Prometheus 6

We'll return to politics in a moment. First, here's a fascinating article from today's NYT Science page:

The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.

We now return you to the so-called "real" world of politics.

Why is Hillary's error suddenly our collective burden?

Because for Clinton and her supporters to admit they played the race card and were decisively rebuked is simply too overwhelming for them to accept as real. If they played the race card, then their perception of themselves and how far we have supposedly come in America with regard to race is revealed to be false. (Wasn't it T.S. Eliot who wrote that "humankind cannot bear too much reality"?) We have, in short, been marching in circles. 

So the sense of outrage that many black and non-black Americans feel about the behavior of the Clinton campaign is being tamped down  and diverted in the name of Democratic Party unity. The views and beliefs of African Americans are always sacrificed in such a process. Look, for example, at the U.S. labor movement.  

So the sense of outrage that many black and non-black Americans feel about the behavior of the Clinton campaign is being tamped down  and diverted in the name of Democratic Party unity.

It's worse than that.

The media is complict. Republican and Conservative commentariat are complict. It's about saving the American self-image.

Yes, you are right. I thought about riffing on this but I up hauled too soon. All of these folks are complicit. And black folks are expendable even the delusional ones who believe that Hillary is being swift-boated.

Quaker in A Basement - Here is a quotation I found in the December 2007 issue of The Sun:

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the univserse is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

Douglas Adams 

I haven't been following this very closely, but it seems that each of the "racist" statements from the Clinton campaign falls into at least one of 3 categories.

1. Objectionable and repudiated by Senator Clinton

2. Made by someone over whom the Clintons have very little control

3. Innocuous until taken out of context and blown out of proportion

Again, I haven't followed this as closely as you, so what is it I'm missing?

The 9 Billion Names of God...,

Joe, I dispute your number two.

Ezra Klein elaborates:

It's hard to imagine this many sophisticated, liberal political operators making this many mistakes, of this type. Not saying it's impossible, merely hard to imagine. And so it's worth wondering if there's not a coordinated strategy among the Clintons to force a conversation over race.

Now, if you're starting with the 'fairy tale' thing, your number two is plausible. But I'm going back to when the Clintons began this tactic.

That article is too weird even for me, Quaker.

P6,

I have discovered in the last few minutes that it is not only the Republican-Conservative Commentariat that wants to hush this issue up but young supporters of Obama who feel, as they have expressed it, that this issue is "old poliitcs" and that they (notice the emphasis on themselves) are about "new politics."

We are marching in circles.     

Oh, well. I'm not an Obama supporter anyway.

"...the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs..."

So-called "Hindu" cosmology presents this notion of the cyclic model theory of the universe in the Brahmanda Purana. According to the story, when Brahma awakens a universe is created, when Brahma sleeps the universe (material world) is dissolved.

I just read Ezra Klein's post for the first time, and my immediate reaction is

1 Drug use isn't a racial issue to me. It was in bounds against Clinton and Bush, and it should be against Obama. My thinking is that voters won't care. At least he didn't lie about it.

2 I had no idea what 'shuck and jive' was, but now that I've looked it up I guess you have a valid complaint.

3 LBJ vs MLK. pretty stupid on Clinton's part to try to paint LBJ as more effective, admirable, or whatever than MLK, but that doesn't make it a black vs white thing. It makes it a politician vs activist thing.

Again, I came to this party late, but it seems like people have to stretch each example (with perhaps a few exceptions) to get them to fit in the 'playing the race card' category. So I'm having a hard time understanding the passion that comes across in your posts.

Perhaps if someone has published a more extensive list of Clinton's offenses it would help me to understand, but from the isolated quotes I've seen, mostly from your posts for the last couple of weeks, there doesn't seem to be a pattern of race baiting by the Clintons.

"Why is Hillary's error suddenly our collective burden?"

Because "race" is "black" folks problem. "White" people, so-called, don't have a "race" problem. According to the ideology upon which racism is grounded, so-called "whites" are normal (human), everyone else is sub-human or "other." Consequently, any discussion or conflict involving the idea of "race" must be the fault of those who are the bearers of race in "white" (normal) society. That means us. In the minds of "whites" we are always "playing the race card." We don't have any choice. All we have to do is show our faces to invoke the spectre of race and the racism that follows inexorably in its wake.

