checked into the Hanoi Hilton too. Maybe the Vietnamese could get a Club Med franchise there.
I too understand why people were offended by Wright's remarks and concerned about Obama's association with Wright. I understand it perfectly. It reflects ignorance among those who don't pay a lot of attention to black concerns, and, on the part of anyone who does have any familiarity with black political culture, exploitative white cynicism. I understand it: it's bullshit. Obama unfortunately has to acknowledge these concerns as if they were legitimate, for two reasons. First, that's the kind of character he has. He is preternaturally tolerant and understanding, and he lets it wash off his back. Second, being black means you always have to be better than the white guy to get the same level of respect. When they spit in your face, you have to look grave and disappointed and say you understand why they're upset. If you get angry and strike back, as a black man, the game is over for you. Barack Obama is the Jackie Robinson of presidential politics. He's twice as good at this game as any of the others trying to play it. And he has to be. He has to be twice as good to get permission to compete. If he were only as good as McCain or Clinton, as a black man, he'd be "unelectable".
I have all the respect in the world for John McCain's refusal to go home early from Hanoi. In that, he held up just as well as the dozens of other POWs who refused Vietnamese offers of early return. I have two problems with the way he uses this experience for political purposes. First, he has repeatedly misrepresented his own experience in his political ads and in speeches to political audiences. In his own writings, he says he was tortured for one brief period in 1969. He also includes something about being beaten regularly for some period of time afterwards, but for various reasons that part doesn't make sense and the time period is never clear. (This may be the claim that Cols. Ted Guy and Swede Larson said seemed to be false.) He also writes that the commander responsible for that torture was then denounced and demoted by the Communist Party. After the fall of 1969, treatment improved and the torture disappeared. This jibes with what other POWs wrote. He also speaks of many conversations with Vietnamese guards and political officials, many of them amicable arguments over politics. But in recent TV commercials, McCain implies long periods of torture and mistreatment, and says only one Vietnamese - a covert Christian, supposedly - ever "treated him like a human being." This is nonsense, as McCain's own earlier writings, and his warm subsequent relations with Vietnamese Communists, show.
Second, I have no idea what he thinks he was fighting for in Vietnam. He supported normalization of relations with the same regime he fought against. He's become a fast friend of Vietnam. I don't understand why. As I say, I know why I support these things, but I can't understand why someone with McCain's political convictions would even tolerate them. My tentative guess is that he sees his combat in Vietnam sort of like jousting -- noble combat against his nation's sworn foe. The reasons for the conflict, whether strategic or ideological, don't really matter very much. And I think this is why he's historically had so little trouble reversing his positions on so many issues, be they Vietnam, tax cuts, campaign spending limits, executive authority for spying and torture, and on and on.
Let me be clear: I had a tremendous amount of respect for John McCain as a politician in 1999. I vaguely considered voting for him. Over the course of the last 7 years he's revealed himself as hopelessly weak and unprincipled and, what's most infuriating, self-righteous at the same time as he's unprincipled. So, no, I really don't like the guy. I think he's a power-hungry old blowhard who sees his last chance at the golden ring, and whatever used to be admirable about him is gone.
Silly argument. Union members are part of the Democratic Party too, as are environmentalists, male homosexuals, feminists, and Americans could charitably be said to be of questionable loyalty. The Democratic leadership must have nightmares in which the former mix with any of the latter.
Picture a blue collar worker having a tete a tete with an environmentalist over the spotted owl vs. logging jobs.
Picture a far-left anti-American Lenin wannabe denouncing America (“God damn America!”) and Christianity before a group of Italian Catholic guys.
Picture a pro-abortion feminist firebrand giving a speech at a union hall, or to a group of Hispanic women.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
The Democrats have cobbled together an aggregation of groups that can’t stand each other. It’s why Air America failed; in a national radio broadcast it’s impossible to pander to each group’s interests. Saying anything that one group wants to hear will enrage another group. It’s also why the Democrats’ primary campaign is such a, well, quagmire. Some might say that the chickens of identity politics had come home to roost…
In other words, people you disagree with are motiviated by racism or some other irrational urge while people you agree with are enlightened and making intelligent choices.
