Maybe I can help explain why some African Americans are upset about the Clintons

I think some of the anger you're hearing on black radio these days is based on a feeling by many in our community that there is still a stark double standard for whites and for blacks. Many people I know feel just as strongly as Hillary's supporters do about the importance of this moment for their candidate and our community in our history and believe that Hillary and her supporters are stomping on this very special time.

And they know - as I do - that if the shoe were on the other foot, there is no WAY that the media, the party and the supporters of other candidates would have for one minute tolerated Barack Obama and his black supporters doing the same thing in this way. We know that, for example, if Obama's supporters tried to insert language in the Democratic Platform comparable to that demanded by Hillary's supporters, they would have been laughed out of the room and accused of "playing the race card," trying to force "racial preferences," "quotas," and "reverse discrimination" into the agenda, scaring off white voters, etc.

Imagine . . .

-------------------
Opportunity for African Americans

We, the Democratic Party, are the party that has produced more African American Governors, Senators, and Members of Congress than any other. We have produced first African-American Secretary of State, the first African-American House Majority Whip, and, in 1988 with Jesse Jackson and in 2008 with Barack Obama, the first African Americans in American history to win presidential primaries in our nation. We believe that our black sons and daughters should have the same opportunities as our white sons and daughters. We know that when America extends its promise to African Americans, the result is increased opportunity for families, communities, and aspiring people everywhere.

When black workers still earn 61 cents for every dollar that a white worker earns, it doesn’t just hurt African Americans; it hurts families and children. We will invest in black-owned small businesses and remove the capital gains tax on start-up small businesses. We will support African Americans in math and science, combat racial discrimination and increase American competitiveness by retaining the best workers in those fields, regardless of race. We will work to combat violence against African Americans.

We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against racism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of African Americans cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our black children, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.
-------------------------

So I understand this anger and frustration at how some Clinton backers are approaching this. While I don't share the anger, I certainly do feel a sense of frustration about it myself.

Once Hillary Clinton was caught on camera advocating for placing her name in nomination it made it impossible for the Clintons to just blame their supporters. The convention is supposed to be about the nominee, not the Clintons.

About such a monumental moment for women.... well, as a woman I realize that the only reason Hillary Clinton even got close to the nomination was because she was the wife of Bill Clinton.

Since the Clintons were in the tri-state area selling a 2 for one ticket please spare me any outrage.

This election has brought up a lot of hateful rhetoric from every side. We can't just blame the Clintons because others did it as well and sadly, few have stood up against it. Blacks aren't the only ones made to feel that they don't matter as much as their white counterparts: Asians, Latinos, Muslims, Africans, Arabs and so on are made to feel that there loyalty lies elsewhere.

But since you brought up the Black community, I will say this: I have been told (on several occasions) by Democrats AND Republicans that the reason I support Obama is because he's Black or I'll be asked where's my loyalty to the Clintons. I hate being spoken down to as if I only see skin color and not issues; I hate being treated as if I have to be loyal to a political family. I took even greater offense at the screams that Bill was our first Black President and I became confused: I had no idea that because a man played a jazz instrument, smoked pot and cheated on his partner made someone Black! Both Bill and Hillary have made remarks that make me question whether their past work was truly sincere or a way to garner support but how will I ever know for sure?

This election has shown me that some of the progress that we made following the Civil Rights movement was superficial and we have to work hard to get to a place where every American feels welcome.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"As far as blacks are concerned, they have just as much opportunity in this country as whites, or any other race for that matter, maybe more."

Do you honestly believe that tripe? Try being born a poor black girl in the inner city and then give me that standard crap BS about equal opportunity. Your statement is plainly simply and patently false. And to insinuate that inequality is simply faulty perception on the part of blacks, some sort of victim complex, when they actually have "maybe more" opportunity than whites is not only ignorant but racist, IMO.

I didn't realize that Archie Bunker was a DUer until just now.

I personally don't know too many Americans, "white Americans" that is, that feel welcome in this country right now. It's as if all of the other races want/expect "white Americans" to step aside while they force us to do what makes THEM comfortable.

Really? Who the heck are you hanging out with? You might consider mentioning to them that this country was founded of the people, by the people, for the people..."the people" referring to "white Americans," of course. Racism and classism are systemic within our national institutions: our educational, judicial, medical, law enforcement, and financial systems are fundamentally biased. What is it that's making them feel "unwelcome" or how are they being asked "step aside?"
What are they being asked to give up by these "other races?" Their white privilege? How awful!

This hasn't been the "white Americans" country for a while now, so to suggest it is, based on the race/demographics, is ridiculous. Everyday it's a new politically correct issue in this country. Whites continue to have to adjust their traditions to accommodate other races. If I went to Mexico, Europe, China, Africa, Israel, or anywhere else for that matter, I would have to accept living with their existing lifestyle, traditions, and language, not force them to change it because I felt uncomfortable, or force them to speak my language because I didn't want to learn theirs.

No, this country isn't "white America" based on demographics. So what? Things change. And what "traditions" are you suggesting that "white Americans" are being forced to adjust? No flesh-colored bandages? No Christmas? No more seeing only white people in textbooks? No more sundown towns?
You're talking about privilege again.


I think the "white Americans" have rolled over too much already, and that's why there is so much closet racism/bigotry. Most people never talk about it, unless it's to a friend, or family. But I suspect there are a lot of people out there who really resent having to change this country's traditions to accommodate all of the demands of people, who don't believe as "white Americans" do.