Joe:

Drug use isn't a racial issue to me.

How about drug sales?

And how about this:

“It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim.

And this:

A few notes here -- first, Mark Penn really shouldn't be on TV. I could almost smell him through my computer screen. To see what I mean, check out the exchange beginning at 3:50 (specifically, at 4:14). Penn, pretending to backtrack from the Obama drug allegations, goes out of his way to throw the word "cocaine" out there. Trippi rightly calls him out though. Penn's tactic here is hardly novel (see, e.g., Edwards praising Cheney's love for his lesbian daughter in the debate), but Penn is so transparently phony that it doesn't work.

Second, check out the exchange beginning at 5:30. The look that Trippi gives Penn at about 5:45 is priceless. It's quick - but it's just pure disgust. I thought it was hilarious.

Assuming three such experienced operatives, including Shaheen, accidentally made such statements pretty much simultaneously really stretches credulity.

What the Clinton campaign is implying with the MLK/LBJ comparison is that black people have been symbols of change in the march towards racial justice but it has always been white people who have been the architects of change.  It is tantamount to saying that "Lincoln freed the slaves."  By this same token, LBJ was only a supporter of civil rights during the last third of his political career.  Before that, he was the dedicated pupil of segregationists.  Moreover, the Clintons never hauled through the landmark changes brought about the Johnson administration.  For Hillary to claim that she is following in his footsteps, not to mention MLK's, is ludicrious.   

Actually, I don't think that a drug sales accusation is racist, but it's probably below the belt. I wasn't familiar with that charge, so I Googled it and came up with Billy Shaheen, who got the boot for it. And the actual quotes that I read were much less incendiary than some of the reporting on it. I'd say that was blown out of proportion as well as being repudiated by the Clintons.

I don't know much about Bob Kerrey except that he's never been much of a friend to the Clintons. You can't say he's very close to the campaign. I read what he said and watched his explanation. He seemed sincere, but that would make him pretty stupid, or at least naive. It's more likely that he knew what he was doing, but given how transparent it was, that would be pretty stupid too. I'd have to say that this falls into category 2 unless it fits into a pattern.

I guess you're saying that saying 'Cocaine' is worse than saying 'drugs'? Maybe it is. And maybe that means Clinton's going negative, but where's the racial aspect of that?

Again, I have to go back to the political leader / social activist distinction rather than white / black. Everything Clinton has done suggests that she believes that the way to bring about change is to directly attain political power and use it, rather than indirectly attain it through activism.

At least we agree that she has no valid claim to the civil rights legacy of either LBJ or MLK

That article is too weird even for me, Quaker.

Then see PTC's explanation, above. Haw!

You know, I've noted that folks felt punched in the stomach by the MLK crack but I actually feel it literally was meaningless. Its whole purpose was to set up the discussion to make people forget that burst of Southern Strategy.

According to the neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, given the number of individual cells and interconnections among them, there are more unique brain states possible within a single human brain than there are atomic particles in the entire known universe. Of course some of those brain states are entirely nonconscious. At the same time, many of the atomic particles make up Jonah Goldberg, so it's a wash.

And the actual quotes that I read were much less incendiary than some of the reporting on it.

You don't need reporting to judge, all you need is repeating.

I'd say that was blown out of proportion as well as being repudiated by the Clintons.

Given Kerrey's bleating and Penn's repeating AFTER Shaheen resigned, I would not.

You can't say he's very close to the campaign.

Sure I can.

I'd have to say that this falls into category 2 unless it fits into a pattern.

It does. Offend, explain you didn't mean to offend. Shaheen, Kerry, Penn. Speaking of whom, I notice you make no comment about his video performance. That alone gives visual confirmation of smarminess.

I guess you're saying that saying 'Cocaine' is worse than saying 'drugs'?

I did not write that. Therefore I did not say that. 

And maybe that means Clinton's going negative, but where's the racial aspect of that?

I can explain that easy as 1-2-3. 

At the same time, many of the atomic particles make up Jonah Goldberg, so it's a wash.

Okay, I like that one. 

Actually, the first time I read how many elementary particles there are in the universe I laughed hysterically at the hubris.