No. The Jeremiah Wright thing is a piece of bullshit. It has no relation to any important aspect of presidential politics. When anyone looks back on this three years from now and says, well, a lot of people didn't vote for Obama because he used to go to a church with one of those call-and-response preachers who thought the US government invented AIDS, it will feel like complete idiocy -- in the same category as not having voted for Al Gore because somebody claimed he had hired Naomi Wolf and she told him to wear earth tones.
The reason why the Jeremiah Wright thing works is latent racism. You can create some kind of absurd argument for why it would have been just as repugnant if Wright had been a white preacher who said AIDS was created by the US government. But that's just nonsense. It damaged Obama because of a set of racial narratives in which blacks are seen as insufficiently patriotic because they harbor a grudge against the US, and thus have to prove, over and over, that no, they really do love America just as much as white people do. And of course white people never believe them when they say that, because it's obviously a lie - how could they possibly love the country that treated their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents like dirt, the country that to them looked like a giant lie for the first 400 years of its existence? Of course they have a grudge against white America. They must, right? And so we force them to protest their innocence even harder, to the point where it becomes a pure demonstration of power: will you knuckle under to me? Say it! Say you love America! Say it harder! Oh, wait a minute! I heard your friend said he didn't love America! Will you renounce your friend? Cut him off? Why is he even your friend anyway? Don't you think he deserves a whipping for saying that? Here's the whip. Go ahead, whip your friend now. What's the matter? Don't you love America?
Ultimately, you can always get the black guy this way. If you go in for it. If you want to make sure no black guy is ever elected president of the US, you can always find a Jeremiah Wright somewhere in his background to use. But I think that's shameful and disgusting. If you don't want to vote for Barack Obama because you don't believe government should set up a plan for universal health insurance, or because you don't think the US should pull out of Iraq, or because you think he's too compromising and not tough enough to make government work -- fine, those are legitimate reasons not to vote for him. But Jeremiah Wright is just bullshit.
Occam, what I find hilarious is that you accuse me of ignorance about conditions at Vietnamese POW camps when you have clearly never read a single page on the subject. You don't know which ones were tough and when, you don't know what kinds of treatment the guards used or what their objectives were, you don't know what McCain has said in his accounts or what other POWs said in theirs. You just make vague aspersions. You don't know anything about this subject, so you should leave it alone.
Brooks, you're not seriously holding out prison camp as a positive experience, are you?
Please tell you're not. You make McCain's captivity sound like Hogan's Heroes.
It damaged Obama because of a set of racial narratives in which blacks are seen as insufficiently patriotic because they harbor a grudge against the US, and thus have to prove, over and over, that no, they really do love America just as much as white people do.
Aren't you the same guy who argued above that "lots" of black people don't really like America? Ah, yes, here it is:
A large segment of the American black population feels quite rightly that the United States is not a country to be particularly proud of.
So, which are you asserting? That American blacks are not, in fact, particularly patriotic, or that they are, but are unfairly forced to demonstrate it more than whites because of a secret racist belief on the part of whites that they aren't?
I don't accuse you of ignorance, Brooks. I accuse you of excusing the inexcusable ("they didn't torture them that much, and then they were best buddies. The POWs were sorry to leave their newest, bestest buddies.")
How about we make a deal? We treat prisoners at Gitmo as our POWs were treated in Vietnam. Is that a deal?
"I too understand why people were offended by Wright's remarks and concerned about Obama's association with Wright. I understand it perfectly. It reflects ignorance among those who don't pay a lot of attention to black concerns, and, on the part of anyone who does have any familiarity with black political culture, exploitative white cynicism."-brooksfoe
I can't believe this is the same brooksfoe whose comments I have been reading with interest for these last few months. Reverend Wright accused the government of creating AIDS for the purpose of genocide.