Well, *I* think that's bigotry, plain and simple.


As far as blacks are concerned, they have just as much opportunity in this country as whites, or any other race for that matter, maybe more.

:rofl:

They just don't see it that way. What the reason is, I'm not sure, but Obama is just one example that blacks do have opportunity in this country. If blacks are going to continue to suggest that blacks are deprived in some way, suggesting that it's happening with the entire black population, then someone needs to start pointing out successful black citizens, and their contributions to this country.

You should take a little time and learn about how institutionalized racism and white privilege play out in this country.

There are millions of blacks who had the drive, determination, and desire to succeed in this country, and do something with their lives. But I'd bet they didn't sit around all day saying "woe is me"....

Yeah, those black people who live below the poverty line, are less educated as a group, have higher infant mortality, cancer, diabetes, and respiratory illness rates, higher incarceration rates, shorter life expectancy...they're all just lazy, right?


Jesus, this post is revolting. Here, you can use this:

No, I think that poster is gonna be getting a (well deserved) pizza. By the way, your response to him/her was right on and much more elegant than mine. I was seething at the stupidity of that poster.

Unreal, isn't it?

Thanks, though, for the compliment...I rarely post anything that could be referred to as elegant.

(And I believe your assessment of the poster's future at DU may be correct.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if you post bigotry, you shouldn't be surprised to see it deleted.

And here's the deal: you don't get to tell me to leave. This is my country, and working toward changing what's wrong here (and I'm referring to your insistence upon racist "white American" privilege, btw) is my choice and my duty.

If you have better things to do with your time, go do them. Please.

Do you know how hard it is to emigrate? Other countries just don't accept people with open arms- I know, I have been looking into it. If this country stays the way it is, in 11 years I have to start worrying about whether or not my boy is going to have to go fight some damn senseless war just to make a select few a bit richer. But, even if that wasn't my motivation, I would have to say one thing- go cram it. This is my country. You getting upset about people calling out your racism is senseless.

on edit: changed "he" to "my boy" to clarify who I was talking about.

It is not reverse racism, and the "love it or leave it" thing is so childish and cliche that it does not even require a response. (BTW, I left.)

YOU were talking about how the country is so miserable, what with all them uppity darkies and whatnot. So why are you not leaving?

If you do not expect to get called out for racist rants here, then you are even more delusional than you obviously are stupid.

EAT SHIT.

:eyes:

...and your sheets are done.

Those conical, pointy ones were a bitch to starch, though. :(

...is no way to go through life, son.”

I've never heard the term before

refers to towns that were purposely white-only. Sometimes towns might have clauses that forbade anyone who wasn't white living there, other times there were actual signs like, "Negro, don't let the sun go down on you in _____."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001590_pf.html

Yeah, come on, WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE.:sarcasm: What the hell are you talking about? How have I had to adjust my "traditions"? Oh, can't run around yelling the N word whenever I please? Hmmm, can't have my own section in a restaurant or drink from white only drinking fountains? Got to act like a decent human being, and treat others accordingly? Well, that doesn't seem to hard. The only people who have had to adjust are bigots.

One question- if blacks have just as much opportunity as whites, and are considered equal, then why the hell does a black man in a nice car usually equal a traffic stop? Why is a black man watched a lot more closely when he is in a store? If you really believe this shit doesn't still exist you are really living in a pollyanna world.

This Primary was a huge step forward for BOTH AA and Women. Obama has won the Primary and has a damn good shot at being the next President of the US. It is and will be a historic event, just as it would have been if Sen Clinton had won.

The Repukes wanted a division formed and through the press they accomplished that.

And we don't need the Repigs to help with division it's already there. We've got people who TO THIS DAY refer to Obama's win as a "statistical tie" so they can downplay what he actually did. Obama won the nomination by beating the most formidable machine in the Democratic part (at the time) but instead of getting behind the nominee we've got these claims of technical wins, needs for catharsis and more Clinton speeches than at the '92 and '96 conventions.

It should be a huge step forward. What I see is that we've really not gotten as far as we think we have. Blatant racism may be verboten but the insidious institutional shit is still smoldering as evidenced by the popping up of certain wildcat groups and the inability of some to give the man his due without having to share the stage with the also-ran.

That's not even going into the nerve of expecting Obama to raise money so Clinton can pay herself back after putting her own money into a campaign that had no chance for months before she finally suspended her campaign.

This nomination thing was the last straw. I'm not feeling so special right now. Perhaps I'll feel different after Obama's acceptance speech.

Regards

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I feel sick thinking about it.

And the fact that she is a woman never did anything for me. I always felt she accomplished more by playing dirty than by being impressive.

I agree that it's the Repiglicans and media that are trying to divide Democrats.

I am a woman, and I am not black.

I voted for Hillary in the primaries. My state went overwhelmingly for Obama. The reason I voted for Hillary was that I just didn't know enough about Obama at that time, and being in South Carolina, there wasn't a lot of pushing of information about him out to the voters beforehand.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have voted for Obama.

I think that all the people who are offended that a woman didn't get to be the first minority to make history should get over themselves. Sure, I would love to see a woman President. But more importantly, I want to see the best President and Obama is smoother, more pragmatic, more impressive and less divisive than Hillary.

I am actually embarrassed by the antics of her supporters. I feel like it feeds into stereotypes about women. Their vehemence and complaints about needing "catharsis" makes it seem like women can't play with the big boys without getting their feelings hurt. I want to yell at them, "Man up!".

