Will ex Hillary supporters really support a more conservative court?

[ReillyT]

Nice edit.

I found the need to edit because my original response was just in answer to your question, and I was reasonably sure it would be misconstrued if I didn't qualify it.

 

[Ravi]

Ravir...Black churches that talk about issues tend to talk about racial issues. Racial issues, for some reason, are quite important to most blacks. Being on the receiving end of discrimination isn't fun, and when one is, one tends to get emotional about it.

The point is succeeding in a country which is racist against you, banding together is sometimes the only way to thrive. Banding together by race is seen as racist in mainstream America. Obama wouldn't have had to deal issues like Wright. Trinity United is the Church in Chicago for the black elite. They are businessmen, politicians, the black power players in Chicago. Show me a Church of white power players, or mixed power players that encorporates race in America. None do.

Further look at the emphasis on his middle name. Look at the lies being spread that he is Muslim. He wasn't helped in this campaign because he was black, it very nearly destroyed him.

In the Democratic primaries, it certainly did not nearly destroy him. I do see your point though, it really does appear that he joined the church to get ahead. Which is fine, but at the same time, he used them. And that was his choice, no one else's.

 

[Ravi]

Well, there is an element of truth to what she says, but she generalizes and simplifies the issue to such an extent that the argument ceases to be true as a whole. It is certainly true that being black helps Obama electorally among certain populations, namely blacks and some young whites. However, being black hurts him among other populations and tends to drown out his message as the discussion becomes about racial politics (thanks Geralidine).

Clinton gets many of the same benefits and difficulties for being a woman. It certainly helps her among certain groups and hurts her among others. Ferraro doesn't seem to get this fact and tends to qualify Obama's earned successes and appeal merely as the result of being black, which is ludicrous.

I hardly think you can blame Ferraro for any racial politics in the race, after all, Obama's own website talks about his accomplishments as tied to his skin color. And Ferraro made the same comments about gender toward herself when she was a VP candidate. I don't recall her saying his appeal was merely the result of being black.

 

[ReillyT]

I hardly think you can blame Ferraro for any racial politics in the race, after all, Obama's own website talks about his accomplishments as tied to his skin color. And Ferraro made the same comments about gender toward herself when she was a VP candidate. I don't recall her saying his appeal was merely the result of being black.

I disagree. I do blame Ferraro for engaging in racial politics. To say that Obama's support among blacks or Clinton's support among women or Bush's support among white men is partially explained by group identification is one thing. I don't think that many people would disagree with this.

She, on the other hand, has characterized Obama's support in general as related predominantly to the color of his skin "he's lucky to be black", which I think is both wrong factually (it discounts additional challenges posed by his race) and is engaging in racial politics. She has also tried to rationalize racial resentment targeted towards Obama as non-racial, thereby legitimizing an animus that she decries with respect to Clinton. For example, in her most recent editorial in the Boston Globe, she said:

As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism - The Boston Globe

First, she boils down all criticism of herself into the notion that a white person can't discuss race without being called a racist (although she does in the passive-aggressive manner of an observation, instead of merely directly whining, which she appears to want to engage in). But that clearly isn't true. If you watch the news at all, you see pundits discussing the electoral race in terms of the racial politics of red states and blue states, black turnout and white male turnout, etc.

Second, she re-characterizes racism (i.e., white people won't be treated fairly by a black president, he won't understand the problems of white people) as not racism at all. It is merely "racial resentment." WTF??? So if I were to say that I wouldn't vote for Clinton because men probably wouldn't be treated fairly by a woman president who can't understand our problems, that wouldn't be sexism? I have to disagree. I think this would clearly be sexism, even if you choose to re-name it "gender resentment."

Third, in her artfully used quote from Obama - "Our time has come," she mangled the quote, thereby providing further evidence of the lengths she will go to reclassify Obama as a black candidate. In fact, what he said was "Our time for change has come," and when he said it, he was speaking to a mixed-race auditorium, not a Nation of Islam assembly.

I have to disagree with where Ferraro is coming from, and if she was making the same statements in 1984 that she is making now, then she was doing both herself and her campaign a disservice.

 

[ReillyT]

I hardly think you can blame Ferraro for any racial politics in the race, after all, Obama's own website talks about his accomplishments as tied to his skin color. And Ferraro made the same comments about gender toward herself when she was a VP candidate. I don't recall her saying his appeal was merely the result of being black.

Sorry. I really can't stand Ferraro, so I will just include one more paragraph from her delightful editorial.

Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

Healing the wounds of Democrats' sexism - The Boston Globe

What exactly is she trying to say here?

She in effect is saying that white voters (that is who she was referring to in the preceding paragraph) don't really care what Obama's political positions are ("that he is pro-choice means little"), and they don't identify with his middle-class upbringing. This seems to suggest that nothing he says or does will be able to attract them (which I find insulting to white people).

She then passes it off as a result of Obama and his wife having good educations, as if this were a detriment. She certainly doesn't appear to feel that voters have a problem relating to Clinton and her husband, who had educations just as impressive. So what is she really saying? All I can figure is that she is saying that white voters will vote for Clinton because she is white, but that voters won't vote for Obama because he is black (although maybe she is suggesting they would vote for a lesser-educated black???).