So the guy's a crackpot. That's undeniable. And it says a great deal about Obama's judgment that he would choose a crackpot as his spritual mentor.
rwe, we've been over this and over this. The myth that the government created AIDS is a widespread urban legend in the black community. It has deep roots in the black community's historical memory of the gruesome Tuskegee syphilis studies on unwitting black subjects. It's a lot like the absurd notion in the white evangelical community that all the Jews are going to be exterminated in a final war against the armies of Russia and the Arab world, commanded by Antichrist, except for the jews who accept Christ, and so forth. That's an equally genocidal and horrifying myth - more horrifying in my opinion, since it has an actual effect on US foreign policy, which increasingly welcomes conflict in the Middle East - and yet no politician has ever suffered seriously for being associated with the large segment of the American population that believes it. I mean, the view that Darwinian evolution is wrong is a crackpot view. Most Americans believe it. They include some of the most successful politicians in America.
For Obama to lay real roots in the black community, he had to be working with people who held these kinds of beliefs. That's the way it is. Look, the overwhelming majority of black Americans believed OJ was innocent. That was a crackpot belief. There've been times when a majority of white Americans have believed Saddam was involved in plotting 9/11. That's a crackpot belief. But the thing is, the crackpot beliefs held by black Americans are political poison, because they threaten whites. They scare whites. And to exploit the association of a black politician like Obama with the people in the black community who hold beliefs like that, in order to scare whites, is cynical race-baiting. It doesn't matter what Jeremiah Wright thinks about the origins of HIV, any more than it matters what my wacky denialist father-in-law thinks of global warming. But if somebody wants to make Americans look at Barack Obama and think "underneath it all he's a scary black man -- he's just fooling us", then they can always find Jeremiah Wright, or somebody like him.
This affair really makes me angry. I do not accept that it is in good faith, and I think anyone who takes it in good faith is naive, misguided about their own political biases, and needs to seriously rethink how they believe racial reconciliation in America is going to come about.
And was Rev. Wright seriously the first person you heard advance that theory of HIV? Come on, man! Where have you been living? Of course it's a crackpot view, but it's a garden variety crackpot view, like the idea that Vietnam was still holding POWs in the 1980s. It's one thing for Thabo Mbeki to espouse ideas like that -- he runs a country. But for somebody like Wright to espouse ideas like that merits exactly what Obama gave it: a firm denial and disagreement. And that's all.
Wright also teed off on Israel, accusing the Jews of racism. Is that OK with you too?
It's a perfectly reasonable issue on which to examine Obama, particularly since there's practically nothing else to go on but his associations. If McCain belonged to a white, Gentiles-only country club, you'd be having apoplexy about it. Admit it. And belonging to a country club isn't a patch on belonging to a church.
But the thing is, the crackpot beliefs held by black Americans are political poison, because they threaten whites. They scare whites.
Not all of them; there are probably black creationists, black 9/11 truthers, and black tax protesters, and nobody cares about them.
The beliefs that whites object to from Wright are the racialist and racist ones. Which is hardly surprising; blacks would, I assume, object to a white preacher who was spouting conspiracy theories about the black leadership plotting to rape white women or start a race war, even if his belief was deeply rooted in actual, verified instances of black-on-white crime.
Yet for some reason it's "cynical" and in bad faith for white to object to crazy-ass racist black guys, but we're all expected to reject crazy-ass racist white guys. Me, I'm in favor of rejecting all crazy-ass racists, and preferably avoid sitting in their pews for 20 years or so.
But if Obama had to sit in those pews "to lay real roots in the black community," then guess what? He's a panderer to obnoxious beliefs no better than the while politicians you're criticizing today. So much for the transformative post-racial candidacy.
I understand why the double-standard exists, but I reject it, and I reject your condescending invitation to decide I'm naive and ignorant until start agreeing with you.
Rob, I think more blacks are likely to have conflicting feelings over issue connected with "patriotism" than whites are, for obvious reasons. I also think that anyone who doesn't have conflicted feelings over patriotism is...not very smart, let's say, and probably not to be trusted with the reins of power. However, political candidates have to pretend to be unskeptically patriotic in order to get elected, and that is harder for black candidates to do convincingly; if you can tie them to a Wright figure, you may be able to push them into an untenable position of insufficient apparent patriotism. That's how you use patriotism to exploit racial dynamics for partisan advantage, and that's all this whole Wright thing is -- racial exploitation.