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident+Tracker

Everything Clinton has done suggests that she believes that the way to bring about change is to directly attain political power and use it, rather than indirectly attain it through activism.

And what does that have to do with Barack Obama, Joe.  He is not running for the highest office for activists.  He, too, is seeking to bring change DIRECTLY by running for the office of the president just like Hillary.  For Hillary to either lose sight of the bs she tried to start which tried to situate herself as THE WORKHORSE and Obama as the SHOWHORSE (and that's putting it mildly because there are, indeed, racial over/undertones to that "showhorse", wait your turn) or, worst, a SHOWHORSE that's little more than an activist - i.e. not a serious or worthy candidate for political office.

Charles Rangel tried to say it was stupid to infer (which Obama never did) that MLK could have passed the civil rights legislation that MLK didn't think was all that anyway (in the final analysis).  What's STUPID is the very idea of Hillary making the non-point of saying "it took a president."  Well, no sh*t Sherlocke.  The problem is, even if MLK wanted to be:  could he have been the president to both be an activist and a person with the political power to put his "dream" and activist vision into reality?

The answer to that question goes to the core of America's racism and to dare elevate LBJ with that classic White Benefactor/Emancipator/Savior narrative as if LBJ underwent some emaculate transformation is not only stupid but dishonest and an insult to Black people's intelligence.  Plus it was rather conspicuously absent:  any reference to the WHITE JFK's dreams/visions that "took a president" (and others with political power) to be realized.

Did you forget that?  Did you forget JFK was mentioned?  WHY DID HILLARY?  

Now, for you to try to dismiss the drug DEALER (and the Muslim) smears as race-baiting, racist tactics... Well, that shows how you have no credibility or no interest in being honest.  Those smears don't exist in a vacuum absent of the common racial stereotypes that float throughout American culture.  For you to try that drug USE thing and note how Clinton was criticized for it but then fail to talk about how Clinton was NEVER... Bush was NEVER questioned about being DRUG DEALERS then... you're a waste of denying cyberspace.  

And what does that have to do with Barack Obama, Joe

It seems clear that she's trying to contrast herself as someone who gets things done, vs Obama who inspires and motivates people. Clearly Obama does inspire people, so her only chance is to convince people that she would be more effective in getting things done. I'm not saying she's right, just that that's her message.

Obama as the SHOWHORSE

I'd say she was casting him in the role of MLK, who was hardly a "showhorse", and also trying to position herself as the candidatet who can get things done.

elevate LBJ with that classic White Benefactor/Emancipator/Savior narrative

I didn't take that from it at all. It's important to remember that she's pushing this legislator vs motivator narrative because it's all she's got. LBJ wasn't always pointed in the right direction, but he was pretty good at getting things done.

Plus it was rather conspicuously absent: any reference to the WHITE JFK's dreams/visions that "took a president"

I'm not sure what you mean there. I just watched her original comments (for the first time) and she did mention that JFK hadn't gotten it done. Again, I guess she was going for the popular, charismatic leader vs the one who got things done.

drug DEALER (and the Muslim) smears as race-baiting, racist tactics

I don't think I dismissed the Mulsim one, and for argument, I'll accept the drug dealing accusation as racist. It was quickly (I think) repudiated by the campaign.

I thank you for taking the time to have this discussion . Just please don't question my sincerity again. I'm really trying to understand all of the passion that this issue has aroused. I may not be much closer to that, but at least I'm better informed than I was when I got here.

Prometheus 6

Thank you for pointing me to that post, but doesn't it just support what I'm saying?

Last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton's state co-chairman resigned his position

I assume that's Shaheen

...forwarded the infamous email by an unnamed "Clinton county chair." who was fired

As he should have been

Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign

and then the third one was fired

Phil Singer of the Clinton camp e-mailed a Politico story on Sen. Barack Obama

I just scanned the article, and I don't know enough to know if the facts are right, but there didn't seem to be anything objectionable about it.

So adding up everything I've been able to gather so far, along with their categories, we have

• 1 or 3 - Shaheen, who was fired
• 3 - Bob Johnson, presumably alluding to drug use
• 1 - A county coordinator, who was fired
• 1 - 3 volunteers, who were fired
• 3 - A forwarded non-racist article
• 3 - An ill advised contrast of LBJ and MLK
• 2 or none - Bob Kerrey who may or may not be close to the campaign. (You said you could say that he was close, not that he was close. I'm learning to read you very carefully.)
• 3 - 'Shucking and Jiving' from Cuomo
• 3 - Penn saying 'Cocaine' and looking smarmy
• 3 - Clinton calling Obama's opposition to the war a fairy tale

I put Cuomo in category 3 because I just read a transcript of the interview, and neither the question nor the answer were about Obama at all. As far as I can tell, this one is pure fiction.

I'm having a hard time finding a racial pattern in all of this. I can understand liking Obama and disliking Clinton for a variety of reasons, but I don't see the pattern of racisim that you describe.

Thank you again for spending the time to enlighten me on this.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

Basically, Black folks have seen how others' reactions toward us change when certain concepts are activated. Shaheen, Kerrey and Penn hit all the big ones. That, in my experience, tends to be intentional.

And again, the timing of the remarks strongly suggest they were coordinated...these guys are marketing people, not policy people.

Shaheen wasn't fired, he quit. And his next job will determine whether he's rewarded or penalized for this.  

Black folks have seen how others' reactions toward us change when certain concepts are activated.

I suppose you would know better than I. That raises another important question. Don't you think the Republicans are going do far more of that in the general election if Obama wins the primary? They're far better at it than any Democrats.

The main reason I prefer Hillary is that I think she's more likely to survive the inevitable Republican sliming. She's been pretty well innoculated. How do you see Obama getting through the sliming and the subtle (or not so subtle) racial attacks?

The main reason I prefer Hillary is that I think she's more likely to survive the inevitable Republican sliming.

Amusing assumption. What, exactly, does Republican sliming actually do to you? Does it change the mind of anyone who has one? 

Does it change the mind of anyone who has one?

If negative campaigning doesn't work, then why do you care if Clinton does it? And for that matter, why would she do it?

This is a little of the path of what has been discussed, but it relates to Obama.  What differentiates Obama from the black politicians who were controlled by white political machines in the north during the Great Migration?  Is Obama little more than a glorified Oscar De Priest?  Have the parameters for black politicians really changed much since the New Deal? 

If negative campaigning doesn't work, then why do you care if Clinton does it?

I can explain that easy as 1-2-3. 

Another lesson in reading me carefully. Now...can you answer MY question?

And for that matter, why would she do it?

Reflex.

ubstu34, unless you specifically want my view, I'm going to let a pro-Obama person field that.

The objection is to the Clinton campaign's efforts to use racially charged innuendo and coded phrasing to smear Obama.

OK, I read it again. It seems to me that the answer to why you care is at the end

Hillary must lose. If she doesn't, it's open season on Black people, probably for another century, because she will have shown it's an effective plan, a way to win.

So I guess you're saying that a racist campaign can be effective, but not that it will be effective.

To answer your question, yes, I do think negative campaigning can be effective in two ways. First, it can change peolpe's minds. I personally know people who turned against Kerry because of the swiftboating. Now, I'm not sure they are 'thinking' people, but not all voters are. Second, it can be a big distraction for the person being attacked, and forces them to expend a lot of energy on a non-issue. I didn't watch the debate last night, but the from accounts I read, a lot of time was spent on race rather than policy

So how about my question? How do you see Republican negative/racist campaigning affecting Obama in the general election? What do you think about his chances vs Clinton's in the general election? Can't we expect a lot more of this from the Republicans?

How do you see Republican negative/racist campaigning affecting Obama in the general election...Can't we expect a lot more of this from the Republicans?

Sure. Then Liberals will have to decide whether a progressive government is more important than their unsupported racial fears, won't they?

MY issue is not electoral, and I don't expect an election to settle them in any event. For those whose issues are electoral, I say what I did back when The Clintons failed to invite any minority bloggers to their Harlem planning session: think of Black folks as the allies you claim we are and it's all simple.

I mean, are we suggesting Catholic candidates have to prove they aren't the child molesters so many of their spiritual advisors turned out to be? Do we even raise the issue?

Second, it can be a big distraction for the person being attacked, and forces them to expend a lot of energy on a non-issue. I didn't watch the debate last night, but the from accounts I read, a lot of time was spent on race rather than policy

And whose fault was that?