Hillary herself gave me some cringe-inducing moments during her campaign. Often I felt like she came across as shrill, and if I felt that way - having voted for her - I know many others felt it even more.

I want a woman President someday. But I want one whose supporters act equal to the way any other candidate's supporters do. I feel as a woman that these PUMAs and their ilk are setting women back more than they are advancing them.

Meanwhile, I feel pride for the black community these days. There's a young black kid at my supermarket who is a bagger, who is tall and lanky and has a nice smile and I hope that he's following this race closely because lately I've looked at him and thought, "You know, one day he could be President." I hope he realizes that himself. And it feels good to have that feeling about a minority.

Well said

I also don't like how this race created some divisions. But I don't think it's fair to blame the Clintons. Hillary went to work with Marion Wright Edelman out of college and has worked hard to advance equal rights for both women and black people her entire working career. This shouldn't be either/or. That bothers me enormously.

I don't want African Americans or any other group to earn less on the dollar than white men. But stop referring to women as a minority, because they aren't.

I understand your point that there are more of "us" than "them", but politically this is not the case. Women are still very much the minority in the political world, which is the backdrop against which these candidates' minority or special status is being viewed.

nevermind that African American women in particular suffer both sexism and racism probably more than any others.

Hillary is always touted as having worked for the rights and well-being of women and children. War-mongering, supporting, funding, militarism, all are death to women and children. Outsourcing our jobs sure hurts the families that children rely on. It's like getting an award for supporting a bike path while voting against emission standards. Band-aids and fluff.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been black.
The Commandant of the Naval Academy has been black.
The head of US Submarines Atlantic Fleet has been black.

Women are way behind men on a lot of fronts.

as real contenders against the white, male, rich, legacy-privileged status quo.

My son is mixed race and he'll never consider a presidential campaign off limits because of race or gender again. I think that's extraordinary and absolutely worth celebrating!

Their vehemence and complaints about needing "catharsis" makes it seem like women can't play with the big boys without getting their feelings hurt.


Yes. Exactly. Politics is a nasty nasty game, and it produces far, far more losers than winners. That is nothing new, and it's nothing Hillary and her supports shouldn't have known in their bones going into this. She's not the first person to run a campaign and lose - hell, she's not even the first woman to run a campaign and lose! She's not the first person to lose a long, close race and get a lot of votes but not quite as many as the other guy. She's not even the first person to start out way ahead in everything--money, name recognition, organization, supporters--and still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We can still have a lot of respect for those who lose with honor. They can still have a brilliant future. At least some of their dreams can still be realized.

I want to yell at them, "Man up!".

I like "put on your big girl panties!"

And I think she is demanding extra consideration on the grounds of "don't hurt my or my supporters feelings".

Its seems kind of pathetic.

I find trying to play off Hillary's second place finish as a major accomplishment demeaning to women. There is no "silver medal" in this event and trying to make it seem like there is just makes women look like sore losers who need a consolation prize.

and I feel exactly like you do.

It fascinates me that when they speak of women they are really talking about White women.

That makes me so angry ~ I am a Proud Woman and I truly believe this "historic for women" mime does not included me at all. Not me or any other woman who has skin of a darker hue.

What also burns me is that Black Men and Women stood in long lines to vote for the " First Black President" and this is the respect that we get for supporting someone that we trusted to always love us as a people.

That is why Black Americans are so furious.

It's as if two people that we felt were like our family stomped on us.

That is what I am hearing from members of the Black community.

We are proud of Obama, yes we are, but we are not voting for him simply because of his race. If so we would have voted for Jess, Carol or Al.

No, we are voting for him because he respects ALL people and that is what we have yearned for as a people. Just give ALL people "A Little Respect" for a change.

I saw tall black kid with his mom in a Rosses and I said the same thing to myself...this kid could be President some day. It hit me hard that it was the first time I had simply looked at someone and thought that. And I realized that I had come far too!

Not that I had ever looked at anyone and said "this kid can't be President", but now I see people with eyes as to their potential...

The opportunity that Obama has made for all of us touches me so deeply. Why we haven't been able to fully celebrate it makes me upset.

That's what's wrong with the actions of these PUMAs. We should all have been really proud of making history but instead I'm left with a feeling of shame because the history has been tainted by just the plain bad behavior. I hate it when people act entitled and I've seen this sort of behavior from all sorts, not just women, but seeing it encouraged on such a massive scale is disheartening to me as a woman. Why? Because it feeds into every stereotype of the hysterical, overemotional virago that the anti-feminists are always making fun of. The environment is such that even if you show a bit of common sense about the role of women, you are labeled a feminazi. So to see such plainly bad behavior ENCOURAGED and frankly, not punished is just bad for the woman fighting for equal rights. It just asks for us all to be condescended to.

You are absolutely right in that there is such a double standard-- if Obama had lost, the Clintonites would be really graceless winners because they would insist that since they won, they had a say in how they did everything, not Obama the loser. What's worse is that this conflict between the PUMAs and Obama supporters mirror a lot of the racist attacks that blacks have had to face-- everyone who's read To Kill A Mockingbird and knows anything about the history of lynchings knows about how the racists use the possibility that the privileged white woman could be "defiled" by the black man as one of their ultimate nightmares. This is probably why Obama is a representative of that boogeyman because he IS the product of a black man and a white woman. It's just sad to see this dogfight being encouraged by white supremacists being waged in the Democratic party.

It is just sad.

