Prometheus 6

i think this was the article i read yesterday that upset me to no end. it still does.

but then i recall what krugman has written in regards to most partisan conflict covered by the media. in the act of carrying out their mission of supposed "objectivity" they'd say "the democrats believe that the sun rises in the east. republicans disagree."

this is the exact same dynamic, only again, it is WITHIN the party.

the last season of the wire becomes more and more important every day. 

START HERE:

"...resigned from the campaign after being criticized by Mr. Obama’s advisers, among others, for her recent comments"

and here:

"Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed substantial support from women..."

They meant to say "WHITE WOMEN, of English and Spanish-speaking ancestry." 

and ultimately reside here: 

"The Tuesday primary in Mississippi, a state where the electorate has historically been racially polarized, generated one of the most divided votes."

Oh, so Fannie Lou Hamer brought her petition for justice from a "polarized" state.  It's polarized.  Right.  That's a nice euphemism.  It's exactly the reason why I continue to wipe my ass with the Times.  Sometimes, the pain is excruciating, but the satisfaction is seeing those pages twist down the bowl is indescribable.  And I believe it goes without saying that I NEVER pay for that brand of toilet paper.

"King and chief probably had a big beef; 'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.

I could have done without that visual, man.    

"King and chief probably had a big beef;
'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.

This comment has been moved here.

Obama won Wyoming overwhelmingly just three days before the Mississippi primary. Yet all we've heard about the last couple of days is how whites in Mississippi (goddamn) didn't vote for him. Obama's margin of victory was 61% to 37%. That's a 24% margin of victory in a primary where blacks comprised 50% of voters, whites 48%, and others 2%. He received 91% of the black vote but clearly couldn't have won without white folks in Mississippi. The fact that Obama's percentage of the white vote (26%) was three times the percentage of the black vote Hillary received (8%) gets ignored or overlooked so the MSM can continue to promote their narrative about racial polarization in the electorate.

Whites in Mississippi (goddamn) gave Obama his victory just as they have in every other primary and caucus he's won. That's the damn story they don't want to report.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows - Aunt B clears up any confusion we may have

But answer me this: doesn’t it seem as if the outrage among Clinton supporters is rooted in this kind of blind outrage that Obama is overstepping? That he’s taking a spot that Clinton deserves, not because of her qualifications, but because it’s her turn?

Because, let’s be frank. If this turns into a contest about who is the most “qualified,” we’ve got a young U.S. senator who wrote a couple of good books and served in his state legislature vs. a U.S. senator with a couple of terms under her belt who was married to a dude. Being married to a dude is not a qualification.

Read More...

Ourstorian

Great points!  Why are people looking at racial divisions in Mississippi and shaking their heads?  What did they expect.  Is it because Obama has been running a negative campaign that these divisions are manifested in peoples' voting patterns?  And why aren't people acknowledging Obama's decisive win in Wyoming--one of the whitest states in the Union?  The fact that Obama does better among whites than Hillary does among blacks offers proof as to who is running the more polarizing campaign.   

quoth my esteemed colleague A. Charles; Okay, let me kick the cynicism up a notch . . .

There must be at least a couple of somebodies in the Clinton campaign smart enough to recognize the consequences of their actions. Some of the consequences are the obvious ones -- Ferraro out there race-baiting can be no accident. If she's truly a Hillary supporter, and they didn't want her stoking the racial flames, somebody would have said, "Psst -- ixnay on the aceray." She did exactly the opposite -- doing the whole media tour to say that Obama supporters were playing the race card and picking on her because she's white.

So I'm only stating the obvious in saying that the Clintons are all too happy to see the stoking of racial antagonism.

And I'm not breaking any new ground in saying that even if that antagonism doesn't earn Hillary the nomination this year, the Clintons are probably fine with the idea of McCain beating Obama this year, and her staking an "I told you so" claim in 2012.

But here's the thing. By now, we are all saying, and hearing other people say, "If she gets the nomination, I'm not voting for her." (Has anybody heard anybody within the past week say that they'll still vote for her if she gets the nomination?) I think it's pretty clear that a whole lot of folks have become sufficiently invested in this campaign that they will be highly pissed and finished with politics if Obama loses -- whether it's the nomination or the general election.

Don't the Clintons have to be aware of that?

And are they necessarily considering that a bad thing?

We know the watchwords that identify the Clinton pandering to the DLC direction of the party: Sistah Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, Lani Guinier, etc. The DLC types figure that they've conceded plenty of states to the GOP just because of the Democratic Party's perceived pandering to black folks. And they've been trying to figure out a way to move away from us without losing our votes -- and move close enough to the GOP direction to pick of a few at their margins.

It hasn't worked. The Democrats had a vulnerable dunce in Dubya to run against twice. There wasn't much substantive in the Democrat platform to turn Reagan Democrats off -- welfare as we knew it was pretty much gone; affirmative action is on its deathbed, and the only thing a Democrat needs to say to black voters is that it isn't time to pull the plug on it yet. Black turnout was higher than average in 00 and 04, and it went 90% to the Democrats.

And the Democratic Party candidate still couldn't win either time.

Maybe I'm slow, but it is just now occurring to me that this race-baiting and all the other attempts to kneecap Obama isn't necessarily the Clintons going out kicking and screaming.

Maybe this is the way the DLC crowd sees the perceived millstone of the black vote being snatched from around their necks.

Because if this election turns us off completely, and we are marginalized once and for all in presidential elections, they are free to go all the way with making the big splashes that Ferraro is just sticking her toe into right now. They can fight for white votes in the previously solid-red states by dissing the black vote even harder than the Republicans do. Once we're safely at home, what's the risk -- especially when compared to the insufficient reward they've gotten from staying within the polite boundaries of benign neglect? Turn off the black vote, and they're free to chase the Latinos and the "blacks have it too easy" whites.

Somebody doing the forecasting for the Clintons has to have seen this as a distinct possibility, and they have to have accepted that in clearing Ferraro to put the pedal to the metal.

I haven't ideated our get-back yet. But if this is the way they're playing it, we need a good one.

I think it's pretty clear that a whole lot of folks have become sufficiently invested in this campaign that they will be highly pissed and finished with politics if Obama loses -- whether it's the nomination or the general election.

Don't the Clintons have to be aware of that?

As I said...

If that's the case you REALLY have to protest vote...Green or Communist, anything but Billary or McCain. And you have to put that solid Democratic majority in Congress. Really make her miss the power.

The idea is to prove we're players, not to bail.

I'd sort of believe your cynicism if not for the not-so-small fact that the Latinos aren't legal yet. Blue states are blue states because of Blue cities, and they are blue cities because of Black folk. Period. The whole ' competitive in the Southwest' is still a theory they're trying out, but it's still a crapshoot theory. The Blue states of the midwest and east are blue because of Black folk.

P6

Do you think this campaign would have reached these stages if Edwards had continued and Hillary had dropped out? 

I couldn't agree more - here and here.  Isn't it clear that the Party of the Plantation Owner is now the Captive of the Slave.  

"King and chief probably had a big beef; 'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.

But it doesn't seem to me that the Green or Communist Party options are viable or valuable. In planning for that Worst Case Scenario, does it make sense to advocate for a Write-In Campaign or some other mechanism that elucidates the nature of the issue without according future power to parties with only tangential concerns for Black partisan issues? I'm all ears.

"King and chief probably had a big beef; 'Cause of that now I grit my teeth." - Chuck D.

one option given the direction we're headed already is to start powerful local third party initiatives (or even DNC alternatives in big cities with one-party dynamics). yet another option is to forgo the electoral process (i.e. waiting for someone to run on his/her own and then make overtures to us and other constituencies) by simply promoting policies, and finding individuals willing to supoprt them.

But it doesn't seem to me that the Green or Communist Party options are viable or valuable.

Doesn't matter. If it comes to that, you're already not getting what you want. The goal at that point is to punish Hillary for her tactics by denying her what SHE wants. Like Gerry says, it goes both ways.

In planning for that Worst Case Scenario, does it make sense to advocate for a Write-In Campaign or some other mechanism

Not now. Looking out to 2012, maybe...if folks are ready to start work NOW (or no later tham December of this year).

one option given the direction we're headed already is to start powerful local third party initiatives (or even DNC alternatives in big cities with one-party dynamics). yet another option is to forgo the electoral process (i.e. waiting for someone to run on his/her own and then make overtures to us and other constituencies) by simply promoting policies, and finding individuals willing to support them.

There are enough folks to do all these things. Multiple tactics is a better approach anyway. That way if one fails the others are still working.

Isn't it clear that the Party of the Plantation Owner is now the Captive of the Slave.

That party, like the Lincoln Republican Party, ceased to exist a while back.