It sounds sort of like, "See how easy we can tar and feather you, just imagine what people who don't like you will say! You better step back...it's for your own good."

Liberals will have to decide whether a progressive government is more important than their unsupported racial fears, won't they?

I have no doubt liberals will back him. The problem is that it's not only liberals voting in the general election. I fear that his support outside of the liberal base will erode once the Republicans start hammering away.

I mean, are we suggesting Catholic candidates have to prove they aren't child molesters?

I'm not sure where you're going there. Remember I'm new to this whole reading carefully thing, so forgive me if I get this wrong. You're saying that just because Obama is black, he shouldn't have to prove he's not a drug dealer/pimp/insert stereotype here? Of course that's true.

Again, I don't see the drug dealer thing as being necessarily racist. I think it comes up because he admitted to using cocaine. It didn't come up with Bush because he refused to answer questions about it, and it didn't come up with Clinton because he only admitted to smoking pot once and not inhaling. To me the whole thing is irrelevant, but certainly not racial.

I checked out the link rikyrah posted of the list of attacks on Obama, and was struck by how may of them seemed inoffensive, or at least non-racial to me.

Ptcruiser wrote

The objection is to the Clinton campaign's efforts to use racially charged innuendo and coded phrasing to smear Obama.

But what I read contained very little that I could identify as being racist. I suppose that's the point of innuendo and coded phrasing, but I suspect that almost all white democratic primary voters would miss any racial undertones. Included in this would be selling drugs, 'shuck and jive', kid, spadework. Now it's perfecly understandable that you would be more tuned in than me to coded racial attacks. It would be surprising if you weren't. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by them, that's for you to decide. My point is that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that you took offense where none was intended. After all, the Democrats aren't the experts in "the southern strategy".

And I'm not saying that you shouldn't be offended by them, that's for you to decide.

 You should be  offended by their behaviror as well and if you are not then what is your purpose in posting on this site?

And whose fault was that?

It's because the issue has been raised. I happen to think it's been overhyped, but we disagree on that. The point is that it becomes a distraction, and from what I read about the debate, more for Obama than for Clinton.

See how easy we can tar and feather you, just imagine what people who don't like you will say! You better step back...it's for your own good

That brings up something that I'd been wanting to write, but hadn't had an opportunity to. That is, that I'd probably support Obabma more if I liked him less. I think he's a very impressive man who has a lot to offer the country, and I believe that he will be President one day. I just don't know if he's ready for the way the Republicans will attack him if he wins the nomination. They will throw everything they have at him...not because he's black, not because he used drugs, but because that's what they do.

Obama hasn't had too long on the national scene, and it's reasonable to wonder if he's ready for that.

Having said that, I don't believe it's helpful for the Clinton's to do the GOP's work for them. I personally think that's below the belt, but again, not racial. I can see the condescension in it, but condescension happens all the time, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with race.

You should be offended by their behaviror as well and if you are not then what is your purpose in posting on this site?

We both agree that racial campaiging is offensive, we just disagree on whether, or to what extent it's happening.

As I wrote in my first comment, my original purpose was to find out what I was missing, and I've learned a lot. I thank you for that.

Having said that, I don't believe it's helpful for the Clinton's to do the GOP's work for them. I personally think that's below the belt, but again, not racial. I can see the condescension in it, but condescension happens all the time, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with race.

You admit that the Clintons raised the racial issue, but you say it wasn't racial for them to do so.

That's your position, right? 

"I just don't know if he's ready for the way the Republicans will attack him if he wins the nomination. They will throw everything they have at him...not because he's black, not because he used drugs, but because that's what they do."

Let's see ... The boy's daddy is from Kenya, mama from Kansas, grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, first black editor of the Harvard Law Review (founded 1887), community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, elected to the U.S. Senate, etc.... I think he's navigated and negotiated the racial ethos in this country pretty well. And as a Constitution Law professor, I would imagine he would have learned something about the "racial contract" enacted in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The point is ... a man of his intelligence and diverse background has had plenty of experience dealing with racists and bigots. I think he's demonstrated that during the past week. I ain't saying dude is superman with a cape, or moses, or jeebus or anything like that. I just think he can defend himself because that's what we do. That's what intelligent people do.