I see no links....

nominee and Obama had lost a very close race, I'm sure that

1) she'd have immediately asked him to be her running mate, and would have made sure everyone was aware that she knew he needed to be on the ticket, to unite the party;

2) the Democratic party platform would have had the sort of language about AA concerns that you're now saying wouldn't have been there; and

3) the media would have been fully behind this.

...or do you have support for your speculations?

when she was losing is pretty good support for #1

It's almost as hilarious as Hillary, in a losing position, offering Obama the VP slot (because THAT was funny).

:sarcasm:

is evidence of a highly developed sense of entitlement and shows very little respect.

I always enjoy being offered the #2 spot when I'm winning. Don't you?
:sarcasm:

Regards

than she did at that point.

It was a combination of outrageous chutzpa and sheer desperation.

That's why he won caucuses and she won primaries. Caucuses reward intensity and primaries numbers.

TWO national surveys in the last week of May showed her beating McCain by a wider margin than Obama would.

Effie was talking about how AA felt marginalized during the primaries and beyond by disparaging comments made by the Clintons. Where is your comment coming from? Even if you are a female unless you are Black, you will never know what it feels like; their remarks won't affect you the same way. What excuse do you have for that one? Why do you have to come out with the 'shoulda, coulda, wouldas' when it comes to someone mentioning the Clintons? Why can't you just read the OP and try to understand that words CAN hurt and being told that your vote doesn't matter is cruel. To be told by a candidate that "...Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and <...> whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me" is not a good feeling. I'm surprised that you of all people would miss the point of feeling like you don't matter by the way you're always screaming 'UNITY!' but I guess you'd rather use that time to make a case for the Clintons.

ever

being a fairy tale was somehow a racial comment.

Steve

maybe some African American supporters did, but I don't remember him or his surrogates saying such a thing.

Now, the "Jesse Jackson won this primary" was clearly racial as was the tripe that came out of Geraldine Ferraro's mouth.

that's like saying that Hillary said Obama "shuck and jive" when it was Cuomo that implied that.

I still don't 'get' it.

Your fight should be with Associated Press, not Hillary Clinton. She was quoting an article, rather than commenting for herself.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening..."

Still - I can see how the idea of it would upset people...this is going to be the most racially charged election since 1868.

Will you forgive Hillary when she is Obama's VP?

...but direct quote it is. Funny how those audio tapes don't lie.

because he doesn't have someone like Bill as a spouse.

Bill is a huge liability--not because he's inherently bad or inept (quite the opposite), but because it would be hard for him and probably most people to not view an HRC presidency as a co-presidency. Hell, they already said that about HRC during Bill's term in office when she was working on her healthcare stuff.

he was in first place.

:shrug:

You are *amazingly* optimistic.

my vote during the primary really didn't count. That was probably the saddest thing that I experienced in this election. After African-Americans fighting, and yes, some giving up their lives, to get the vote.....to have it insinuated over and over again that it is the Hard Working White vote that is coveted in these elections really has felt like a knife in the heart of my citizenship. Even the White women's vote seemed more precious......

:hug:

I have no idea how the Democratic National Convention, sponsored by the Clintons, is going to go down, but they have put their name and label on 2 out of 4 nights and that just seems to be going overboard to me.
If Bubba is on stage the last night, at all, you can forget it.

If Obama loses in the fall, you can bet it won't be his fault.
He has let the Clintons get to have their say and do whatever they wanted to do at this year's convention.

Bill Clinton didn't let Jimmy Carter, the last Democrat elected President, at that time, speak at the DNC in 1992.
So, since Bubba set that precedent, he, most of all, should understand why he is not welcome at this year's DNC.

because i was an Obama supporter. :rant:

i was also mad that they kept suggesting Latinos would never vote for a black man (a terrible slur against an entire race of people that is not borne out by the facts). it was just a slur to get folks to vote for Hillary and it was disgusting.

Colin Powell? What?

Or are you referring to the state version, as opposed to the head of the State Department?

We produced the first woman Secretary of State (Albright) but no the first African-American (Powell).

and I've felt that way for a long time. There was never really a national celebration, the way there should have been, and the way there would have been by women if Hillary had won. The whole thing has left me completely disgusted and discouraged and exasperated.

For example, someone who was an obnoxious smoker - didn't care if they were blowing smoke in someone's face or not - is more likely to assume that all smokers are rude, as a way of excusing their own poor manners.

I think you're assuming a heckofalot about Clinton's primary supporters.


But you know, I think there's a better explanation that some AA voters are upset, if they truly are upset by the idea that Clinton will get a roll call: they're being manipulated by the media and the Republican party. They're being manipulated by a group of idiots who care for nothing other than their own ratings and fail to mention that this is tradition, and by a group of people who intentionally are keeping Democrats divided.

Which suggests that you think that those voters are even dumber than the idiots.

Thank God that smart people like you are around to tell them that they're so stupid that they can be fooled by "idiots." Maybe you can help lead them out their ignorant state into the light . . .

Being manipulated. I'd hate to think they're being assholes by choice.


On edit: if people refuse see their divisions are manipulated, then yes - they are dumber than idiots.

Got it.

In which case, it's a free country isn't it?

Have a great day. :hi:

Crisco is asking, no BEGGING for the scriptural beatdown that they so richly deserve. Why not give it to her/him???

:shrug:

The dead-enders are quite transparent these days what with their better practitioners busting teeth on granite girl scout cookies—especially in recent days. :)

:thumbsup:

Gee thanks!

:sarcasm:

Regards

But you know, I think there's a better explanation that some AA voters are upset, if they truly are upset by the idea that Clinton will get a roll call: they're being manipulated by the media and the Republican party.

If I wasn't so annoyed, I'd actually be offended by your comment.

The idea that you think black folks are so stupid that we are being MANIPULATED by anyone has just about taken the cake for me. Your post is a prime example why DROVES of blacks are becoming less and less affiliated with either party and are identifying themselves as independent, myself included.

It cannot be that what has happened has been grossly unfair or unjustified or callously insensitive. Oh no, if black folks are protesting it must be because we are being MANIPULATED, the poor dears. I would say alot more about your comment but I think it would get me banned.

Tons of people are being and have been manipulated this season. Two candidates became symbols of progress for two constituencies that have been kept out of power in our so-called democracy, and those constituencies have been pitted against each other - by white men. I did not claim that black people, exclusively have been / are being manipulated - it just happens that's the topic at hand. And in case you didn't notice, the operative word was "some."

It cannot be that what has happened has been grossly unfair or unjustified or callously insensitive.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What has happened that's grossly unfair? That Clinton is going to get a roll call?

Okay, you think that's unjustified; I think that if she's kept out of it, or pressured to, that it's an absolutely ridiculous notion that someone - anyone - male or female, white or black or any other color - after months of hard work and reaching out to Americans and getting them to invest in their candidacy, should be forced to forego the honor of hearing their name on that podium all because the media is stoking the electorate to think that somehow, that's taking something away from the guy who will be the actual nominee.

I'm a white woman - an old one. The actions of the Clintons and their supporters on this convention thing is totally disrespectful of the history making moment of the first black nominee. All I hear is the "first woman" bullcrap. I remember Libby Dole..she ran...she also lost and they didn't give her a convention on a silver platter. But this I do know: I hope Clinton does not have intentions to run again because, like it or not, there will be such bitter feelints all around that we would be more likely to nominate Joe Lieberman than her!!! Her ass has been shot off. The Clintons played this one wrong just like they produced a lousy campaign.

Second place is first loser. They don't give out silver medals in the primaries.

The great irony in all of this is that Penn's wicked and divisive "strategy" backfired and actually turned millions of white Americans off who rallied with even more fervor to Barack Obama.

But never forget this, after all the gamemanship in Pennsylvania, just weeks later a crowd of over 80,000 mostly white Oregonians rallied to Barack's defense in Portland. That's the America I love. Our better angels recognized and knew way down deep that Barack was the best candidate. He was and he still is.

Barack won and he won be being fair.

My sister who voted for Hillary in the primaries (while her husband voted for Obama) told me that the joy in voting for Hillary that morning was gone and that she knew that Obama had proved to be the better person. Of course, she is on board for Obama all the way now.

I am glad to wrote you OP. I always enjoy reading your posts.

stronger as I witness his grace, patience and wise responses to what would reduce most people to bitter, angry, divisive actions.

His message- the core of his campaign, that we as a people need to work together, is continually being demonstrated for all of us to see and follow- in the way he is facing these challenges.

I understand the disapointment and anger it isn't unreasonable. I hope that people will recoginize the way Obama is showing us all -by example- the 'better' way. A way that leads us out of the downward spiral of tit for tat, self interest and resentment. A way to work together for the betterment of all.

Thanks Effie-

:hi:

K&R

his speech the night HRC failed to acknowledge he was the nominee proved he has the gravitas to be president.

If the roles were reversed Obama would be treated with more deference. The Clintons, and the party, would be acceding to his every wish. Obama would be Hillary's VP without any doubt and half the convention would be a celebration of his historic candidacy.

Black voters who don't like the spectacle of a black man kissing ass ought to recognize that it comes with the territory. We haven't seen it before because the black guy never won before. The winner kisses the losers' ass. That is built into the party process... it is standard. (Remember when Pat Buchanan got a night at the Republican convention?)

We already have an example of what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot--an AA candidate coming into a convention with a lot of votes--and can see whether his desire for recognition was tolerated.

In 1988 Jesse Jackson had about 800 delegates--proportionally less than half what Clinton has. He did not release them. He put his name in nomination. He spoke at the convention and it was a big night. And he used his delegate bloc to demanded (and win) rule changes in the primaries, many of which increased delegate apportionment in heavily AA districts and benefited Obama in 2008.

I am sure you are correct than many feel the way you describe, that Hillary is stepping on a special time for AA voters. It makes sense that many AA voters would be following this nomination more closely and are encountering the minutae of convention pageantry for the first time. Clinton in 1996, Gore and Kerry were nominated by something approaching acclimation so many people's recent memories are of conventions that were historically unusual. (And neiher Gore nor Kerry ended up in the WH, so the acclimation route doesn't have a sterling track record.)

But the perception that things would be different if the roles were reversed is incorrect, however widely held. I can empathize, but I cannot agree on a factual basis.

You're right that Rev. Jackson demanded changes in the process. He fought for substantive change that improved the party and expanded the base by bringing in more voters in a meaningful way. But that is very different than demanding that the nominee grovel to him on national television because his supporters needed a "catharsis." The only concession he asked for and received at the convention was a primetime speaking slot.

I know we probably won't ever agree about this. But I see this as very different situation.

And I have absolutely no doubt that had the roles been reversed and Obama made similar demands, he would have been blasted for race-baiting. Hell, the guy can't even mention he's black without getting beaten up in the media for weeks at a time. Imagine what would happen if 1) he were the also-ran; and 2) he demanded all manner of recognition for blacks in the Democratic platform.

"I have absolutely no doubt that had the roles been reversed and Obama made similar demands, he would have been blasted for race-baiting. Hell, the guy can't even mention he's black without getting beaten up in the media for weeks at a time."

I agree. But what you are doing is conflating the media with the Democratic party. Many commentators bitched about Jackson in 1988 but the Democratic party treated him with great deference.

The party should not be the scapegoat for all institutional racism. If the roles were reversed the party would be jumping through hoops to appease Obama's voters... not Obama, but his voters. The current convention planning isn't about Hillary the woman, it's about her voters.

And the difference between "grovel" and acknowledge or celebrate is subjective. (I'll bet there's a Bob Novak column from 1988 about Dukakis groveling to Jackson. It's an eye of the beholder thing.)

This poll today is interesting:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/half_of_democrats_say_putting_hillary_s_name_in_nomination_will_help_unify_party

The conclusion is that everyone thinks Hillary's convention role is hurting the Democratic Party except Democrats. "Among Democrats, 48% say the move will help on the unity front while 28% disagree." And Democrats are the best judges of Democratic Party unity.

I hope that ultimately African-American voters will feel more pride in a black president than in merely a black nominee. This convention is more likely to put Obama in the white house than the convention his staunchest supporters would arrange.

man, that's like a bucket of cool water. thanks for showing it like it is.

there is no way that if Obama lost and the 'PUMAs' were black people harassing Dean and following him around - no way that would happen - They'd be Arrested!

damn.

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



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

in the hopes that they can maintain the "plausible deniability" shield.

I've been feeling like I'm banging my head against the wall trying to explain my anger but you've said it well!

Regards

What does Obama being black have anything to do with it? How many women have gotten this far and almost won a nomination? Why should his candidacy be considered any more historical than hers?

Hillary ended only 127 pledged delegates behind Obama.

Why treat Hillary any differently than all the men who came before her?

1980:
Jimmy Carter - 1981 delegates
Ted Kennedy - 1225 delegates
Uncommitted - 122 Kennedy had no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

1984:
Jesse Jackson - 465 votes Jackson had no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

1988:
Jesse Jackson - 1218 votes Jackson had no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates Dean had already dropped out, with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

2008:
Barack Obama: 1766.5 Pledged delegates
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5 Pledged delegates

Hillary has a right to place her name in nomination and we who supported her want to see it happen. That doesn't mean that Obama won't be the nominee, it's a symbolic act, not an attempt to stage a coup.

Hillary ended only 127 pledged delegates behind Obama.

"Obama finished the race with a 364-delegate lead over Clinton, according to an Associated Press tally."

Why are your numbers so different?????????

And as for your other questions, it's so apparent that you didn't read Effie's OP that there is really no point in discussing anything with you right now.

They go with the wind and whichever way their bread is buttered. In actual delegates she only was behind him by 127 delegates.

I'm not counting the superdelegates.

Everyone else is.

Yet another attempt to diminish Obama's accomplishment.

Regards

the exact same way.

Excellent post. I er - uh - supported Edwards. Member of One Corps. And I still believe in his message. But the minute Edwards stepped down? I looked at the candidates and immediately gave $$$$ to both Obama and Kucinich. Just being honest here.

I don't listen to 'black radio' per se - I'd rather listen to my CD's on my way to work. I don't know about the anger - I just know about the fact that when I'm in a group of other people of African descent - there's an obvious distaste for the Clintons and obvious irritation at how that campaign conducted itself. And it DOES come from the double standard.

All that said - I'll never regret campaigning for and voting for Hillary in 2000. And for Bill twice. And I've caught hell over this fact from other folks that descend from black people. But maybe, just maybe - are party is really turning towards the last, the least, and the lost in our country. I think at the end of the day - Obama represents that change/shift in our thinking. And as a Political Scientist/Communications major - and one who worships at the altar of FDR . . . this is a GOOD thing. The audacity of hope? Naaaaah. It's the audacity of getting back to basics for Americans. The Political Scientist in me says objectively? Obama has the look and feel of an FDR. He didn't care who you were, what you looked like, just that you were an American. THAT'S what Obama imparts on me. That same chutzpah that FDR had to say - Americans. We can do better. We can be better. We can be stronger.

The fact that Obama is half black is moot to - and it po's me to know end that the media and others can't see if its' moot to him. It ought to be moot to them. And these so-called PUMA's? I don't believe for one minute that they are dedicated Liberals and Progressives. Most liberals and progressives I know? They say "Oh well" (if they supported Clinton) - anybody other than a REPUBLICAN.

The MSM finds ways to praise the Clintons for shit that other Democrats running campaigns (or serving in elected offices) would get raked over the coals for.

You can get away with an affair or sleazy junkyard dog tactics if:

A.) Your last name is "Clinton"
B.) You're a conservative Republican who's willing to beg forgiveness from his evangelical base

Oh, but not if you're a closeted gay Republicans caught having a same-sex affair...all you'll receive is ridicule.

for the last 15 years. The only people I know who believe that are the same who believe there is a liberal media bias.

first with the non-concession speech and now the convention.

What's sad is that never again will there be a first black democratic nominee to celebrate.
There are no words to express how seriously fucked up this is.

