Politically we have moved past racism in this country

at least the overwhelming majority of us have.

Sexism and homophobia?

Alive, well and thriving, in America, in the MSM, on the political stage, and on DU.

and, remember, I used the word "politically." Culturally, in some parts of the country, racism is alive and well.

It does not seem to me there is a real difference between 'culturally' and 'politically', nor does it seem to me the thing is neatly compartmentalized by regions. Nixon is not often worth quoting, but his '68 dictum that 'When it comes to Negroes, the whole country's southern' does not seem to me to have lost much force down the years, unfortunately.

We elected JFK long before anti-Catholic bigotry finally subsided. The political zeitgeist led and the cultural one followed.

Institutionally, we have had African American governors, senators, congressmembers (some from overwhelmingly white districts) and Supreme Court Justices.

I don't think the country will reject a qualified, legitimate presidential candidate solely on the issue of race. A small minority, sure, but most, I don't think so.

It may be that we're once again at the juncture where the political zeitgeist leads the cultural one.

That seems too easy to me.

President Kennedy's election was a pretty narrow one. The Catholic populace in the country was, and is, much more substantial than the Black populace, both in numbers and in wealth and influence. Thus, it provided a much more substantial counter-balance to the still present bigotry against a Catholic nominee for the office. Further, bigotry against Catholics was not so deeply or widely rooted as bigotry against Blacks: it was not even general throughout Protestants, but confined to certain denominations, and to old line 'nativist' elements of the populace.

Election to even state-wide office is something different than election to President. That office is perceived as defining the entire nation; lesser offices, up to and including Senator, are perceived as simply single elements in a grand mosaic, and not as changing the cast of the entire edifice. Many people who hold a group in general dis-favor make a few individual exceptions without feeling the need to alter their broad view of the thing, which remains intact no matter how many 'good ones' they may acknowledge from personal experience or entertainment value, or whatever.

My view of race and politics is certainly colored by local experience here in Chicago. Our city politics is almost wholly racial. We have no Republicans worth mentioning, and so the Democratic Party is severely factionated on local matters. These factions are almost purely racial, and the municipal government defined by the contest between these racial factions, with the remaining central machine composed of alliances between racial sub-factions joined for influence and spoils. No one expects many cross-race votes for a candidate of any race, and the expectation is seldom disappointed.

Or it wouldn't be being discussed so much .... even on DU. It is obvious from the nature of many, many posts on this forum that it is still an uncomfortable issue.

However, it is one in which people can deal with, even though it still involves struggle.

It's also not tolerated in the MSM. I think we've made great strides - politically.

Culturally, we have a ways to go.

But the "unconscious" racism that is expressed in a collective manner which is more dangerous because a large amount of people do it and are unaware of it. The overt racism is mostly on a individual basis and is decried consciously but the "unconscious" racism is defended as normal and not racist.

that racism which is not overt is a great stride forward. I think that the struggle to confront racism, be it overt or otherwise, is a great stride.

in September of 2005?

I don't think enough people in this country have moved past racism, yet!

whites gathering supplies from abandoned stores were "surviving," while blacks doing the same thing were "looting."

What some people call "PC" most of us see as basic decency -- and excluding offensive words and phrases can reflect AND help foster decent, fair ways of thinking. I'm not seeing any of the old stereotypes about black men tossed around on DU, anyway. (Not to say there aren't racists out there -- but Imus can tell them what the rest of us think of racist commentary.)

Sexism is more insidious, I think. Old stereotypes of women abound even here, and are tossed around like "common wisdom." From vocal pitch and volume, to facial expressions and laughter, to wardrobe and weight -- I collect antiquarian books of advice for women, and these are the very same things that have been focused on since at least the 1880's. And the motives of ambitious women aren't trusted; they are defined by their relationship with their husbands; they are too soft or too shrill, too cold or too emotional, too fake or too angry, too old, too fat, too much cleavage, take your pick.

And always -- ALWAYS -- people insist it ONLY applies to "this one woman in particular," not to all women. Just this one, whoever it is at the moment -- just the one who's sticking her neck out and getting somewhere. It happened with Geraldine Ferraro. And Martha Stewart, when she built an empire. And it's been happening to Hillary Clinton for decades. Once the line of assault begins, it gains steam and never stops.

Sorry to go on. I really think it's different, and that many aren't even aware of their own assumptions and double-standards because it is so acceptable, so pervasive, and so deeply ingrained.

and the only criticism of it that I saw was from her own supporters.

We all should be up in arms over alarming sentiments expressed in that manner.

And I've seen it here over and over again.

My inclination is to rate these things by age of the thought-pattern. Contemptuous regard for Blacks as inferior by nature is only a few centuries old in the West; contemptuous regard for women as inferior by nature to males runs back a few millennia in the cultures that define the roots of the West. The longer the run, the deeper the rut....

in politics. It's the way they were raised.

But there are some pockets of racism that are alive and well and having babies and there is a lot of UNCONSCIOUS racism remaining that is expressed in collective racism.

I was listening to Karel last night (KGO radio) and he was talking about Obama's chances of getting elected Prez. He too said there are still a lot of racists nd feminists in the US, and he wasn't willing to take the chance on losing the 08 election to a Pub! Is he wrong? Maybe. But I'm not willing to take the chance. No matter hich Pub canidte you consider would finish packing the SCOTUS with RW judges. THAT ALONE is sufficient reason for me to support Edwards He's not perfect, but no candidate is. He at least elminates several known arguments:

He wouldn't furter th Bush/Clinton/Bush dynasty

He's not a woman

He's not black

I still believe America is incredibly racist, but for some reason, Obama has been able to cross that barrier without too much issue. So far, anyway. I think Hillary's situation is much more complex than simple sexism. I believe she could cross the gender/sexism barrier if her platform appealed to those of us who shake off the authoritarian worldview. She might have the support of the establishment, but not necessarily the support of the youth, or those older people who reject the status quo. Obama seems to have the support of parts of the establishment and also those who don't care for the establishment. He isn't my first or even 2nd choice, but I do prefer him over Clinton.

She has not apologized for voting for the Iraq war or fallen on her sward for doing so.

And we should never underestimate the ruthlessness of Rove and the Republican spin masters. Kerry's impressive war record was turned into a liability at the very time he was running against a man who should have been court marshaled for having gone A.W.O.L. The be-medaled hero's record be came the issue, not that of the coward.

In the South, the "new" Republican party, which commands a majority, is little more than the old Dixiecrat Party minus the sheets.

No matter who we run, the general election is going to be ugly. If we decide to go with Obama, I fear it will be even uglier, since I have every reason to believe Rove in company will jump on the race issue like a Duck on a June bug.

I haven't a racist or bigoted bone in my body and my soul knows no prejudice.

But I would die in delirious rapture if the last President of the United States in my lifetime would be a black gay woman.......

And no, I didn't forget the "sarcasm" thingie.

sit at the back of bus anymore, or refuses to serve them in restaurants, but racism continues to thrive in the hearts of many Americans.

Because of that, I have strong misgivings about Obama's ability to win in the GE, even if he does become the Democratic nominee.