I believe Obama can think outside the box. He can find intelligent ways to neutralize and counteract the bullshit from his own personal experiences. The question is: can he act outside the box?

Joe

Anyone who has the audacity to take on the Clintons, surely has what it takes to take on the Republicans.  The Clintons' bullshit may not be as explicit, but it's just as sinister.  They play to win no matter what the cost.    

You admit that the Clintons raised the racial issue, but you say it wasn't racial for them to do so. That's your position, right?

That's incorrect, but rereading what I wrote I can see how it might interpreted that way. I guess I have to learn to write more carefully too. In my mind, I was tracking that thread back to where I wrote

To answer your question, yes, I do think negative campaigning can be effective

So I was referring ito negative campaigning in general, which it looks like the Clinton campagn is guilty of.

I just think he can defend himself because that's what we do.

I'll accept that he may be more able to defend himself than we might expect. My concern is that character assasination seems to have a definite lifecycle. When the Republicans really decide to go after you, you're going to get knocked down, at least for a little while. It doesn't matter who you are. It happened to Gore, it happened to Kerry, and it happened to Hillary. Hillary was fortunate that they attacked her during her husband's administration, so while her image took a beating, her political career was unaffected. Kerry and Gore weren't so lucky.

I'm sure Obabma is willing to fight the Republicans when they come after him, and I'm sure he'll eventually win. My concern is that the election could be long over by the time he does.

They play to win no matter what the cost.

The difference, I think, is that while the Clintons are highly motivated, they don't have an unlimited number of similarly motivated surrogates who will do "whatever it takes" to win.

The Republicans have a lot of special interests that are highly motivated because they have a lot at stake. They see any Democratic candidate as a mortal enemy. It's hard get that kind of "whatever it takes" attitude in a Democratic primary fight.

Joe, I think you're the only person in the world who doesn't think the Clintons were dealing in race baiting.

If you don't want to take my word for it, here's a couple of white guys who had no problem identifying their technique on The News Hour. Plus Drum, Benen, Klein...

I feel so...validated...

here's a couple of white guys who had no problem identifying their technique on The News Hour.

Again, based on the premise that drug use(or sharing) is a racial issue. As a white person who has used and shared drugs, I don't see it that way.

Drum, Klein, and Benen also seem way less convinced than you.

It still looks to me (not being as attuned to these things as you) like Clinton trying to take advantage of the drug issue, Obama, or his supporters, playing the victim, and the press hyping the whole thing.

Let me just pose this question. Was Obama engaging in race baiting when he wrote in his book that he had used cocaine in his youth?

I don't think so, and the Clinton campaign wasn't (necessarily) race baiting when they raised it.

It also occurs to me that the drug issue was bound to get raised, and it will benefit Obama to go through it now so it will be an old issue by the general election. Not that that excuses it.

Sorry Joe .

And not to put too fine a point on it, but "racist" is the only word that makes white people as crazy as "nigger" makes Black people. It makes them crazier. White people don't want to hear you talk about ANY white person being racist. They'll start telling you how many Black friends they have (I was going to quote an example from the net, but nevermind).

White folks have to see a great number of openly racist events to admit that even ONE happened. Drum, Benen and Klein all gave Clinton one more chance...that means they are MORE convinced than I.

My life experience supports my judgment. I've been considering these issues long before these specific events.

The Clintons even now consider us events to be manipulated (and thank you, Nanette). I'm now beyond identifying their Southern Strategy gestures and am moving to domonstrating how the media is helping to hide the worst of it behind an MLK firewall.

Have you learned what you wanted to know?

Have you learned what you wanted to know?

I have. Thank you for your patience with me

Not a problem, seriously. I'm not kind to people who bring nothing but boilerplate, noise and spin. I have near infinite patioence for real discussion from pretty much all directions.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but "racist" is the only word that makes white people as crazy as "nigger" makes Black people. It makes them crazier. White people don't want to hear you talk about ANY white person being racist.

Is that yours, P? (I followed the links, but I got tangled in the nested quotes. I'm not certain if that's you speaking or if you're quoting somebody else.) Whether it is or not, I'm totally stealing it and not feeling a bit embarrassed about it.

Yeah...that preceeded the racism and reparations discussions, even.

You might as well steal it...Ampersand at Alas, A Blog bases a post on it periodically.