 

[Ravi]

Reilly, I'm not going to defend everything she's said since. I don't like her myself, I was just pointing out that her initial comment was true. If you honestly don't think that the ability for Dems to vote for a credible candidate that is black helped Obama then I guess we'll never agree on much at all.

 

[ReillyT]

Reilly, I'm not going to defend everything she's said since. I don't like her myself, I was just pointing out that her initial comment was true. If you honestly don't think that the ability for Dems to vote for a credible candidate that is black helped Obama then I guess we'll never agree on much at all.

I guess we'll never agree on much at all then. Her initial comment was:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro#2008_presidential_campaign_involvement

Problems with this statement:

1. Obama has surely faced numerous challenges over his life because of his race. What is she saying when she says "if Obama was a white man?" I really don't know what she means. Is she saying he wouldn't have been asked to speak at the 2004 convention? That he wouldn't have gone to Harvard or Columbia? That he wouldn't have been elected to the Senate? That he wouldn't attract the black electorate? That he (conversely) would attract the white electorate? What exactly does this mean?

2. Why would he not be in the same position if he were an African-American woman? How does she know? What does happen in this hypothetical world? Why is advantageous to be black, but not a black woman? Is being black an advantage that is cancelled out by being a woman? Why would a black woman be less historic than a black man? Surely there would be additional challenges and opportunities, but identification with any race and/or gender presents challenges and opportunities.

3. He is lucky that he is who he is? I don't recall being a minority ever being so advantageous. Is Clinton lucky she is who she is? All top politicians start out with a certain set of advantages and disadvantages and succeed in optimizing the former and minimizing the latter. To say that Obama is lucky to be black ignores the fact that a talented human being has maximized his electoral potential. It is the same with Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama had significant challenges to overcome, and both did so, drawing benefit at times from what could otherwise be a disadvantage. To simplify this to "He's lucky he's black" or "She's lucky she is a woman" minimizes their own agency and continues to examine them merely as a demographic. [Conversely, if she had said, "he is lucky he isn't running for the president in the 60s," this would hit closer to home, as at that time, no degree of talent would have compensated for the challenges of the time. I assume she is saying more by her statement than this.]

4. "The country is caught up in the concept." I think this is true. It is equally true for Clinton, and equally true for McCain (crotchety war hero). All three candidates created a story about themselves and invited the country to cheer them on. All succeeded. Clinton and Obama had the added advantage (b/c they made it such) that their stories were historic, and everybody wants to be a part of history being made.

There is a grain of truth in what she says, but she so simplifies the man and the effect of race as to leave her underlying statement conceptually false.

 

[Ravi]

If Obama were a black or white woman with a similar amount of experience, chances are slim and none that she'd have made it past the first primary. If he were a white man, with a similar amount of experience, he probably wouldn't have made it further than Edwards did. I think that is what she meant. And yes, Clinton enjoyed the same benefit for being a woman. In the Democratic party, being a credible minority counts for something.

 

[Gunny]

If Obama were a black or white woman with a similar amount of experience, chances are slim and none that she'd have made it past the first primary. If he were a white man, with a similar amount of experience, he probably wouldn't have made it further than Edwards did. I think that is what she meant. And yes, Clinton enjoyed the same benefit for being a woman. In the Democratic party, being a credible minority counts for something.

Yeah, it counts for getting votes based on nothing BUT minority status. Heaven forbid you choose the best qualified candidate.

 

[Larkinn]

There's a reason for that. Religion has nothing to do with race, nor should it.

Religion is what a lot of people depend on to soothe and address real problems and issues. One of those issues is racial issues, and so yes, religion does have to do with race.

 

[Larkinn]

In the Democratic primaries, it certainly did not nearly destroy him. I do see your point though, it really does appear that he joined the church to get ahead. Which is fine, but at the same time, he used them. And that was his choice, no one else's.

You have no idea why he joined the church.

If Obama were a black or white woman with a similar amount of experience, chances are slim and none that she'd have made it past the first primary. If he were a white man, with a similar amount of experience, he probably wouldn't have made it further than Edwards did. I think that is what she meant. And yes, Clinton enjoyed the same benefit for being a woman. In the Democratic party, being a credible minority counts for something.

And being a minority also hurts him. These things go both ways, Ravir.

 

[Larkinn]

Yeah, it counts for getting votes based on nothing BUT minority status. Heaven forbid you choose the best qualified candidate.

Sorry that we don't care what a conservative considers to be the "most qualified candidate", when picking the Democratic nomination.

 

[Ravi]

You have no idea why he joined the church.

No, but based on his actions, I can certainly make a pretty good guess.

 

[jillian]

Yeah, it counts for getting votes based on nothing BUT minority status. Heaven forbid you choose the best qualified candidate.

And the repubs voted for someone who knows nothing about economics, the constitution or the difference between shi'a and sunni, while making the person who actually was qualified and has a grasp of these issues waste his time defending his religious beliefs because he's OMG!!... A MORMON! (Heavens forbid).

That whole glass houses thang, donchaknow...

 

[Jon]

What is she saying when she says "if Obama was a white man?"

It's fairly obvious. If Obama were a white man, people would see him for what he is: inexperienced and unqualified. If Obama were a white man, he would not have gotten all the black votes that he did. If Obama were a white man, opposers to his campaign would actually have been able to attack his religious choices without being accused of racism.

He is incredibly lucky to be black. If he were white, no one would give two shits what the man thought. They'd see him for the ignorant fool he is.