Talk about playing the race card!

Today, on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Rep. Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Most of the interview focused on Rangel's thoughts on an economic stimulus package. But, at the end of the interview, George put up Rangel a poll showing African American voter support for Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama and then asked him, "Are you concerned that African American voters are going in different directions in this election." Rangel responded, "Not at all. It just shows that blacks voter are just like all other Americans."

So, George Stephanopoulos, in the middle of an interview with the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, not only felt it necessary to ask him about black voters, but his questioned assumed that it was somehow odd that all black voters were not voting the same way.

Immediately following the interview, the roundtable began assessing the primaries, whereupon we were treated to the spectavle of five white people, including George, sat around the table and launched into a discussion about how blacks and Latinos were going to vote this year and whom they were going to support - and read into the Nevada caucus results a conclusion that Latino voters were lining up with Clinton. It might have been helpful - or at least less ridiculous - if they had bothered to actually allow a black or Latino person to weigh in on the conversation. Apparently, they couldn't find any black people qualified to discuss minority voting in the presidential campaign - at least no one as qualitied as the Eastern European expert who was included in the panel discussion.

It's bad enough that black and brown folk must consistently endure having to watch white folks on television talking about us right in front of us as if they are such experts about how we think and vote that there is no need for us to actually participate in the discussions about us. But it's just as galling to see the likes of Stephanopoulos, George Will, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and all manner of other white journalists and commentators day after day frame this presidential race in terms of race, bringing up race at every opportunity, but then accuse any black person who has the nerve to even mention race, much less try to have a rational discussion about it, of "playing the race card."

Let's call a spade a spade (yes, I meant to write that):

Every time the media raises the issue of race in this campaign, they are playing the race card.

Every time the media parks nothing but white people around a table to discuss black people without even bothering to let a black person participate in the conversation, they are playing the race card.

Every time the media tries to shut up any black person who tries to counter this arrogant display of self-entitlement by accusing them of "injecting race into the issue," they are playing the race card.


Well, I won't shut up about it. I'm going to call it out every chance I get.

Not all African-Americans will vote for Obama. Not all women will vote for Clinton.

And yes, women put up with the same thing.

I am sick of the media-manufactured "voting blocks" like Blacks, women, gays, etc. The media just can't imagine anyone voting for a candidate based on issues they care about.

Every time I see a bunch of self-satisfied men on my tv talking about what women should/will do in the upcoming election I want to spray them with a garden hose.

and it needed to be said so well and it needs to be read and digested. Just like sexism, it's very hard to nail the nuance, yet it's all ever present until we say we are mad as hell and won't take it any more and point to the evidence even though it is difficult to be precise.
It's the imprecision of the offenses that put our reactions to them into the category of "overreacting".

It's MLK day tomorrow. I just got through telling my grandson it's the day to celebrate a Giant we were fortunate to have in our history, and that unfortunately we have no Giants like that right now, today.
But we can all work towards recognizing the gifts we were given and becoming our best selves in their images and celebrate their memory.

Martin Luther King was not a giant. He was an ordinary man.

And that's what made him so remarkable - that he WAS an ordinary person, just like all of us are. He is not remembered because he was bigger than life or any different than the rest of us. He is remembered because DESPITE being no different than the rest of us, he stepped up to the plate. He was racked by doubts, haunted by the possibility of failure and lived the last years of his life in constant fear. Nevertheless, he took enormous risks, stayed true to his principles, and inspired countless people to do the same, in big and small ways.

The issue is not that we aren't Giants, but that we assume that people like Dr. King are somehow different than we are and, thus, we absolve ourselves of any responsibility to live up to his example.

So I don't agree that we have no Giants like Martin Luther King. We are ALL Giants just like him - every one of us has the capacity to as you eloquently say, recognize the gifts we were given and become our best selves and inspire and lead just as he did.

So, please tell your grandson that he is a Giant. And his grandma is a Giant. And the man at the newspaper stand is a Giant. We are all Giants - or can be if we just try.

I said it poorly, but I meant the same thing.
Those of us who step out of our being ordinary people, who disregard the dangers this brings, and rise to be our gigantic selves are few, though we all have the seed within us to do so.

The shouting that is necessary to bring about recognition of injustice and affect the righting of wrongs is rarely dared in ways that disregard personal ambition or safety.

Dennis Kucinich is my front runner for having had the courage to step into the realm of Giants - he knows he won't win, and he will not stop bringing attention to all we ought to be putting first when the well-being of the COUNTRY and the PEOPLE are at stake.
And he himself suffers from discrimination, ultimately the knowledge that he is showing all of us up in one way or another. Sorry I digress. I just so hate all the different prejudices.

For the most part it's the same people that sold us George W and the War In Iraq.

George Will has always been a puzzle. How can somebody so educated and read be soooooo stuuuupid about reality?

And that enables them to speak about anything and everything. And since black people lack that chromosome, we're only allowed to speak about a very limited range of things, such as civil rights, race, crime, and welfare. And even then, our views can be second-guessed with impunity by any white person.

I forgot.

voting pattern?

http://www.campusprogress.org/features/103/beyond-2004-the-future-of-the-black-vote

It's common knowledge. Use teh google.

Just look at the numbers. In 1996, Bill Clinton trailed Bob Dole among whites 46 to 43 percent, but got 84 percent of the African American vote and won the election handily. In 2000, Al Gore won an historic 90 percent of the African American vote, which was critical to his success in the popular vote. Given the increased polarization of the electorate and the disappearing “swing voter” in 2004, African-American voters are more important than ever.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/75/75_guest_brazile.html

usually doesn't know what they're talking about. Your post further proves this to be the case.

First of all, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, the majority of blacks usually vote Democratic in the general election. But why would you assume that it's because we're black? There are a number of reasons that most blacks vote Democratic that have nothing to do with race. A majority of blacks are Democrats - again, for various reason - so naturally, most blacks would vote for the Democratic nominee.

But I was not discussing a question about how blacks vote in the General Election. I was discussing a question asked about how blacks were voting in the primary. And, since you're doing "the google," you should be able to verify that, during primaries, black voters do NOT vote in a bloc, but have consistently spread their support among several candidates. So it is ridiculous to assume that the fact that, this time around, black voters are not all supporting the black candidate is somehow an aberration.

of Hispanics. He's Hispanic and his data shows that Hispanics traditionally have not voted for a Black candidate.

Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen: “The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”
http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/12/racial-tensions-a-potential-boost-for-clinton

Sergio is recognized as one of the preeminent experts in Hispanic public opinion research in the United States. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that Sergio "has earned the undisputed title of being the leading pollster of Hispanics in the country." Sergio has also vast experience in multilingual polling with surveys conducted in as many as 12 different languages. In addition to his research background, Sergio worked extensively in Spanish language media with Télemundo, Univisíon and CNN en Español and served on Capitol Hill for many years. Sergio’s unique abilities and experiences make him a key addition to NPI and understanding the coming political battleground of the 21st century.
http://www.newpolitics.net/node/37

historic voting patterns. I am providing some proof. Obviously there is a lot more out there, this was just to get you started.

Well, maybe are.

Now run along and do your google while the rest of us continue our discussion.

Bless your heart.

the Nevada caucus and made the statement that Hispanic people don't vote for Black people. Why was he so compeled to make that statement? What was his point exactly? Reminding people who they should be voting for.....?

entirely in it.

If you think that consistently supporting Democratic candidates when they run against Republican candidates is somehow "bloc" voting based on anything other than critical differences in candidate positions and values, then you have not simply missed Effie's points in her OP and her reply to you, e.g., in your apparently not understanding the difference between (1) Dems. vs. Republicans, and (2) choices among several Dems. in primaries. You have also managed to insult every DUer.

Black voters made up 16 percent of Democratic Nevada caucus-goers — and roughly 80 percent of them voted for Obama, according to entrance polls. Clinton won support from 16 percent of black voters.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/19/trouble-signs-in-clinton-win/
In Michigan's Democratic primary Tuesday — a contest that was rendered meaningless after party sanctions — roughly 70 percent of African-American voters did not cast their votes for Clinton, choosing the “uncommitted” option instead. According to CNN exit polls, those voters overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama, whose name did not appear on the ballot.

Had Obama’s name been on the Michigan ballot, CNN exit polls showed that he would have won an overwhelming 73 percent of the African-American vote, in contrast to 22 percent who say they would have voted for Clinton under those circumstances.

................

January 18, 2008 - South Carolina Primary Preferences
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among white voters 56% to 20%, with 16% for John Edwards. Obama leads Clinton among African-American voters 73% to 18%, with 3% for Edwards.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/





Why do I have to keep providing the facts? You got something to say, back it up.

You offer up the fact that 1300 black people voting for Barack Obama and about 250 black people voting for Hillary Clinton has proof that "blacks vote do in a bloc?"

So, I guess that means the fact that more than 60% of white people voting in the Nevada Democratic caucuses voted for white candidates and not Obama means that white voters vote in a block. Or does it mean that white voters won't vote for a black candidate, right?

Or maybe it means that some white voters will vote for Clinton. And some white voters will vote for Obama. And some white voters will vote for Edwards. And sometimes a whole lot of white people will vote for one candidate. And other times, they spread their votes around.

Believe it or not, the same thing applies to black people.

Because my studies of advanced statistics taught me that, in order to be an effective measurement, a sample must be representative of the larger population that one seeks to assess, otherwise the data drawn from the smaller subset cannot be effectively extrapolated to the larger population.

So, unless the 1,500 black people who showed up to vote in the Nevada caucuses have been demonstrated to be a scientifically representative sample of the larger population of African Americans across the country (and your apparent belief in the monolithism of black people does not make it so), your insistence that their vote somehow proves your claim that "black voters do vote in blocs" is still unsupported and unsupportable. But your earnest effort to convince the rest of us that you know what you're talking about, along with your pathetic attempts at cleverness, do amuse, so your posts aren't a total waste.

having to burst the outrage shown in the rant.

since you are not really relevant to the formulation of my opinions.

There seems to be no shortage of entirely male panels (or nearly entirely, with one female panelist, who is often Republican-leaning) who are deemed eminently well-qualified to discuss gender issues.

Gotcha.

:evilgrin: