Prometheus 6

I will jack Br. Ed up. In the first place, Br. Ed is the person who injected race into the discussion with the editorial board. His defense with Chris Matthews about we have to get to a point where a white person can criticize a black candidate and vice-versa without race becoming an issue is pathetic. Br. Ed was not addressing any policy issues or positions that Senator Obama has taken during the campaign. This is a Democratic governor who would not have been a mayor of Philadelphia or, later, the governor of Pennsylvania save for the overwhelming support he received from black voters living in and around Philadelphia. Did you notice, however, that at no point did Br. Ed refer to himself as a Jew. He does not hide that fact (nor should he) but he does not go out of his way to call attention to it either.

The South Carolina voter was being honest but Ed Rendell has depended on black folks to help him attain elective office. If he wants to support Hillary Clinton that is fine by me but be a man about it, not a weasel mouth wuss. Y'know what it means to be a mensch, Br. Ed, don't you?

The only problem I have with what he said here was when he said we have to get to a place where you can debate a Black person on the issues without getting called racist. You can, of course...you just have to stay away from racist associations while doing so.

True, P6, but the clip did not show Br. Ed expressing any concerns about Obama's positions. He talked about the views of white conservative voters in Pennsylvania. (James Carville famously covered this territory in 1992 when he said of Pennsylvania, "From Paoli to Auburn Hills, it's all Alabama.") So is he not supporting Obama because he disagrees with Obama's positions or is he not supporting Obama because he does not want to offend white conservative voters?

Br. Ed's objections to Obama could be based on one or both factors but he needs to clarify the case, not duck and dodge and engage in solipsistic argumentation. Br. Ed is an attorney but I ain't stupid.

How would a self identified Jew know what our white brethern will do? Does he profess to speak for our white brethern?

Quicktime is the devil. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

So is he not supporting Obama because he disagrees with Obama's positions or is he not supporting Obama because he does not want to offend white conservative voters?

Why does it matter? He didn't support Obama well before the interview that opened the topic.

Quicktime is the devil.

It's just the player...the file is an MP3.

It matters because his motivation is being discussed.

Not in the original interview. But okay, that's why you care. I just don't find it significant.

I find it significant because he is shifting responsibility for where he stands onto the backs of white conservative voters in Pennsylvania. The reality is that Br. Ed has no real idea where these voters stand on Clinton or Obama. Br. Ed slanders them to justify his own lack of candor. If he wanted to forthrightly declare that he did not believe that he or the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania should risk its political capital by supporting a black presidential candidate then we could have a discussion about the pros and cons of that position. He does not want to have an honest discussion about that issue because a large part of his and the Pennsylvania Democratic Party's political capital is made up of black voters.

He wants instead to duck under the political skirts and alleged racism of white conservative voters and shift the blame for his stance onto their backs.

I find it significant because he is shifting responsibility for where he stands onto the backs of white conservative voters in Pennsylvania.

I didn't hear that.

I think Rendell's statement gives us a pretty clear look at the thinking inside the Clinton campaign.

Analogy. Please bear with me.

The sales manager at a business--an auto dealership--wants to hire a new salesman. He interviews a top notch candidate: experienced, professional, and black. He thinks the candidate has all the right qualifications, but he's afraid his customers won't buy cars from a black salesman.

If he allows his assumptions--about his customers, not about the salesman--to influence his decision, are his actions racist?

Let's make the situation even clearer. The sales manager is leaning toward hiring the black candidate until a white salesman takes him aside and convinces him that customers won't buy cars from a black salesman--and by the way, the white salesman's best friend is looking for a job.

Even if one gives the sales manager a pass, the actions of the salesman can't be excused.

Somewhere in here I think there's an analog for the Clinton campaign's actions. I would be surprised if Gov. Rendell (or either of the Clintons) actually thinks Mr. Obama is incapable of the job because he's black. Gov. Rendell may be giving us an honest account of his opinion of white voters.

Here's the rub. Even if that's what Gov. Rendell honestly believes, he takes a couple of giant steps over the line when he uses his own fears as a campaign tactic. At that point, he's acting more like the self-interested salesman than the fearful sales manager.

I don't even see why he bothered to bring it up.

The voters who won't vote for Obama because he's black probably don't vote Democratic anyway. They certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman.

I am not all that certain those voters would even vote for McCain in the general either. Perhaps they'll just stay home and masturbate to Jerry Springer. That would be better for democracy anyway.

There's people like that in every state. But not enough to be a factor.

I don't even see why he bothered to bring it up.

There's a limited set of possibilities.

ptcruiser said what was on my mind originally. When the big-city Jewish Democratic governor who won by 17 points says his electorate won't vote for someone because they're too prejudiced, that's just crazy. I want to ask him, assuming that's true, are you saying they would vote for a woman named Clinton, Ed?

Let's add this scenario to your car dealership dilemma. The pastors of the largest black churches in the area have been buying their personal and church-owned vehicles from this particular dealer for years. In addition, many members of their congregations have been purchasing cars from the same dealer. Recently, the ministers have expressed concerns about the lack of black employees at the dealership. They have hinted that they will take their business elsewhere if some changes are not made soon. Are their actions racist? Does the dealer tell them that he isn't prejudiced but many of his white customers are and that they should understand his dilemma? That is, continue buying cars from his dealership although he will not hire a black salesperson.

See, Br. Ed wants it both ways too. How white conservatives may vote is really not in contention because we do not know what they want. Speculations based on their alleged lack of support for Lynn Swann is not in play here, either.   

That works, ptc.

How white conservatives may vote is really not in contention because we do not know what they want.

Precisely right. You have stated, succinctly, why Gov. Rendell's statement smells of mackerel. If I give him the benefit of every doubt, he's projecting his own bias onto others. If I don't, then he's being intentionally dishonest.