Can we have a serious discussion about West Virginia?

I want to start out by saying that, yes, racism did have a role in the final results in West Virginia last night. I'm not saying a majority of West Virginians voted against the black man, but anyone out there arguing that racism did not influence the totals is either incredibly naive or perversely cynical. What also caught my eye, however, was the obvious sexism on display in the Democratic primary yesterday.

The final totals ended up 67% Clinton - 26% Obama. While the obvious first conclusion is that a vast majority of participants preferred a white woman over a black man, the second thing that should stand out is the missing 7% that is not accounted for in the totals. Those people voted for a white man, John Edwards, who is no longer even in the race.

I supported John Edwards and would normally like to see him do well, but I don't think I can be happy about the reason he did so well here. Since Edwards left the race he has seldom reached 1% of the vote yet in WV he suddenly spiked up to 7% over 3 months after abandoning his bid for the white house. This means that while many Democratic voters in WV voted for the white woman because of racism, and assuredly some people voted for the black man because of sexism, a goodly number voted for a non-running white man because of both.

I'm not writing this post to smear West Virginians, they are my family and I have spent a large portion of my life in the mountains of KY and WV. I know these people and I know their warm hearts and perseverance in the face of overwhelming poverty and lack of opportunity. The vast majority are good people who have not had the privileges that even most poor people in other states have had. Generations of oppression have left its mark on these people, however, and that mark is one that can not be dismissed. Racism, sexism, homophobia and religious zealotry run rampant in WV because they found long ago that hating the real cause of their suffering is futile.

So what do we do about this? Do we jump onto message boards and insult these people as ignorant, one toothed racists like I've read from so many here? Do we ignore the obvious problems that have caused these stereotypes to propagate through the years by claiming it just doesn't exist as others here are doing? Do we do what politicians have been doing for over 100 years and just avoid millions of Americans who live in the worst economically blighted area in US history?

Or do we finally realize that these are people, not pieces in a game, and actually try to help them get out of the hopeless situation they face?

Isn't it time we stopped spinning the results of a primary and start focusing on helping people who have been robbed of a future? Support your candidate but quit using West Virginians as your crutch.

Too many times real discussion gets forced out to make room for the rabble rousing threads.

It's her best state after Oklahoma. I think we are reading too much into it. Obama has won many states by the margin that Clinton won in WVA and there hasn't been this kind of scrutiny of the results. Some of it may be racism but I think most of it is because WVA like Bill and Hillary--period.

Doesn't that say something to you about the nature of the vote yesterday? Once again, I'm not claiming that all West Virginians are racist, or sexist, but I know the area very well and I know what is there. From my experience and these election results, I think a serious claim can be made that racism and sexism played a role in this primary.

But the bigger question is are we going to use West Virginians for political points again or are we going to do something to see that they get the opportunity and education they desperately need?

to get many votes after they dropped out.

While the running Dems have lost very little to those not running. WV is the anomaly here and I'm willing to bet that KY follows suit - at least in the Appalachian areas.

for John Edwards because they like Edwards' populist message and since he was still on the ballot, they figured they'd vote their conscience (since the WV primary is obviously an outlier and the residents know it will not decide the winner).

I don't buy that Edwards is where the racism vote went necessarily (I think it more went to Hillary and ALSO the biggest racist vote will go to McCain remember). Hillary's win undermines your argument about a large sexist vote in WV....

I do agree with you that the residents of WV deserve more pity than censure. Pretty obvious they are snowed by the media in a big way. But California went for Hillary too. A lot of people in this country were taken in by the mystique surrounding her, and the promise of Bill II 90's nostalgia....

A lot of Dem W Virginians voted The Economy--they just bet on the "tried and true" candidate of old in a much different political and economic climate. I think their main motivation was to FIX THIS. IT'S BROKE. AT least that much they've got right. I don't really expect them to understand the complexity of the situation while depending on Fox and CNN sound bites.

Heard it from a bunch of old women, and if I heard it once I heard it 150 times
"A woman deserves it before a black man"

now, which is THAT? sexist or racist?

In my county, it was reported:

Hillary 9347
Obama 3421
Edwards 996

McCain 2358

The Edwards supporters called it a "protest" vote.
They did not like Hillary or Obama. go figure.

the Edwards 7% I see as less about racism than about economics and loyal support of Edwards. Perhaps the sexist vote can be found in this but I do think economics trumped the other two in Edwards supporters.

Hillary got the racism vote--you and I agree on that--"a woman deserves it before a black man"--yes, and she played on that too.

The racist vote went to Edwards AND Hillary but the sexist vote went to Edwards and probably Obama (mostly Edwards). The problem is that a full 7% couldn't bring themselves to vote for a running candidate.

And while Edwards has been on the ballot in many states since his withdrawal, he's rarely hit over 1%. Only in WV has he gained this kind of tally. That can not be explained by loyalty or his populist message.

at this point couldn't it? You can dislike Hillary without being sexist.

I see your argument, but it seems to me there are too many variables to state that a vote for Edwards in WV is absolutely a racist and sexist vote. I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm just saying it's not easily verifiable.

Have you got the rundown of the other states that had Edwards on the ballot in their primaries?

:shrug:


I reserve my cooperation for people who sincerely want to change their circumstances.

Bottom line: I'm not going to waste effort on people repeatedly vote against their own interests in order to indulge their resentments.

These are people who have been lied to and abused for over 100 years but you can't find the smallest bit of compassion for them? Responses like your's are why Democrats are seen as elitist and arrogant by West Virginians.

A decent person would help them and then see the results of his labors.

ideas on what would be the most effective way to reach them? As an Obama supporter I was surprised that I didn't hear much about him being there, but I figured it was just the press being divisive again.

both candidates hype up their green collar initiatives, and their plans are similar, if not identical

the beauty of both is that for every green collar, you'll need a hundred blue collars to make it happen

if WVA can vanguard anything that will get us moving away from our oil addiction, i'm all for it-

It seems more people know about the starvation in areas half a world away than know about the daily hunger that is found in their own back yards. Many Appalachians go hunger every day yet very little has ever been done about it. Food shipments would go a long way to relieving some of the desperation there.

Next would be the construction and staffing of proper educational facilities. This is the most educationally depressed area in the country, one of the worst in North America. Schools that actually teach children instead of merely babysitting is a necessity.

West Virginia lives on coal. As we've seen in the news, this is an extremely dangerous and unhealthy industry for workers. My grandfather was a coalminer and I remember the hacking and black mucus that would start each morning off for him until he died of black lung. A life mining is cruel punishment for a man and black lung is a crueler death. Let's get some work diversification there by creating entrepreneurial zones to encourage business. Of course an educated populace would help bring in new businesses as well.

Lastly, with these new businesses, brink in cultural diversity. Only 3% of the WV population is non-white and those numbers drop even more in the heart of Appalachia. Just like the integration of the military this is an area that needs to be diversified.

I think these things would begin a process of pulling these people out of despair.

go to such projects, rather than supporting the oil war in Iraq. I recall, also, when the bridge fell down in Minneapolis there were all kinds of reports of needed repairs all over the country. I'd like to see some government initiatives towards updating our infra-structure in all states, at a decent working wage with benefits. If Hillary isn't the nominee perhaps she will be involved in actually getting our first single-payer health care system off the ground. We should have the votes in Congress with the way Republicans are dropping like flies lately.

Getting people back to work, with health insurance, would be a great way to start off the next presidential term.

The guy who said that was no elitist. He was Frederick Douglass, escaped slave, and he knew what he was talking about.


Appalachianers -- like every other people on earth -- must decide for themselves whether they would rather take a chance on trying to change their material circumstances for the better, or whether they would rather console themselves with their pet resentments while letting their own little share of the world go to pot. No one else can make that decision for them.

If they don't want solidarity with us, that's their choice.

but if we're going to spend tax money on "liberating" people, I'd like to think we'd start in our own backyard instead of countries like Iraq.

And yes it is the same thing. Unless you know the generational despair that the people of Appalachia have been subjugated to, then you you're flippant "do it yourself" answers mean little.

... who are mired in poverty and despair because they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Who are we to judge who "deserves" help and who does not?

It's sad that people here actually buy that line of bullshit, isn't it?

But this is not the Democratic Party whose ideals so appealed to me as a young woman. It has taken a mean turn to the right.

I'm ALL for helping "the oppressed", on two conditions:


1. The oppressed have to be serious about wanting change. They have to take some kind of initiative. It has to be important to them -- otherwise it won't work. No one can just breeze in and do it all for them.

2. Solidarity has to be mutual. If we're going to help them, they don't get to attack us (any part of our coalition), or scapegoat us, or use us as targets for their resentments and frustrations. Non-cooperation and ill-will on their part won't be rewarded with cooperation and good will from us. And why should it? "Something for nothing" doesn't exist in any other part of life.


That's it. It's all perfectly reasonable.

These people have been pushed down so long they don't understand "up" anymore. They've been sold to the company and the company is the law, still, in some of those mountains. You're talking "reasonable" about people who don't have a reasonable amount to eat or feed their children many times.

I'd suggest you look into the eyes of some of these people before making rash judgments.

Later, blacks organized and fought for their right to vote at enormous risk to themselves. It wasn't until the 1960s that they finally won that struggle in the South.


Since then,they've always voted almost unanimously for the most progressive political option available to them.


In other words, progressive solidarity isn't wasted on them.

You're a harsh person with incredibly republican talking points for a Democratic board.

Don't you understand that?


They don't want to be your charity case -- with you heroically intervening to save them from themselves and generously overlooking their blatant disrespect into the bargain. If you're going to play it that way, you might as well come right out and tell them just how awfully superior you really are.


Expecting nothing from people diminishes them. It's helping people the way we help animals. In the end, they'll hate you for it.

on Sundance last night called "Burning the Future: Coal in America." It had a lot of important information on culture of West Virginia. (I posted an OP "Coal" on the topic.) I wish that more DUers would watch it, and then re-evaluate their opinions about the WV primary.

He just started his general election campaign with Missouri and Michigan. But if/when he spends some quality time in West Virginia look for him to get his usual 10-15% bump.

The problem that I see is too many politicians look to WV for votes and then forget about them till the next cycle.

West Virginians are more than demographics and numbers and polling bumps. If that's all they can expect then Mr. Obama can stay the hell home for all I care.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

NO MATTER WHETHER CLINTON OR OBAMA WIN THE NOMINATION..

We should stop all the gyrations of trying to figure it out.. "Switchers" were allowed to vote in the primary, so there is NO WAY to determine how many were "real" votes and how many were "strategery" votes..or how many were sexist votes or how many were racist votes..

They are what they are, at this point.. inconsequential..

Obama has a DIFFERENT MAP..



Hillary's map..(there are a lot of African Americans in the Illinois & Michigan base..so she might not get them)

"Do we jump onto message boards and insult these people as ignorant, one toothed racists like I've read from so many here? Do we ignore the obvious problems that have caused these stereotypes to propagate through the years by claiming it just doesn't exist as others here are doing? Do we do what politicians have been doing for over 100 years and just avoid millions of Americans who live in the worst economically blighted area in US history?"

Thats' about all we can do, unless we live there and can participate in the change necessary

We all need to push our elected politicians, especially those running for our highest office, to do more than pander for a few votes then forget about them every 4 years.

is to educate them that voting for the corporate interests who abused them and lied to them for so many years is self-defeating, just as it is for the rest of the country.

However, there is a long history of the very people who are being hurt by the corporatocracy defending and voting for the corporatists.

Other than that, I don't see any way out for them.

We -- us here -- can't create jobs, we can't build schools, we can't change the paradigm of life in WV or anywhere else. It's only when the poor whites in WV or wherever, and the poor blacks, and the white collar wage slaves, and the elderly, and the Christians, and the gays, and the "liberals" and the "conservatives" realize that we're all in this together that thing will begin to change.

This video explains a lot:

http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

Between the coal for the electricity and the gold and copper, yes people need to respect these workers and figure out why over 50% of the state is registered Dem but voted for Bush.

These are the people he was talking about who have lost hope generations ago. They cling to their beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, because it's all we've left them.

That they have given as much to this country as any educated city lawyer, usually more, and yet they continue to be disrespected because they pray instead of talking to a shrink, sing to banjos instead of orchestras, and create quilts instead of masterpieces. There isn't anything wrong with choosing to live a rural lifestyle, even if you don't end up a millionaire when you do it. Somebody has to dig the coal and plant the corn.

My grandmother went from owning a small farm to living in a crappy apartment two states away from any of her friends and most of her relatives when my grandfather coughed up his last bit of coal. She was bitter as so many there are.

You're right, there's no shame in mining or farming or ditch digging, even. The shame comes in when you work all day and find you can't pay for the food on the table afterward. That does something to the psyche that most can't imagine and that's what so many in Appalachia have understood for generations.

"I sold my soul to the company store"

So it's not surprising that they think the liberals ridiculing them don't respect them enough to pay them well.

You reject everything else they have to say. The repubs THINK they're ignorant, but they're smart enough not to say it.

vote in some recent Republican primaries,despite being long gone. I think sometimes people still want to have a say about who *their* favorite candidate is. 7% is not huge. It's what I expect from loyal supporters.

Now... had Edwards gotten a significantly higher portion, such as 70% of the vote, with Obama and Clinton splitting the remaining 30%, then yes, I think you'd have a stronger argument.

It stands as the only time Edwards has gotten much over 1% since dropping his candidacy. Huckabee and Paul have been consistently grabbing from 10%-25%, collectively, in each primary.

Then perhaps this means that 7% of W.Va. democrats are both sexist and racist *and* there are apparently more in W.Va than in other states. Is that your main point?

Certainly there are racists and sexists that won't vote for a woman or a Black, or Asian, or other man or woman. But your comment makes it sould like there aren't legitimate reasons not to vote for either. People liked Edwards and voted for him. Is that proof of sexism? I don't think so. Our standards of proof are so poor on this site, it's amazing.

I would vote for Kucinich if he was still on the ballot. I don't care if he loses; I care who I vote for. Does that make me sexist or racist?

Tex Shelters

I'm talking more about people than percentages.

There is a different way to look at it.

That's all.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

I'm offended by classism and yankee ethnocentricity

I am a hill fuckin' billy...

and I'm not genetically inferior to anyone

We had kin on the goddamn mayflower... and I'm so mixed up with American Peoples' I'm probably more OUT-BRED than anyone you know.

I just LOOK like a GD Viking... inside I'm as ethnic as anyone.

ya'all can KMA

I mean that in the best possible way.