What was said and done during the primaries doesn't hold a candle to the staining on these two historic moments for African Americans. It's one thing to be angered, it's quite another to be hurt. Intentionally, dismissively and unnecessarily hurt...for ego's sake.

What's really sad is that her supporters can't see it and don't care. Acting as if a historic run and loss is anywhere near the same as a historic run and win.

I wish there was only anger because people don't do hurt well.

You hit the nail on the head with that post WIllo.

I think it's that they refuse to see it.

I agree with the don't care part though.

Regards

We're in this boat together.

supporters like me who are now backing Obama. There's clearly anger on both sides but this kind of talk does not help unity at all and could hurt Obama's chances in November. AND it IS Obama's convention. Michelle and other members of his family are speaking Monday, his VP pick speaks on Wednesday and Obama's big night at a huge stadium in on Thursday. I think there's very little chance of Obama being overshadowed or being made to seem like it's not his convention. I am sure Hillary's speech will be about the importance of voting for Obama in November and the Democrats taking back the White House.

clear they still have lingering anger and resentment too. I'm not sure how they expect Clinton supporters to get over it when they haven't even gotten over it themselves, and their guy won!

Everyone's nerves are still very raw on both sides. We can't get over the primaries as long as more and more crap keeps coming up that won't allow us to move forward.

And people still have a need to express their feelings.

But it'll be over soon, and I'm sure we'll all be able to move on.

And they don't really have anything to get over since the accusations of race-baiting against the Clintons were totally unfair.

Steve

:eyes:

i beg to disagree.

what a helluva post. As a black woman it is a shame how many people on this progressive community don't it.

Thanks for breaking it down for them.

It is extremely frustrating to try to explain something to someone who is (seemingly) willfully obtuse.

Regards

There has always been something of a lack of respect coming from the most strident Clinton supporters. From Geraldine Ferraro saying Obama won because he is black, to Mark Penn saying Obama is foreign, to Bill Clinton not being able to say Obama is qualified to be President.

Hillary too wants to minimize him. Instead of saying he ran a wonderful race and he won fair and square, she says it is basically a tie. She doesn't give him credit. Now its more like support him because he will be better for women than John McCain. She damns him with faint praise.

Until I read Effie's post I didn't realize what I found so offensive about the Clinton attitude.

Now its all crystalized for me.

that would have gone a long way.

and he is enough of a pro to know when not to parse and be equivocal.

but he didn't and i wish he had. in my estimation, my respect for him decreased over this campaign.

and he should have let Hillary run her own damned campaign, i realize she wasn't doing a great job of it, but his contribution did not help.

is that the Clintons have not allowed Obama supporters have their well-deserved victory party. They could easily have called off their attack dogs (those that are really supporters and not just haters) and kept to the high road. But noooooooo . . .

Nobody trusts them anymore and this last minute demand for attention, with the nominations and the speeches by both Clintons (hey, why not have Chelsea speak, too?) is juvenile and makes me, as a woman, feel embarrassed that the first woman candidate to even come close to the nomination did so with the name recognition of her husband and the nasty campaign tactics of political thugs. I would proudly vote for any woman candidate who had the gravitas, class and judgment of Barack Obama.

On the 28th, I will finally get a chance to party for Obama without the albatross of potential Clinton treachery hanging around my neck.

compete for crumbs when they are not even in the same demographic category and when so many people are both Black and female. This OP makes no sense at all and could easily have been written by the RNC for the purpose of dividing and conquering the Democratic Party between two oppressed groups who should be united, since solidarity is strength.

or at least wake the hell up. This is real.

This post and many others in the past reflect a seperatist idealism. At this point we have to realise that....Yes the black community has been mistreated, marginalized and oppressed but they are not the only ones.

What the white feminist did was promote and even use to their advantage Black vs. White and who had more rights to certain things resulting in Black women breaking off and not respecting the rights of Black women as struggling women as well, or in general a struggling person.

There lacks a reality that, although there is strife it is not limited to one race or one type of person. This post annoyed me a bit because it delved and reawakened this sort of "dividing & conquering" you mentioned when in reality solidarity should be the key.

This was the probleme I had with Clinton's statements during the primary. Yes, there was sexism. Much of it coming from the media and some from McCain (none from Obama) but rather than focus on both the sexism AND racism that was projected through the primaries even some acts perpetrated by herself, racism was ignored and she put sexism on a pedestal to benefit her.

That's not change, that's like being disabled and using that as your leverage when in actuality there's nothing stopping you from completing the task, least of all your disability.

I'd like to thank McCamy Taylor for pointing this out and really going to the heart of the matter for me.

Really.

I'd pull the lever for her right now! In fact, when I voted for Barack it was in part a vote for Michelle.
You post some informed stuff, thanks.

did not "win" was placed in the nomination pool at the convention. Udall comes to mind. The fact that this current circumstance has become a black vs. white or Clinton vs. Obama or even male vs. female controversy underscores the neediness all segments of our society feel following decades of strife and disappointment.

Personally, I don't feel that women or people of color, especially women of color, have been harmed by this nomination process. The move to place Clinton in nomination in no way destroys Obama, the campaign, or the Dem. platform.

We don't really know what is going on with Obama, Clinton and the Democratic convention at this point. As somebody mentioned, we are being flogged with the skewered and vapid speculation of the Maureen Dowds and the right-wing media.

Obama's campaign says they "couldn't be happier" with Clinton's campaign. Given the fact that they have orchestrated so much of the campaign beautifully, I suspect we will see unified and motivated convention that will honor both accomplishments with the ultimate spotlight focusing on Obama, the candidate of the Democratic party and the American people.