"For Obama to lay real roots in the black community, he had to be working with people who held these kinds of beliefs. That's the way it is."-brooksfoe
Working with Wright is one thing. Calling him a "mentor" is something else.
I don't care whether the guy is black. I disdain Wright for the same reasons I disdain David Duke and Tome Metzker. They're all bigots, full of hatred and resentment and crazy ideas.
I think it does not reflect well on Obama that he thought so highly of a man who was purveying this kind of bile (the USKKofA, America deserved to be attacked on 9/11, the governemnt created HIV, etc...)
And it's perfectly reasonable for people to wonder whether Obama is as moderate and reasonable as he claims to be, given his close relationship with a radical like Wright. After all, Wright says that black liberation theology is the basis of his teaching--and James Cone, a leader in black liberation theology defines it thusly:
Many people cannot help but wonder why Obama was willing to stay at that Church when it was teaching this sort of stuff.
political candidates have to pretend to be unskeptically patriotic in order to get elected, and that is harder for black candidates to do convincingly...
I agree that it's harder for hard-left candidates who hang out with weirdos like Wright and former Weathermen to do convincingly, but I don't see how that's inextricably tied to skin color. Colon Powell wouldn't have any trouble with patriotism, I don't think, but white-boy Jim McDermott (my former Congressman) certainly would.
Obama's problem isn't that he's black, it's that he a left-winger with left-wing beliefs and left-wing associates.
Whoa. Now the truth comes out.
You have conflicted feelings over patriotism. Do you have conflicted feelings over Wright/Obama, whom you’ve been going to such lengths to excuse? Americans generally? Liberalism? Or just patriotism?
black 9/11 truthers - Rob
Huh? This is in fact one of the things WRight is usually reproached with -- blaming 9/11 on US policies. He'd be pilloried even worse for saying it was actually a government conspiracy.
Yet for some reason it's "cynical" and in bad faith for white to object to crazy-ass racist black guys, but we're all expected to reject crazy-ass racist white guys
Jeremiah Wright is not a racist. You keep saying this, and it keeps being wrong. What whites objected to was two things: "God damn America!" and the CIA-HIV myth. You can't call these views "racist" just because they are views criticizing America, expressed by a black man.
But more importantly, what you can't get around here is the reality that blacks were in fact oppressed by whites in the United States of America, and whites were not oppressed by blacks in the United States of America. It's ridiculous to pretend that never happened. It structures the political identity of both communities. Black people who get angry about bad things white America historically did to blacks are CORRECT. White people who get angry about bad things black America historically did to whites are WRONG. And that is a basic asymmetry that cannot be wished away.
Racist? Nope, not at all.
Give it up, Brooks. You've made a spirited but meretricious defense, but Wright is a racist if anyone is.
Allow me to clarify the 9/11 truther point: "white" people don't object to black 9/11 truthers, "rational" people object to truthers of all races. My point is that being black changes noting about the the nuttery in 9/11 trutherism.
Similarly, "black" people don't believe that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, "left wing" people of all colors believe this.
So I see no evidence for your opinion that white people are especially frightened by the opinions of blacks. There is reason to think that white people object to anti-white opinions of blacks (and saying that AIDS is a deliberate anti-black genocide qualifies as anti-white), but that is neither surprising nor worthy of your criticism.
It's ridiculous to pretend that never happened.
I didn't and I don't ("I understand why the double-standard exists..."). I just don't think it excuses Wright-style crackpottery. You want equal treatment? Let's have it. It's undeniably unfair in some ways, but the alternative (one set of rules for black and another for white) has been tried and it didn't work out so well.
You can't call these views "racist" just because they are views criticizing America, expressed by a black man.
Well, fair enough, "racist" isn't quite the right word. But these views are at the very least racialist in their condemnation with what "white people" did. Maybe "anti-white" is the right term? The point is, when Wright says "America did X," he means to condemn whites for doing something bad to blacks.
It should not be surprising that white people object to being lumped together as a group for condemnation because of what their grandparents' generation (if not their literal grandparents, in many cases) did. Black people, Arabs, Muslims, gun nuts, and the mentally ill don't like being lumped together as a group and blamed for bad things others in their group did, either. That goes double when the bad things didn't actually happen.
Basically, I think you're being unfair to whites (and engaging in a little racial exploitation yourself) by casting this as some sort of "scary black guy" thing. It isn't. It's a "scary guy" thing. Race is an issue only because that's the ground on which Wright happens to be scary. But if we found that Obama was hanging with white terrorists, we'd be outraged by that, too.
Accusations against whites per se are intrinsically racist, because they lump into together people solely by race. What about those of us whose forebears came to this country after the Civil War, and from countries that had no historic involvement whatsoever with American slavery? My antecedents came at least in part from Eastern Europe (don't know about the others) at the turn of the century, and had nothing - zip - to do with slavery, but they were white, and therefore guilty - solely because of their race. Isn't it just a tad racist to lump them in with Simon Legree?
Brooksfoe has lost the argument. His case has been demolished by others as well as by me.
Black liberation theology is what Reverend Wright believes in--he says it's what his teachings are all about. It has its roots in the Latin American liberation theology which was a fusion of Christianity and Marxism and which extolled violence. It was condemned as heretical and insidious by the Vatican.
Black liberation theology was founded by Kames Cone and others. And Wright proudly points to Cone as his inspiration.
And Cone is a raving racist. As I quote above, Cone wrote: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
Black liberation theology is inherently racist. And again, that makes one wonder why Obama was willing to sit quietly in the pews at a Church that was spreading this kind of bigotry. Obama has no answer for that, and neither, evidently, does brooksfoe.
Rob, you're going to have to reproach me then for continuing to think that you're being terribly naive. What you're saying amounts to a claim that it is mere coincidence that the association which got Obama into trouble was his association with a heavily accented classic black call-and-response preacher who propounded a series of classic political myths of the black community. It might just as easily have been a "white terrorist". But in fact the Bill Ayers connection was initially floated back in January. You probably never heard about it because it didn't catch on. It had no traction until after the Wright thing blew up.
I think your claim that this isn't about race falls apart midway through. You're trying to claim that this is a "scary guy" thing, not a "scary black guy" thing. But then you get to the root of the problem:
It should not be surprising that white people object to being lumped together as a group for condemnation because of what their grandparents' generation (if not their literal grandparents, in many cases) did.
Well, there you go. I'm sorry, the black-white race issue isn't a side issue here that's merely ancillary to the issue of, um, historical or scientific truth in viral epidemiology, or...? -- it's transparently clear that the black-white race issue is the central issue here.
And there's a deeper way in which you seem to be missing how you're stacking the deck. Wright says "God damn America!" or "the CIA invented HIV" and you write that "when Wright says "America did X," he means to condemn whites for doing something bad to blacks." And then you write that whites naturally resent being blamed for what their parents' or grandparents' generations did, if they were even in America at the time. But to take these two positions together is equivalent to saying that any wholesale criticism of America by a black man like Wright is just an attempt to guilt-trip today's whites with the bygone historical evils of racism. I mean, if when Wright says "9/11 was chickens coming home to roost" (which is an arguable and certainly not racist position) you hear "white America oppressed the Muslims like it did the blacks", and you then move on to think "But I'm not guilty -- that was my grandparents' generation and they didn't even live in the South!"... This is pretty much exactly how I'm saying this works.
I don't think whites today are responsible for the historical evils of racism. I do think that whites today are anxious that blacks still feel they have historical claims of injustice, and that they will be asked to satisfy those claims -- or simply that blacks today, as a result of all that history, half-secretly resent or despise them. That white anxiety is available for political exploitation.
You continue to pirouette and dissemble.
I'm getting the impression that you would defend any action by any black man under any circumstances, so let's put it another way.
Do you admit of the possibility of any black man ever being racist?
If so, what would he have to do to make you draw that conclusion?
I'd really appreciate an honest answer.
Black liberation theology is what Reverend Wright believes in--he says it's what his teachings are all about. It has its roots in the Latin American liberation theology which was a fusion of Christianity and Marxism and which extolled violence. - rwe
This is just mumbo jumbo. It's a ridiculous mischaracterization of liberation theology; the fact that the Vatican has termed a theology heretical isn't really so shocking to, say, Anglicans. Wright believes what he believes and says what he says. He's a big community influence on the south side of Chicago and a terrific organizer, and the best community organizers often embrace theologies that entail some objectionable rhetoric, like Catholicism and evangelical Christianity.
Do you admit of the possibility of any black man ever being racist?
Louis Farrakhan is racist, in the classic, 1920s sense of the word. No two ways about it.
OK, good. Thanks for your honesty.
What is it about Farrakhan that makes him a racist?
You know, I'm CERTAIN that these racists are not that afraid of J. Wright, (poor harmless soul) he is the handy excuse, they can't find anything else. Yeah, you know yourselves, backward thinking bigots.
Only a segment of the American population pretends not to.
Who said anything about being afraid of him?
Wright's no more to be feared than David Duke, and no more acceptable in civil society, for the same reason.
You probably never heard about [Ayers]
I don't recall when I heard about it. This stuff isn't making a difference to my vote, so I'm not keeping careful track. But it wouldn't be surprising if an old story about anti-Americanism resurfaced when the issue was given fresh importance by a more telegenic story of anti-Americanism. What might have been a fluke starts to look like a pattern.
any wholesale criticism of America by a black man like Wright is just an attempt to guilt-trip today's whites with the bygone historical evils of racism.
I don't believe this to necessarily be the case for all black men criticizing America; this country has its faults, to be sure, and racial injustice is one of them. I believe it to be the case for Wright, specifically, especially with his HIV thing and is USKKK of A and "God damn America."
That is to say, I think it's Wright making an issue of race here, not me or the R's or bitter gun-clutching bible-thumpers. If Wright doesn't want race to be an issue, then maybe he shouldn't bring it up. Or he could at least confine himself to actual racial injustice rather than made-up nonsense.
Again, Colon Powell doesn't have a patriotism problem; Jim McDermott does. Ideology, not race.
if when Wright says "9/11 was chickens coming home to roost"...you hear "white America oppressed the Muslims like it did the blacks",
I don't hear that, myself, and I never said I did. I brought up 9/11 as an example of a non-racial issue that was causing Obama trouble, and would cause a white guy equal trouble. The point being that the substance of what Wright said is the electoral issue, not the fact that he has dark skin. Really, do you think Dennis Kucinich would get a pass on something similar?
I do think that whites today are anxious that ...blacks today, as a result of all that history, half-secretly resent or despise them.
Whose fault do you suppose it is that some whites feel that anxeity? Could it be Rev. Wright's? And, really, if those whites are right (and the available evidence suggests they are at least not totally wrong), what grounds do you or anyone else have for criticizing them, or calling the electoral expression of their correct beliefs "exploitation"?
Furthermore, isn't this white anxiety available for exploitation in the opposite direction, too? "Vote for Obama to prove you're not a racist!"
I don't know what's happened to brooksfoe, but I'll leave it to others to correct his errors on this thread in future.
It's a little disappointing to see him defending or excusing even the vilest people, as long as they are on the left. So he sticks up for Wright, whom he concedes is a crackpot, and for liberation theology, which certainly was closely connected with violent Marxist movements in Latin America. And, in the form of black liberation theology, it has adopted the hostility toward whites of the black power movement and Malcolm X.
But brooksfoe insits on making excuses for these people. I'll engage with him again when he comes back to his senses, but as long as he continues in this sophistical vein, I don''t see any point in it.
brooksfoe wrote: This affair really makes me angry. I do not accept that it is in good faith, and I think anyone who takes it in good faith is naive, misguided about their own political biases, and needs to seriously rethink how they believe racial reconciliation in America is going to come about.
If you had stopped there, you could have at least walked away with the credible claim of having been as honest and passionate about the issue as you were willing to be. It wouldn't have convinced many people, but stalemates are like that.
Instead, you've now got a few things to live down. Sure, you cited YOUR reasons for thinking the Wright issue is "nonsense" -- but you did not come close to citing ALL the reasons that someone might consider it relevant, and when presented with some of those reasons, you refused the substance and essentially labeled all your opponents as racists(!) for daring to broach those issues. What the dickens?
I generally enjoy your seasoned repartee -- your wrist is quick and your style is unmistakeable, even though you slip up occasionally on the footwork. These last few rounds, however, are like a copy-paste session from an unsupervised high school student newspaper.
Megan-
I agree that the political environment will likely favor the Democratic nominee in the Presidential contest in November. I also agree that Clinton would have a harder time winning the votes of Obama supporters than vice versa. However, I doubt those Obama supporters who wouldn't support Clinton would go over to McCain. I expect most of them, like me, would simply stay home--not out of frustration that my candidate (Obama) didn't get the nomination but out of genuine disgust with Clinton. She has embraced so much of what I dislike about politics that I simply can not vote for her now or at any time in the future. More importantly, the Democratic party with Clinton as its leader is not a party that I can remain a member of. She embodies the weak, spineless, calculating, poll-driven, ineffectual caricature of Democrats that Republicans have been working for 20+ years to conjure in the minds of Americans. I now trust so little of what she says that I believe none of us have any real idea what we'd get. Her presidency might be a short-term win for Democrats but I believe would in the long-run be a strategic disaster.
This just in, from the Washington Post:
I believe we all agreed that Farrakhan was a racist…
I think that a lot of this NEVER going to vote stuff is overblown with HRC supporters and with Obama's white support too: but with the support of his young voters, first time voters (he got 60% of new registered voters in PA), and AA voters these folks will just stay home. They will have no movement or incentive to vote.
This will hurt the Democratic Party down the ballot and actually lower the margins of victories in the House and Senate; and in some cases might be what's needed for a Democratic loss.
HRC has, even if she gets the nomination from supers despite a pledged delegate loss, a good chance of winning because of Iraq and the Economy. But it's a long shot and it should be kept in mind how AA voters stayed home in '84 and '88 and the effect that had on the Party.
Here we are, with the delicious schadenfreude of the left's nastiest identity politics chickens coming home to roost all at once! The only thing that could make it more perfect would be if the Republicans had a candidate in the contest.
A bit late to respond now but going back to the original post; Megan argues:
Arnold thinks that as soon as the dust has settled, the party will unite behind the nominee.
I would guess that this will be less true of a Hillary Clinton nomination than of a Barack Obama nomination.
Look at the support of the candidates; Obama gets black votes and educated white votes (you can break down that second category more finely because there are identifiable groups of educated white voters that vote Republican reliably). Hillary (in the primaries) gets blue collar white votes and a larger slice of educated white women (than Obama does). Of all these voters, which are likely to defect to McCain? Which are concentrated in battleground / purple states?
I have to differ from Megan here in that I think that it's pretty clear that Obama does well with those groups that Democrats have a lock on anyway and that Hillary does well with swing groups.
Second, and more importantly, Hillary's support is in battleground states where Barack does well in states that democrats either cannot lose (NY, Illinois) or cannot win (Georgia, South Carolina).
"Electability" definitely favors Hillary.
Methodology plays a huge role in setting and sustaining long-term agreements and policies that will affect us all for generations to come. HR Clinton's methods are, in my opinion, destructive to the very fabric of America. Deceipt is her mainstay...she does it to voters and even herself. Her incredulous behavior speaks volumes about her character which cannot be separated from her potential conduct in any office.
There wouldn't be a combined Clinton/McCain coalition doing everything in their power to topple Obama, vice one another, if he were not the strongest candidate. Look at what is going on. HR Clinton had to admit to the world that she flat out, consciously LIED...for no good reason than to (although completely false) enhance her appearance under false pretenses. The Clinton legacy of "exposed dishonesty" continues. It's okay though because, darn it, she does it with a smile on her face and conviction in her voice. That's what you'd expect from your President, right?
Many of HR Clinton's actions are overtly manipulative and she regularly blames others for acts she, herself clearly commits. Nonetheless, supporters, in a true committed sense, knowingly embrace her dishonesty and devisiveness. Now, does that make Clinton supporters dishonest and devisive? Of course not, but it doesn't seem to alleviate the hypocracy either.