Jesse Jackson got put into nomination in both 84 and 88.

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed my point entirely.

It was more the manipulation of the 'isms' by the Clintons in a sad symbiosis with their sense of entitlement than actual 'isms' that cast a shadow on this contest. In other words, she didn't lose because of sexism.

And the AA community has every right to feel the Clintons are stepping on Obama's candidacy because they are, and it would not be tolerated if it were the other way around.

The Clintons have sucked all the joy out of this process and it is up to them to restore it at the convention as opposed to their usual M.O. of promoting themselves. We shall see if they are up to the task.

We're all screwed if McCain gets to mount a surge on the anti-American and failed Bush agenda.

Hillary should be placed in to the roll call like anyone else would be and hopefully that will make some inroads with some of the hold outs.

Clinton supporters have to admit (even if it's unfair) that the PUMAS and other deadender/Republicans that have "taken up the cause" maintain a level of tension. You have to be thinking pretty clearly and unemotionally to separate more legit supporters from the nut cases that are working hard to sew division and anger in the party.

Senator Clinton and her supporters could help by being more forceful in repudiating these people.

Senator Obama's supporters must be mindful that the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters are behind Obama and that these "If not Hillary then McCain" types are mostly Republicans and retards.

Folks on both sides and in the middle need to act with purpose, rather than emotion. There is in my mind, a complete lack of sensitivity regarding offensive remarks from those they tend to agree with. Obama supporters have a tendency to speak without the magnanimity expected of a winner and insufficent respect for the views of others and Clinton supports similarly seem blind to their insulting tones and expressions of conditional support. Clinton supports are, in my opinion, overly sensitive about their candidate.

Both groups are way to quick to cry sexism and racism, even against the Republicans. The most obvious form of stupidity is not always the one behind the current act of stupidity.

There is not an issue yet in this long campaign that should come anywhere near overshadowing keeping our eyes on the prize. Even often bashed white men will take some hard shots if we allow Obama to fail.

Both the "we don't need them" and the "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" attitudes need to go far away. This is idiotic, we are putting personality ahead of policies. Platform battles are understood and crucial and the person carrying the banner for them of course has to "take it to the convention" to make sure the platform is reflective of the people the party represents.
That's not what is happening here. There isn't enough platform difference for all this upset. This is about person. The person is meaningless other their ability and dedication to our principles.

We cannot allow ourselves to care more about two people than 300 million and really 6 billion. I'd rather pull both of these two faces down and go with another figurehead than have all this bitterness over a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with policy.

Holy shit!!! I'd rather just throw out luke warm Bayh or some such and just win than lose with better, more representative candidates.

Stop trying to find ways to lose, there is nothing worth bickering about. Anyone who thinks we don't need to ramp up our efforts to flush America down the toilet needs to be focused on electing Barack Obama President. Anything else is a distraction, except packing the Congress and State Houses.

that if roles were reversed things would be very, very different ...

nuff said

:eyes:

For example, what specific "language" did the Clintons try to insert in the Democratic platform are you referring to? And what does the "Opportunity for African-Americans" part of your post have to do with the Clintons?

platform contain the following plank:

Opportunity for Women
We, the Democratic Party, are the party that has produced more women Governors,
Senators, and Members of Congress than any other. We have produced first woman
Secretary of State, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, in
2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman in American history to win presidential
primaries in our nation. We believe that our daughters should have the
same opportunities as our sons; our party is proud that we have put 18 million cracks in
the highest glass ceiling. We know that when America extends its promise to women, the
result is increased opportunity for families, communities, and aspiring people
everywhere.

When women still earn 76 cents for every dollar that a man earns, it doesn’t just hurt
women; it hurts families and children. We will pass the “Lilly Ledbetter” Act, which will
make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will
modernize the Equal Pay Act. We will invest in women-owned small businesses and
remove the capital gains tax on start-up small businesses. We will support women in
math and science, combat sex-discrimination and increase American competitiveness by
retaining the best workers in those fields, regardless of gender. We recognize that women
still carry the majority of childrearing responsibilities so we have created a
comprehensive work and family agenda. We recognize that women are the majority of
adults who make the minimum wage, and are particularly hard-hit by recession and
poverty. We will protect Social Security, expand programs to combat poverty and
improve education so that parents and children can lift themselves out of poverty. We
will work to combat violence against women.

We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all
intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of
our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.


I simply replaced "women" with "African Americans" to demonstrate my point - we would NEVER see a plank in a Democratic platform like this that applied to African Americans. And we no why - because if an African-American presidential candidate who came in second pushed for such a thing, they and their supporters would have been lambasted for playing racial politics.

I agree with your OP in full. I feel both the frustration and anger at how Hillary is orchestrating this; she set it up this way, she is encouraging it. Any mature and politically savvy supporter isn't bothering with this; it is only the easily manipulated ones that are following Ms. Clinton's lead, begging them to stroke her ego just one more time. I don't think she can buy a clue about the fact that her failed ambitions and refusal to get off the stage might be impacting Obama's moment. I wish the first woman candidate had been one of good character and real strength instead of this.

fwiw, I know history will not be kind to Hillary over how she handled her run as the first woman candidate, nor about how she carried on inappropriately well after the fact that another nominee instead of her was chosen.

I'm sorry I got here too late to Recommend it.

:thumbsup: